Idols of the Theater

Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)
The Clearest View of God--From Hell!!!,
27 April 2005

Exorcist: The Beginning is an existentially-moving, excellently-performed portrayal of Father Lancaster Merrin, whose faith had given way to skepticism, disillusionment, and despair, augmenting a deeply, personally unbearable sense of guilt, upon having encountered some of the worst evil in the human soul!--That is, until, ironically enough, this same faith had been restored--by what Sarah had well-described, and experienced herself, as the clearest view of God--from Hell!!! Or, as Burt Lancaster said, during one of his most passionately fiery sermons, in Elmer Gantry, "How do I know there's a mercifully loving God? Because I've seen the Devil plenty of times!" Ordinarily, Satan takes care of one such as Father Merrin with the assistance of creatures such as Father Barre, from Ken Russell's The Devils, and their cleverly-disingenuous capacity to emphasize, in the words of Barre, "That what you see here is, not dignity, but pride, unrepentant pride!" Yet, one does have to give Barre the point, in that the two are regularly and systematically confused; just as about the only reason it is rather pride which is the more often mistaken for dignity, is that the latter is so much rarer, instead of nearly as popular as is commonly misbelieved! Thanks to the enormously institutional weight of Barre's religious "credibility," he was able to milk the idea of the supernatural to the marrow; until the transparency of his fraudulence could no longer be endured, and his own insatiably depraved blood-lust, for "Extraordinary Rendition" in particular, was viewed, along with the very essence of all belief in "demonic possession," as a very symptom, if not a cause as well, of the selfsame "neurologically-rooted hysteria" it was purporting to "treat." But the "problem" of Grandier is still as timelessly to be reckoned with, while merely needing to be more "humanely" as well as "accurately" re-interpreted, in "strictly psychiatric" terms; by a priest-turned-physician such as Barre, and the "counterbalancing" reaction-formation, or antiseptically sterilized "adaptation" to something more closely resembling the policy that dignity itself is an "emotionally treatable disorder" of some kind or another! But fear "not," for the old Barre shall again be back, in all his fulness; just as I can already hear Mr. Applegate (Ray Walston), from the musical Damn Yankees, firing up to do one of his favorite numbers again, speaking of the "Good Ole' Days!"
It's tragically and understandably characteristic, particularly with relation, ironically enough, to the goodness of human nature, to view the greatest evil in it as well, as virtual "proof" that there cannot possibly be any God, consistently at all, philosophically speaking, with even such a possibility, let-alone the most woundingly shattering experiences of its actual reality to help burn in the point more completely, sentiently as well. But, when Satan finally unmasks his supernatural qualities, for all the world to see (Revelation 13:13-15), it will be for the well-calculated purpose of further bolstering Father Barre's position; which too many prefer to believe, anyway, despite the perhaps equal number of agnostics whom Satan shall thereby help forfeit to God in the process (Revelation 7:9-17)!!! Of course, though, the "New Age" believers will have no difficulty "transcending" the "God verses Satan" monopoly, with some version and/or another of, say, Chariots of the Gods (along with the presumptuously, impudently erroneous belief, of those, for instance, at Radio Alchymy, which is undoubtedly and ironically shared by the very scoundrels they are accusing, too; that an End-Time Apocalyptic Scenario, along with all Biblically-recorded history itself, had been craftily, mystifyingly, diabolically invented! However, they might even be converted completely, from such suspicions, at least as to its "humanly" evil origin and nature, when it does finally materialize, perhaps also in the form of a Satanic counterfeit of Ezekiel, Chapter One, claiming to have originated from the selfsame Source!); just as, for that matter, one of Satan's favorite tricks is to distract attention, from the manner in which he regularly, but much more subtly, "undetectably" operates, through most, who are nothing but putty in his hands (And, if they mockingly deny his existence in the process, he's the one laughing, even at that!); by helping, but in a more marginally well-calculated way, one directed at believers rather than unbelievers, to foster the false impression that, if his presence fails to be as "glaringly obvious," as it had especially been, in the original version of The Exorcist as well, then it must not be there at all!
Another careless assumption which should be clarified, is that, in order for Satan to enter and possess a person, it must be known, to the person in question, that he is doing precisely that; say, after the manner of Walter Bedeker (David Wayne), as he was knowingly signing his soul over to one of the slickest imitators of Satan ever performed (Thomas Gomez, as "Cadwallader"), in the original Twilight Zone episode entitled "Escape Clause." Again, such cleverly "technical" melodramatics serve mostly the well-calculated purpose of distracting attention from the more regularly "informal" manner in which such "contracts" are "signed," particularly by those who need not even believe in the existence of any God or Satan at all! Even Robert Sterling, as Douglas Winter, in Serling's "Printer's Devil," while having found his "escape clause" in precisely his argument from ignorance, nevertheless had to first recognize his enemy, before being able to reverse the damage. Of course, with Mr. Feathersmith (Albert Salmi), in Serling's "Of Late I Think of Cliffordville," Satan didn't even have to hoodwink him into believing it had been too late, by the time he'd discovered the truth; contrary to Jabez Stone, in The Devil and Daniel Webster, who antithetically utilized the freedom he still actually had, even after having walked into Hell with both eyes open, like unto Joe Hardy (Tab Hunter), in Damn Yankees! Yet, when Satan makes his very identity as well as existence so undeniably clear (which is why he "hides" himself, as a generally, modernly, agnostically "civilized" rule, but not to those already primitively superstitious enough to be more effectively, unedifiably manipulatable in the opposite way; just as Pharaoh's magicians, in The Ten Commandments, only "helped" him to believe, even more firmly, that he must have been "really on to something!"), it is impossible for any coherently thinking person to avoid, not only concurring with Burt Lancaster, as, again, the dynamically though simplistically, negatively misunderstandable Elmer Gantry, when he also similarly said, to his good friend, so superlatively played by Arthur Kennedy, that, "If there's a real hell, then it follows there must be a real heaven," but also neutralizing rather than enhancing Satan's effectiveness. Even Roddy McDowall, in Fright Night, quite glaringly as well as "amusingly" serves to illustrate this point; in conjunction with one of the slickest, most dynamically-animated vampires I've ever seen, played so masterfully by Chris Sarandon!
And, again, of course, Scripturally speaking, the possibility of individual demonic possession, even in the most glaringly, dramatically obvious forms, does not necessarily imply a deliberate invitation, or even an evil heart as such, and, thus, at least, an "implicit" or even an "unbelievingly inadvertent" invitation for demons to enter (Matthew 12:43-45), but only, one might say, a lack of the kind of "disinvitation" which only the individually-indwelling Holy Spirit can enforce. There is no indication that Sarah had conformed to anything but the latter condition, even in conjunction with the lack of an evil heart per se; although something must have been decisively amiss, in her attitude, despite even the most movingly human appearances to the contrary; particularly in conjunction with the extent to which Scripture gives indication, even of the Holy Spirit's individually indwelling protection, based on a pure heart, in the absence of any "conscious" awareness of the "chemical composition" of the Water of Life having been consumed (Matthew 10:41-42; 13:17; 25:34-40) (Romans 2:1-16). Yet, the case of possession, in the first Exorcist film, did involve as least an "implicit" but, still, much clearer invitation as well, via the instrument of the ouija board (Acts 19:19). Scripture unmistakably forbids the practice of necromancy (Deuteronomy 18:10-12), just as King Saul was finally killed by God for having tried to contact the Prophet Samuel, through the Witch of Endor (I Samuel 28). Allegedly true tales such as The Amityville Horror continue to successfully abound, nevertheless, at indulging one of Satan's favorite pastimes; of convincing people, quite unscripturally (Ecclesiastes 9:4-6), that particularly the murdered dead really do haunt their houses; even with the "implication" that Satan therefore has no involvement at all, if he's believed in the process even to exist at all.
It's not just intellectual ignorance which causes people to miss the mark, even when they do encounter anything "miraculous," but the basically instinctive will to unholiness (Luke 16:29-31) (James 2:19); even if that will can no longer avoid having to indulge itself, within a Christian frame of reference, by conveniently mistaking Satan's miracles for those of the real God. In this connection, of course, the most tragic irony of all, which remains seriously unaddressed in the film, and, thus, even more cleverly because "implicitly" denied in the process; would perhaps have also at least "implicitly" come into somewhat clearer focus, if not, much more likely, prevailingly, overshadowingly, the very opposite (as Rome's very ability to "drive out" the Devil, in his most conveniently, nakedly, and yet even quite "cooperatively untransparent" form, had been so "clearly, undeniably confirmed!"), in terms of Satan's most cleverly sinister capacity to deceive, had the setting of the story been--Rome--rather than Kenya!--Along with Alejandro Rey, from right out of Satan's Triangle!!!--II Thessalonians 2:1-12--Galatians 1:6-9!--Revelation 2:12-15--II Corinthians 11:12-15!!!--And numerous other passages which collectively fit together into the most amazingly scriptural pattern! Much more information, on this systematically comprehensive Weltanschauung, and its historically, prophetically teleological unfolding, can be found in Philosophical Letters: The Last Revival, available online.

The Fly II (1989)
An Ingeniously Excellent Film, In Every Conceivable Sense!!!,
14 October 2006

As, for example, the great Matlock has to so often say, Please bear with me, Your Honor, while I shortly make abundantly clear, in response to my opponent's objection, beginning with the third paragraph of this critique, the relevance, here, of my opening line of thought, there!--Although even what's here is much-too-briefly-inadequate to accommodate my many unstated observations, as well as deepest gratitude, for one of the greatest film masterpieces, in every conceivable sense, which has ever been made, or could, by nature, ever be--at all!--Even given the abundance of some very stiff competition!--Including Exorcist: The Beginning!--Which I specifically mention because it is, as of yet, the only other film I have dealt with on this website. I only wish I could as skillfully do the kind of justice, with this particular film, that Martin Brundle was able to accomplish, given his kinds of strictly technical skills! But, then, neither can I jump fifty feet, and land on my own two feet nearly as gracefully, let-alone leap tall buildings in a single bound!
Of course, it would be totally unfair to "caricature," at all, by comparison, the original inspiration for all this, starring Vincent Price and Brett Halsey; or, for that matter, to press the point as to a more crudely implausible form of gene splicing, coupled with the way the fly, with the white head of David Hedison, in part one, was able to cry for help, in English, even though the brain itself had not been "grafted" as well. After-all, not only had the original version made this one possible, in a manner for which anyone with real perception realizes it is virtually impossible to be sufficiently grateful; but, also, among other things, and many nameless people involved who never get any of the thanks which is due to them, the original "Return of the Fly" was every bit as profoundly well-conceived, too, as any Morality Play could be!--Including the many Martin Brundles on school campuses today!!! Moreover, while David Hedison, too, embodied no less impressive-a-moral figure, at least it must be observed that Jeff Goldblum's more disappointing performance in this respect, alongside the equally questionable integrity of Geena Davis, nevertheless failed to detract in the least from the effectiveness of the remake of part one as a first-class Morality Play as well, including the anything-but-accidental observation that her jilted boyfriend turned out to have been the only impressively palatable figure.
A demonstrably, systematically, comprehensively teleological design is Divinely behind all this, even in the sense that any kind of resemblance, to real people, here, is not quite as "merely coincidental," at least not in the sense I mean, as those I am hereby thankfully acknowledging might very understandably but erroneously believe! It is a teleological design, in prophetically written form, or "transcript," as well, which also enhances my own intellectual love of God, in the exquisitely perfect depth and resonance of its most axiologically-rooted purpose, all woven together into the only Weltanschauung which is, by nature, or, more accurately, super-naturally, capable of rationally confronting and synthesizing every philosophically or transcendentally "if" not "pragmatically" (rather than otherwise "inherently" or "fancifully") indispensable question structurally fashionable by the human mind.
Unfortunately, most, and virtually all, popularly self-alleged "experts," as well as "lay representatives" per se, on this subject, have spread more confusion than clarification; which is even more damagingly compounded by their own, far-too-often-enough, equally, mutually flawed bones of contention, even with one-another (I Corinthians 3); so that, in effect, it's hardly any real wonder that the millions of formally-professing unbelievers they're so formidably helping to maintain "if" not create (II Peter 2), have long arrived at the "conclusion" that the Bible is not only less than Divinely-Inspired, but also "hopelessly incoherent" enough to be saying nothing which is consistently, systematically, comprehensively decipherable in itself! Job's equally ancient, or rather quite dismally, characteristically perennial, "friends" gave excellent sermons, flawlessly impeccable to the letter, but while having understood virtually nothing they were saying!
While the variously and self-insistently incompatible strains of "believers" are doctrinally clear enough, nevertheless, particularly in terms of the points upon which they virtually all do at least theoretically claim to themselves to agree (Romans 1:16-32) (Hebrews 11:6))(I John 3:11-18), to help leave professing unbelievers with virtually no ultimately decisive excuse; they are, again, and again, confusingly, even sickeningly, hypocritically obscure enough, in their clear lack of any genuinely adequate credibility (Romans 2)(I Corinthians 3)(II Peter 2)(Revelation 3:15-17), to where they'll all end up owing their Boss an answer for the many-too-many they're even quite cynically, complacently, judgmentally, and, again, competitively (Matthew 23:4-7) unconcerned, and even delighted, that they're driving so bitterly away!
Can one even count it a blessing, to them, or anyone else, that, first of all, they ever even learned how to "read" per se, and thereafter presumptuously claim (Luke 14:7-11) to have "totally mastered" a book deliberately designed, by its real Author, to indubitably require an "intuitive edge," beyond the "merely intellectual," in order to be accurately, edifyingly discernible, in its systematically-interrelated totality? Among other things, the Bible contains innumerable statements which must be intuitively weighed against one-another, while in the process of determining the most well-balanced form of their applicability, not only with relation to themselves, but also while applying their principles within the actual, particular circumstances of life, as the mind synthetically connects these principles to the various life-contexts in question. To cite a rather formidably imaginative analogy, from The Fly itself, as well as its sequel, even far-too-many self-alleged "experts" lack the necessary "finesse", or, one "might" even quite regretfully albeit "arrogantly" and "judgmentally" have to say, to these incessantly and unteachably (Hebrews 5:-9-14; 6:1-8) self-appointed "sermonizers" and infernally, insufferably alienated as well as alienating "scolders" (Matthew 7:3-5), the most basic sense of humanity (Daniel 12:8-10)(Romans 8:7-11), and, only thus, even the basic intelligence, per se (James 1:5-11), to be capable of programming the computer to electronically transfer living things, perfectly intact, instead of just inanimate objects.
Or, as my father used to say, in the most understandably skeptical vein, the Bible is like a fiddle, and you can play any tune you want on it. What I should add is that there are many bad tunes, which still succeed at sounding somewhat like music; but, really, only one good one (I Corinthians 14:32-33), with a real feeling, or, more accurately, a spiritual gift, even for reading let-alone actually playing the music, as prolifically as it had been written; rather than just a head for the most essential logic as well, if, therefore, even that much of it to speak of at all!?--Isaiah 28:5-13!!! . . . In the Spirit of Elijah, Richard O'Donnell

Wild in the Streets (1968)
Great Film!!!,
20 October 2006

It was Jimmy Fergus who initially brought out the "very best" in Max, who met the former so abruptly on the former's own terms; but, as the kind of modern-day Caligula lingering not too deeply beneath the flimsiest of surfaces in Max, at least when the wrong buttons were even quite innocently and inadvertently pushed; but, particularly, by the kind of "legacy," from "Stiffs," who "live high, and fat, with all the money!"--Or, "at least," given their most miserably poor driving habits, in a way which would have produced the same "high-intensity" reaction, especially from James Dean, and, in fact, did, on many occasions.
This is a dynamically thought provoking script, from beneath its more "cultishly caricaturistic" surface; as one of the most timely and relevant yet marginalized and underrated satires of social commentary ever produced, even despite its "grossly absurd improbabilities." Moreover, as for all those "Old Tigers?" Maximilian, baby, couldn't have been more wrong! Just wait and see how well one of the oldest of them is about to "fly!" Yet, nobody but Jones could have carried this lead so effectively, with the kind of professionally well-polished finesse he exhibited. He was truly fated to assume this particular role, just as he blended in so smoothly with the character of Frost, that it's about anybody's guess, from far enough away, as to where he ended, and Max began.
Only Shelley Winters had been as "archetypally" irreplaceable here--Along with her Sally LeRoy!--and, in total, an entire cast which it was extremely fortunate didn't have to be replaced. The songs were no less movingly, inspiringly performed as well as composed. For instance, the thought of seeing such a dynamically new paradigm envelop the land, "like a fresh, new breeze," had been something quite overwhelmingly, urgently, inseparably "top-of-the-line!" At least one unsung line is more than applicable today, which goes, "The only thing that blows your mind when you're thirty is getting guys to kill other guys; only in another city, another country, where you don't see it; they don't know anything about it!"
I was hardly the first to notice the close physical resemblance of Jones to James Dean. I believe he missed one of his greatest opportunities, and commands upon the scope of his talent, by not having portrayed the role of James Dean himself, in place, for just one instance among others, of a Stephen McHattie--who had no business in the part, either! As for his differences from James Dean, which do run much more than "skin-deep," even in ways which need never have detracted from the uniqueness of the skills of Jones, had Dean been permitted, in this sense, to reduce him to nothing but a "clone?" James Dean had a genuineness, an existential depth, which is not at all the easiest thing in the world to merely imitate!--Save, that is, and short only of the real thing, to the extent that a level of "method acting," on a par with, say, Kirk Douglas, in his purely superficial though movingly convincing portrayal of Vincent Van Gogh, had been adequately at the command of Jones.
The only other real waste, next to that of Jones, here, is that Charles Laughton would have played the role of Socrates, as superlatively as he did Gracchus, in Spartacus! I'm not sure whether Lionel Barrymore ever portrayed FDR, but it would have been about as exquisitely perfect-a-match as, say, Fredric March proved to have been, as William Jennings Bryan, in Inherit the Wind. As for Jones, however, he did, nevertheless, get a very good "Shot at the Title," of being Dean, at "Home," or, more accurately, in the words of Dean himself, at the "Zoo," and, of course, again, after a car crash, during the opening scenes of Wild in the Streets! Even more candidly, though (than a spitefully, sarcastically God-despising Devlin of an editor, at IMDb, by the name of Ann, would permit me to explain; just as it's no small wonder any of my material was ever, let-alone remains, at least hitherto, knock on wood, available on that site!), Jones (and I say this minus any trace of malice for the artist in him) wouldn't have been nearly as impressive, after-all, as Brad Davis, in the part of Dean; for, in addition to embodying all the foregoing qualifications of Jones for the part, he also had more of Dean's own personality. Jones was a classically or rather modernly test-tube example, the most glaringly perfected prototype, of every real punk I've ever had the destructively irritating displeasure of so abundantly, incessantly, even predominantly encountering!
On the whole, just watching him in action reminds me of what Milton Berle said to Stephen Boyd, in The Oscar: "Do you know why you were nominated for that Oscar, Frankie? Because you played yourself, as you really are!" It also brings to mind something Brando said, to Mary Murphy, in The Wild One: "If anybody thinks they're better than me, I make sure I knock 'em over sometime!" In fact, the real reason, I suspect, that Jones appeared to welcome no identification with Dean, was, not the problem of "cloning" per se, but rather his kind of "perception" of Dean as such an "ever-whining nerd," the kind of "chicken" who even quite "hysterically" lacked the "guts" to admit to himself what he "really" was. After-all, even Buz Gunderson had enough "guts" to go totally over the edge! Yet, even Buz turned out to have been more meaningfully "abstract" than the kind of punks Jones undoubtedly enjoyed portraying.
Not unrelatedly, just thank God, if even most of you believe in the right one, that Wild in the Streets is only a fantasy; along with its logically necessary sequel, Children of the Corn, and a gradually renewing expansion of the "Legal Age!" However, perhaps nothing at all, even in such a dismally-conceived future, could possibly surpass, for instance, the reportedly true as well as normatively realistic history, of a film such as Mark of the Devil, with Herbert Lom!--Or, The Conqueror Worm, with Vincent Price!--Or, as Nietzsche said, Progress is merely a Modern Idea, that is to say, a False Idea!

Pressure Point (1962)
The Great Bobby Darin!!!,
21 October 2006

This is one of the greatest films of all time, and Bobby Darin was truly a masterful artist! I still watch, or, more accurately, study, his inspiringly gifted performance! Nobody else could have done any more to honor the part he played, just as he had been accompanied by the most impressively, realistically believable cast; but particularly in the flashback scenes, going back to his childhood. Not only must the acting be applauded as top-notch, but also every aspect of the strictly technical contributions; all woven together into such a superlative art form, as well as a deeply educational experience.
The writers, in particular, very cogently nailed down one of the most compelling themes of the film; where Darin points out, to Poitier, that America has the latter so confused that he continues to sing, "My country, 'Tis of Thee," while they're walking all over him! Poitier's most sensitive "Pressure Point" is really touched by that; and, despite the profoundest truths Poitier utilizes, to "neutralize" this very observation, one can plainly see the extent to which he is very dishonestly, with himself, and resentfully, victimizingly attempting to "cope" with it! Even the other psychiatrists at the prison only served to confirm the truth of Darin's contention; which remains just as true-in-itself, regardless of how disingenuously Darin proceeded to capitalize upon it!
As with James Dean, it "almost" feels "as if" certain people are symbolically fated to die young, as the kind who are a bit too pure for this world; and, thus, Divinely-ordained for protection from so many of its characteristically corrupting influences (Isaiah 57:1-2). Moreover, their early deaths sometimes serve the equally constructive purpose of "showcasing" them for the kind of "immortality," to popular perception, which should act, much more than it ordinarily does, to the intended benefit of all, exactly as Darin had so deservedly and successfully wished! At any rate, Bobby Darin has made an everlasting imprint upon me! Had he been born for nothing but this role, it would have been no less superlatively worthy of the effort!
And, speaking, again, of the good dying young, perhaps even "Giant" had served as a kind of "hypothetical preview" of what could have happened to Dean; although I still wish, as much as they both would have, that Divine Providence had left them in our midst just a little longer. The only other currently relevant figure I'll explicitly mention here is Elvis Presley, who held his own, in a most magnificently meaningful way, with early greats such as "Wild in the Country," and, also, as Deke Rivers, in "Loving You!" As with Brando, however, Presley had been "showcased," much less "hypothetically," after the fashion of "Giant!" It would be a big mistake to regard any of these popularly-immortalized legends as mere accidents.
Yet, to what Purpose as well as Design? Dostoyevsky said it one way, in just a single stroke: "If there is no God, then all is permissible!" Even Nietzsche, who claimed Dostoyevsky was one of the very few from whom he had anything to learn, very tragically, fatalistically took extra special note, no doubt, of this particular observation; until finally collapsing, about twelve years before his very end, from the most strenuously-insoluble dilemma; and the scathing "moralic acid," as he called it, which also helped to purifyingly burn his own most blessedly-agonizing soul to the very marrow; as he quite symbolically, surrogately, foreshadowingly, prophetically bore the sins of the shortly-upcoming Hitler!!!--Of whom Richard Basehart was so magnificently the best, despite even some of the otherwise most difficult quality of competition available, but who nevertheless shouldn't have even bothered, here!!! Try General Tanz (Peter O'Toole), along with Wolf Larsen (Edward G. Robinson), or Stalin (as masterfully portrayed by Robert Duvall), and even a special role by Adam West, in The Big Valley; if you care to understand why certain kinds of people are so much closer as well as further away from God than most, who feel so uniquely qualified to judge them!
Nietzsche also went into his coma the same year Hitler had been born, just as they had both died at "virtually" the same age! But Hitler was only the main symbol, predestined to go down tragically in flames. There were, however, others, whom Nietzsche meant more accurately. Castro was a better example, and Elmer Gantry even better yet, along with Billy Jack; but John W. Burns ("Jack," for short) shall always be one of my favorite--cowboys!--Or, even more accurately, my very favorite!--Just as Superman himself, for that matter, was Zarathustra's kind of--Superman--too!!! But, then, Nietzsche, by his own admission, had also been too much of a poetically romantic dreamer, concerning every kind of possibility short only of Great Caesar's Ghost; despite even his acute awareness that there are fundamentally, ultimately only one of two ways to go, particularly into the twentieth century; including what could even have become of a Lucas McCain, in the form of The Mad Bomber!--Although, had anyone really harmed Mark, they would have had him to deal with, even in the nineteenth!!! "Perhaps" even more alarmingly, let's not tend to overlook what Officer Geronimo's partner so perceptively said to him, at one point, in the middle of a very tasty snack (at least to his partner): "If you were anything but a cop, I'd be out there looking for you!" Geronimo (Vince Edwards) at least "subconsciously" identified with The Mad Bomber so completely as to have longed for the opportunity to literally strangle himself to death--surrogately--or "self-exorcizingly!"

"The A-Team" (1983)
Three Cheers for the Great A-Team!!!,
22 October 2006

Three Cheers, for the great A-Team, and George Peppard, first of all; when it comes to the difference between, in "Mr. T's" vernacular, a Real Man, and a "Real"--Whatever! Moreover, Jonas Cord, Jr., from "The Carpetbaggers," was one of Peppard's most inspiring roles; regardless of how much even he finally needed to be "cut down" at least a couple of notches, by the same kind of Real Man (Alan Ladd) who also played the lead "Junior," but, this time, of himself (Steve McQueen), along with his good friend, Jonas Cord, Sr. (Brian Keith), in the marvelously well-conceived, movingly-retroactive sequel to this film, Nevada Smith!
And, of course, Clubber Lang needed to be "cut down" a couple of notches, too; although I know the feeling well, when, in the first fight, he kept screaming, with every punch, "You made me wait, Balboa!" I only shudder to realize against Whom we were actually fighting, somewhat like unto the occasion when Jacob was wresting with You-Know-Whom for his new "Name Change!" God forbid that we should make Him wait nearly as long in return, for the amount of time He'd given us to get in such really good shape (Revelation 3:7-8)! In the A-Team, they're both "on the lam" with a very impressive entourage of rogues, whose swagger is, quite believably, buoyantly, nothing less than second-to-none!--Even Next to Errol Flynn, in Robin Hood!--And that's going almost to the very top!--Save for the fact that Robin Hood was much closer to, in particular, the real "throat" of the problem!
Moreover, in such strikingly, redeemingly real-life contrast, with most equally "Real"--Whatevers, even "Mr. T" had a point, many years ago, about being "Born Again!"--At least, perhaps, until he'd far-enough surpassed most of his "spiritual competitors," especially the most "sweet-smelling" varieties, even so much more dynamically enough to where he probably no longer continues to say, "I don't like that term, fool!" He even very recently, graciously, and freely, of the Spirit, made note of one of my own favorite lines, from long, long ago; about how most "parishoners," after having "praised the Lord" for an entire hour or so together, will characteristically, thereafter, threaten to ram one-another down with their cars, while trying so very "courteously," and "tender-heartedly," to exit the parking lot first!
"Mr. T," particularly, would get a real "kick" out of the following "Joke," from the Reverend Ralph Woodrow, if he hasn't heard it already. There's a meeting, between the members of a Baptist and a Presbyterian (or is it Methodist? Whichever, it doesn't matter!) "congregation," for the purpose of uniting the two, because both "congregations" had decided they were too small. But, then, the problem of what to call the combined grouping could not be solved. Finally, they decided to "compromise," by calling it the Christian Church; at which point, an old woman screamed out, "I've been a Baptist all my life, and nobody's going to make a Christian out of me!"
It's like in that original Star Trek episode, where a computer named "Landru" had control of "The Body!" Maybe that's about the best they could do even together, but they're doing just as good-a-job separately! Most today unfortunately need to learn, the hard way, what a hypocritical rather than redeeming world of difference there is, between genuinely laying one's sins on the Lord, and dumping them upon a favorite scapegoat such as Judas Iscariot! Also, does "Mr. T" need even one mere guess, as to which of these characters most resembles the real "Lonesome Rhodes?"--Who really ended up being hated for having been as sadly correct as well as wrong as he was, concerning his most fervently-devoted admirers! In fact, how many, even of his harshest critics, can begin to tell the difference, in anything but Babbitt's favor, between him and Elmer Gantry?--Or, for that matter, an inspiring joy to the heart such as Robert Duvall's The Apostle! No less positively, I just finished watching Glenn Ford, again, in The Fastest Gun Alive! Now there was a Real Congregation!
Preacher Jamison (Royal Dano), from an episode of The Rifleman entitled "Day of Reckoning," had a very hard time forming one, but I would have been proud to join! The same goes for Brother Love (Robert Goulet), in an episode of The Big Valley by the same name, at least after his release from the pen! Moreover, what a long, barren gap, between Joel McCrea and Randolph Scott, in Ride the High Country, and Captain James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock!--Except for Dr. Richard Kimble, The Fugitive; who, despite competition as close as Rocky vs. Creed II, has always been my favorite!--Even if he did end up dropping me, so very fast and hard, along with John Wayne's accompanying "jab" at Van Gogh, the "nerd," that I enjoyed Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (a superbly moving work of art, along with both The Sting I and II!) so much more--almost as much as I still do my favorite--Champion!--And his Paths of Glory, particularly, as well as Town Without Pity.

Revenge of the Nerds (1984)
Timely Social Satire, but Certainly No Comedy!!!,
23 October 2006

I had nothing but hell, every year in school, from both ends: First, those in "authority," who permitted my kind to be savagely assaulted, by, secondly, a majority of "peers" who literally needed bullwhips applied to their backs; but who were never disciplined, since those in "authority" were too busy threatening my kind (among other things, the most conveniently easy to handle!), if we ever dared think of defensively fighting back! Hitler, too, had encouraged such bullying, to either "weed out" or "toughen" the "weak," although I would have to give even if not especially him at least enough credit to where, much more probably, no such double standard would have been so "piously," rancorously enforced, under his jurisdiction!
The physical education instructors, especially, were always emphasizing militarism, and encouraging their closest friends among the students to relentlessly pursue their favorite sadistic pastime, of systematically destroying the self-images of every "nerd" on campus, so as to feed off the condition of degradation which resulted! Their kind are glaringly illustrated in the motion picture Casualties of War! Moreover, most females, who otherwise whine about "brutes," are characteristically at the vanguard of this persecution; until it's hardly any wonder that so many males symbiotically cleave, sexually, to other males, where they can both play the female role, with relation to one-another! Many females also aspire to being men, while feeling smugly certain they can have it both ways!
Such "cleverly amusing satire" may, however, only succeed, overall, at "unoffensively" smoothing out too many of the "roughest edges!" Thus, for a much more grimly candid portrayal of the kinds of damage people succeed at doing to one-another, until it's sometimes vomited right back out, Charles Bronson's "Ten to Midnight" deserves much more scrutiny! Personally, I thank God, Unto This Very Day, that, Unlike Warren Stacey (Gene Davis), I Shall Always Continue, as I Always Have, to "Aspire To Being An Angel!!!" Either way, however, the kind of brutally dehumanizing attitude encountered by Warren Stacey, in the workplace, particularly, is hardly confined to the kind of person he'd turned out to be, and which they'd had no idea he was; just as he might as well not have been at all, and much more characteristically isn't, no thanks to them!
However, it's actually James Dean, in "Rebel Without a Cause," which is my own much more realistically normative "Cup of Tea!" I struggled, in school, and at home, with exactly the same problems! The details of what Jim Stark had to endure, internally, too, as the kind of person he was, were all very accurately portrayed, with relation to me; save, that is, for his most tragically climactic experience, in the middle, as well as the hopefully promising ending. "Parenthetically," Plato (All Remember Sal Mineo, Don't They?), too, was a Dismally Unheeded Warning, Even To This Very Day, and Despite So Many More Of Them Now! Moreover, I Had To Experience What Plato Felt, Too; But, Again, Thank God, Not The Kind Of Thing He Finally Ended Up Doing!!!
Even My later experience, as Cal, in "East of Eden," shall continue, Thank God (minus any doubt about what He Wills!), keeping me as intact as it did him, since I haven't yet reached the very end of it. But, as for "Giant?" I'm just lucky enough, at least, never to have had the money--or the racism!!! For another glaring view of this kind of problem, compare the difference between the Jonas Cord, Sr., of Brian Keith, in Nevada Smith, and Leif Erickson, in The Carpetbaggers! Consider, also, a very old man, in Amadeus, who never could quite grasp the answer to a question which had been perpetually in front of his very nose! Burt Lancaster's Robert Stroud, the "Birdman of Alcatraz," was a more valuable gift of longevity, bestowed by Woodrow Wilson; although Cordell Walker, Texas Ranger, wasn't so lucky with a little boy he had just about talked out of suicide, before the boy slipped accidentally and tragically to his death!
Many continue to ask why the Lord, if there really is one, after-all, permits such senselessly wasteful tragedies to occur; while, at the same time, He's undoubtedly asking why almost everybody permits such expensively vital lessons to go no less thoroughly to waste! Kirk Douglas said it well, several years ago, in a television ad: Prospective suicides don't really want to die, they just want to stop the pain!!! But as for Mark Twain's Sid Sawyer? There's real nerd, the kind that's just looking for trouble. Most of you Americans are really no better, whether you strive to cover up the Sid Sawyer in you, even and especially from yourselves, or not! You've all been so willingly, complacently domesticated, that it sickens me, to the very pit of my gut, even more than you're so deservedly, viciously, scapegoatingly disgusted with yourselves, to watch virtually every one of you "in action," throughout a movie entitled "The Incident!" Beau Bridges finally stood up, but it took him disgracefully long enough! Even the Eloi, from The Time Machine, had something you miserable swine lack; namely, at least a total lack of malice, contrary to just about every murderously cud-chewing cow I've ever had to endure, and still must! After your "schools" alone are finished cowering everyone into submission, it requires nothing less than the equally, murderously depraved brutality, of "basic training," as in Full Metal Jacket, to again beat any of the "guts" or "pride" just as artificially back into you!

Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise (1987)
Is it Really Only Winning that Counts, Rather than How You Play the Game?
23 October 2006

(A continuation from Revenge of the Nerds) . . . Indeed, just strip away the kind of psychological reaction formation which is characteristically obsessed with being so very "tough," while thereby only demonstrating, no less characteristically, the most hysterically sadistic kind of weakness, against others less self-defensibly "well-endowed," and Mark Twain's Sid Sawyer is about all that more transparently remains. Nietzsche recognized the iron-clad law involved here, a kind of psychological categorical imperative which no real inner sense of strength and courage can possibly have any incentive to delight at violating. This particular categorical imperative, contrary to Immanuel Kant's, which is also Christ's (Matthew 7:12), postulates no morally absolute freedom of the will (to be capable of acquiring inner strength, but not of changing the very nature of such); but is, rather, a totally deterministic manifestation, again, also in the sense that inner strength is automatically synonymous with an intrinsically or idealistically rather than merely instrumentally abject abhorrence of the most lowly psychological impulses.
Nietzsche even "slipped," in Ecce Homo, "morally" or "idealistically" speaking, by referring to the "Duty" embodying any such real sense of inner strength; but, while striving to "reconcile" this even quite naturally let-alone super- or anti-naturally unnullifiable principle, as to the inherent nature of real inner strength, with a philosophy of nature which just about as inherently demands the kind of anti-social Darwinism typical "disciples" of his, such as the main character who engineered the end of The Sailor Who Fell From Grace With the Sea, along with John Dall and Farley Granger, from Hitchcock's Rope, are no less more consistently than self-contradictorily able to appreciate. And, of course, I'd almost very fatally neglected, at this particular juncture, to include the greatest strictly artistic let-alone philosophical illustration of them all; as Humphrey Van Weyden (Alexander Knox) proceeded to so completely unmask Wolf Larsen (Edward G. Robinson), during the closing minutes of The Sea Wolf! Or, if nothing else, even the most nobly, genuinely self-respecting savage, in his determination to rule over others, inherently finds himself confronted with endless "regretfully unfortunate necessities."
Nietzsche's view of nature, as the Unequivocally Ultimate Ground of Reality Itself, totally repudiates the doctrine that it exists in a spiritually Fallen, aberrantly twisted form, and that it is correspondingly the very nature of nature to be once again Divinely redeemed, healed, and transfigured, into its original state of being. Yet, again, one of the most compelling pieces of evidence, that the Divine Imprint upon what He has created can never be totally removed, rather than only twisted and perverted, is to be found reflected in the very nature of the psychological law previously mentioned. After-all, were it actually the case that nature has the final word, in an arena where survival and dominance are the only goals of every biological form, involved in a mortal competition to self-evidently establish which is the fittest; then all other values, and "moral" ones in particular, to the extent that they have any real value at all, would be inherently reduced to nothing but means to this end. Winning, or losing, here, is all that counts, rather than how "nobly," albeit otherwise unsuccessfully, perhaps precisely even on that account, one proceeds to play the game.
As such, whoever or whatever "biologically programmed" the humanly psychological make-up to be inherently incapable of violating the abovementioned psychological law, even in man's own degenerately Fallen state, had to have been concerned about something other than, something quite irrelevant if not organically detrimental to, the merely natural or biological notion of "Survival of the Fittest." Even the Dialectical Materialist, in his emphasis upon supposedly qualitative transformations of nature, in a kind of evolutionary advancement toward something structurally approximating the social equivalent of a Christian set of ethics; is nevertheless the most rigorously notorious about referring to "moral ideals" in strictly operational terms, as mere means to the sole end of human survival and dominance over nature, a view which totally nullifies any notion of "values-in-themselves," or those which can be objectively assessed in any other respect. Moreover, even the "end" of a worldwide communist transfiguration of the nature of the human condition would be, herein, nothing but a means, the mere means of interpersonal cooperation rather than competitive strife, toward the end of further survival and dominance.
And, if even this Marxian "end" would actually exist as nothing but a means, how much more so the very means Marxists boast of, as being so very antithetically albeit paradoxically necessary to the achievement of this "end," as intra-species antagonism (pseudo-individual, self-centered atomization) self-consciously begins "re-directing" or "doubling back" upon itself, by utilizing the very means, of even more interpersonal antagonism, but for the alleged sake of neutralizing or reversing this very phenomenon. Nietzsche, too, emphasized his view, in The Gay Science, that even the most reprehensible elements in man's nature are no less necessary than anything else, as a means of strengthening the species. Of course, it choked in his throat to have to include, here, even what he accurately and tragically identified as the most characteristically "Christian" impulses; the kind of petty, even rancorous cunning, which is strictly Darwinian fundamentally, but while simultaneously masquerading, even and especially to itself, as something inherently "antithetical," strictly for the sake of selfishly dominating over others it cannot subdue in any other, more "Chivalrously Honorable" manner. Indeed, Nietzsche regarded the disease of what I'd call the most degenerately, perennially pseudo-Christian norm as the epitome of Resentment, of everything which needed to be Overcome, and thus needed to exist in the first place, as mankind's most challenging opportunity to demonstrate the maxim that "Whatever does not destroy me strengthens me!"
Even more unbearably excruciating, to Nietzsche's sensibilities, than his intrinsically-rooted abhorrence of such instincts, was the fact of how perennially, overpoweringly durable they have demonstrated themselves to be; if, for no other reason, because mediocrity-in-itself is, itself, so much easier for nature to yield, thus lending it the overwhelmingly greater abundance of participants, in their own vigorously counter-competitive reaction to the kind of systematically, explicitly, unabashedly Pagan Roman strength which had formerly dominated so ruthlessly over them, thus decisively helping stimulate their incentive to merely very symbiotically rather than "altruistically" consolidate their forces. This systematically degenerate pattern of "Christian" unfolding was quite understandably seen, by Nietzsche, not as an aberrant form of "True Christianity," save to the extent that its actual instincts are totally antithetical to its most nobly, idealistically theoretical ones; but, rather, as the actual origin and essence of everything which by nature professingly passes as "Christian."
Yet, even while being virtually synonymous with a total violation of the aforementioned psychological law, this pattern of "Christianity" still, again, passes the only kind of test with which nature is substantially concerned; proving itself debased and unworthy, but only by way of actual Christian definition, rather than according to the law of nature. Self-contradictorily enough, of "Nature," the most virulently "worthy," of survival per se, shall finally, and, by now, very soon, prove to be the total "undoing," of everything, including itself, short of Divine Intervention (Matthew 24:22)! Even the Roman Emperor Constantine had merely succeeded at buying essentially the same whore (Revelation 17 & 18) a bit more hopelessly dead time! Hitler had constituted the last seriously "natural" challenge here, but found out, the hard way, what Nietzsche meant, by a certain strain of being which is as durably inexterminable as the flea! In fact, if one wants to witness a real competition for survival, between cunning and durability, or, perhaps, between cunning and durability plus cunning, then watch Starship Troopers! Moreover, for real, my bet would be on the insects! However, even this film, let-alone some of the older and tamer Peter Graves, James Arness, and James Whitmore flicks, doesn't quite penetrate to the marrow as chillingly as still another. I caught it just the other night, and right at the beginning, but not quite soon enough to see the title. It involved a nest of giant, radioactive mosquitoes, and the trail of human corpses only the females, no less chillingly, symbolically enough (Romans 1:18-32), had left behind them!
What, in fact, speaks more convincingly for itself, as the greater, more effective means of selfishly biological survival over a competitor? Is it the kind of Classically Noble Chivalry which would even quite pridefully rather than altruistically move to manifest its courage, by voluntarily yielding to its opponent at least a more evenly-fighting chance, while unnecessarily risking its own life in the process?--Or, rather, is it the antithetical policy of never yielding the upper hand, while utilizing all the most viciously deceptive cunning at its disposal, in the interest of mortally subduing a potential or actual rival? Moreover, why would nature regard even outright resentment, against particularly a more chivalrously noble opponent, as being anything short of totally consistent with a serious competition for survival; particularly as a means of enhancing the very chances of such a survival, by facilitating a more undistractedly single-minded focus upon precisely this very objective? If another must perish, as a means to one's own self-affirmation, rather than a quid pro quo being more circumstantially, symbiotically available, as the means to this selfsame end; then why should anything but resentment, toward that very other, in its determination to obliterate you instead, be regarded as the most consistently, effectively self-affirming attitude toward that very other?
Of course, such an instinct is totally nihilistic, and a manifestation of the most inherently internal weakness; but, again, only from a genuinely Christian or morally idealistic frame of reference, rather than a strictly Darwinian one. There exists, by definition, no strictly natural law, in the latter sense, but one's own arrogantly self-centered determination to survive and dominate; contrary to every instinct which moved Christ to voluntarily, altruistically embrace the Cross. Indeed, what a Christian regards as being the most noble manifestation of inner strength, on Christ's part, is rather viewed with at least as much suspicion by Nietzsche, who more naturally, rather than super- or anti-naturally, tended to postulate the most mediocrely, exhaustedly self-centered, even tragically self-misunderstood, will to perish, from beneath every "morally noble" impulse, in Socrates, too, as well as Christ; particularly in that neither appear to have had anything which could, in the most pragmatically plausible frame of reference, be called substantially or consistently (as in dying at least for a friend, rather than an enemy) altruistic to accomplish in the process. From a strictly natural perspective, it appears Sid Sawyer's own typically "Christian" attitude, toward Christ Himself, of "Thanks for the sacrifice, sucker, as your part in helping facilitate precisely my kind of seductively mystifying swindle," has proven the most ruthlessly effective means of survival.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
I'd Give it an Eleven or Twelve if possible!,
7 November 2006

Just in case any audience I may be attracting at least suspects, by now, that someone ought to be preparing a looney bin for me, please try to have, as well, if you will but consider being nearly so very kind in the process, not only some good, old-fashioned "teas," and plenty of Beethoven, but also Jack Nicholson, and the Chief, plus Billy and the gang, including, of course, sweet little Candy, and the great Scatman Crothers! In fact, what really serves to make the latter two, in particular, deserve to be called so sweet, for reasons only the most typically "religious" prudes, as well as most of their "polar opposites," could scarcely comprehend? They very innocently fail to manifest, or even to feel, even the slightest trace of malice, contrary, again, and again, and again, to most, on both sides, including the most "faithfully married!"
But Nurse Ratched? Perhaps, on second thought, there may just be some real use for some Thorazine!--Although that mindlessly air-headed bimbo who assisted her probably doesn't need any! But that much-too-typical kind of aberration, who couldn't answer Randle Patrick McMurphy's question about the dirty laundry, may be still another issue entirely! He's about the same kind of being who called me the Devil, and tossed me out callously on my ear, from a fundamentalist denomination, one barren night, six years ago, when I'd felt desperate enough to turn even to the "likes" of their kind, again; and all that, simply because, among a couple of relatedly unwarranted "reasons," he couldn't handle the truth, that I Corinthians 9 does speak, among other related things, about--money!
Good Lord, it's "almost" enough to drive even me back to the Mother of my Roots, despite an "allergy" about as "violent" as Damien's! And I suppose that, given how completely so many things have been symbolically, ever-mystifyingly, and just as cleverly turned back over, entirely on their feet, including the world itself (Acts 17:6), you by now have all the "real evidence" you need, right there alone, against me! But, then, just check it out yourselves, if you don't know it already; for at least the one, Calvary Chapel (the branch I'm referring to, here, being the Downey-Flake, Ca., one!), is openly calling the other, that is, Roman Catholicism, "The Devil," too; which would alone serve to "embarrassingly" necessitate, and, thus, all-the-more-solidly reinforce the most basically mutual feelings here!--Which is all-the-more warranted, even by the likes of these two, against one-another, "merely" quite symbolically due to how "highly doubtful," to say the very least, it is that either of these two "Judas Goats" (and they both ought to know!) shall soon be burying Billy on Holy Ground, while the Chief is being hunted down like a dog, by the dogs, with shoot-on-sight-to-kill orders, no questions asked!
It's as Randy Quaid said, replying to Brad Davis, in Midnight Express: "The law's never wrong! The law Is!" And, unfortunately, he was almost as right as he was wrong, thanks to most "Lawmakers," in whose cynically, abusively self-indulgent hands such tools are systematically reduced to the most primitively, savagely, albeit asymmetrically "sophisticated" weapons! On the other hand, though, Tony Curtis did one of the cleverest Public Service Announcements I've ever been told about, many years ago, at least for as long as it had been permitted to remain on the air. He simply said, with that little pause, in the middle, and an accompanying "twinkle" in his eye, "I don't smoke--cigarettes--that is!" It's a real wonder they haven't gone witch-hunting, by now, after cigars and pipes, too!--Or, have they, after-all?--For, again, after-all, at least which one, if not both, could possibly have been meant?
By the way, I don't require any behavior modification; that is, unless, of course, your real intent is, after-all, to turn me into what Malcolm McDowell had originally been, and finally become, once again!--About as radically as such a procedure would have to be accomplished at all in my case! And I'm only beginning to "touch up" this particular painting, along with the last one, and so many others!--Unless somebody is at least nice enough to even--let me--let-alone tell me--perhaps even the way they did Barry Champlain--once he'd so eloquently and unbearably unmasked all of them completely--save for one rednecked caller in particular, Champlain's responses to whom should have been at least as sensitively cordial in tone, as well as more thoughtfully contemplated, even as to the very accuracy of their content--to--flake off!
In the Spirit of Elijah (although you can just as easily call me Constantine, too, violent cough and all, in the very middle of this Religiously All-Encompassing Matrix!--At least until you soon have the closest thing to a Bruce Almighty on your hands!--Never-mind even the Incredibly Indestructible Hulk!--Although I personally find Edward G. Robinson, at the end of Soylent Green, an incalculably more appealing prospect!), Richard O'Donnell

The Omen (1976)
The Main Story Line is Anything But Fantasy!,
19 November 2006

Mr. Stephen Hanchett's book, Is George Bush the Antichrist?, is much more carefully reasoned and impressively researched than the movie, here; but, with a dangerously misleading limitation which ultimately and ironically serves to make it the fulfillment of II Thessalonians 2:11!!! Is George Bush the Antichrist? The answer is, paradoxically, both yes and no--but, more basically, the answer is no!--Just as the selfsame description applies to Hitler! Embodying the true configuration of Biblically Prophetic Patterning (but without being able to elaborate adequately, in this brief space, upon most of the finely and scripturally/historically demonstrable details) is a comprehensively paradigmatic unfolding of the story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50), from the time he was sold into slavery by his eleven brothers (the other sons of Jacob), until the time of the Exodus, subsequent to his death. His having been sold into slavery was a prophetic foreshadowing of Exodus 1:8-14. His having become a servant in the Egyptian house of Potiphar represents the physical nation of Israel under the Old Covenant Law. His removal, from there, to Pharaoh's prison (but, in his case, like unto Christ's, whom he foreshadows, on a false charge) represents the numerologically and historically decipherable (Leviticus 26) 2520-year period of national punishment inflicted, first, upon the even hitherto displaced, but not for much longer (Ezekiel 37:15-28), and "lost" ten tribes of Israel at Samaria (II Kings 18:9-12), and, then, over one-hundred years later, upon the Kingdom of Judah at Jerusalem (II Kings 25), for Israel's breach of the Covenant of Deuteronomy 28. The first half, or 1260 years, of these world-ruling empires, or seven heads, of Revelation 13:1, culminates with the wounding of Rome, the seventh head, or fourth beast (Daniel 7), in 476 A.D.; just as the second 1260 years, from 554 A.D., with the healing of Rome's mortal head wound, by Justinian, to 1814 A.D., with the fall of Napoleon, consist of the "Christianized" or "Holy" Roman Empire, an eighth beast (Revelation 17:11), which both is and is not of the seven, in that it is and is not Christian (Galatians 1:6-9), but fundamentally and ultimately is not (Matthew 6:24) (Mark 9:38-50) (Revelation 3:15-17; 18:4).
Moreover, this eighth beast is, not only on the seventh head, but is also an image or reflection of the original beast, with still another seven heads and ten horns. Charlemagne, for instance, is, as the third horn and first head on the resurrected or eighth beast, a mirror image of Nebuchadnezzar; while, at the other end, Napoleon is a mirror image of Alexander the Great, and Hitler is an image of Antiochus Epiphanes. Most intriguingly, though, just as there is no head like unto the seventh, there is no head like unto the seventh of the seventh (Daniel 7:7). With the fall of Napoleon, is to be found the benchmark date of the restoration of the birthright promise to Israel, originally bestowed, by God, through Jacob (Israel), to his two half-Egyptian grandsons (the sons of Joseph), Ephraim and Manasseh, the "Great Nation" and "Company of Nations" (British Commonwealth) existing today (Genesis 48). The concept of American Manifest Destiny is biblically-rooted, but also bitterly betrayed by those blessed and honored with the duty of fulfilling it, as a virtuously magnanimous example and inspiration to the world! Because of this tragically modern repetition of the ancient breaking of the Covenant by Israel, the Birthright Nations shall again be taken captive, but, this time, for 2520 days instead of years, divided, again, into two 1260-day intervals (Revelation 13:5), which structurally reflect the 2520-year intervals, but in reverse order. The "Man of Sin," in II Thessalonians 2:1-8, who was finally revealed, when the explicitly pagan Roman Empire had been moved out of the way, ruled for 1260 years. Currently, she (Rome) is a widow (Revelation 18:7), minus her "Holy Roman Emperor" upon whom to ride. However, She shall be uniquely, overshadowingly preeminent, once again, when the ancient beast rises, one last time, over the ashes of the Birthright Nations.
In that particular vein, here's just a small structural indication of how history repeats itself, but not exactly in the same ways, although unaccidentally close enough--here--to be Divinely-instructive, teleologically as well as axiologically! Compare Hitler's invasion and carving up of Czechoslovakia to the current occupation of Iraq; just as Iran shall be, for America, what Poland had been, for Hitler, and Germany--and the world! Obviously, then, Joseph's removal from prison in Egypt, and appointment by Pharaoh as the second most powerful man in Egypt, represents the crushing of the head of the eighth beast, in 1814, and the reinstatement of the ancient Birthright Promise to Ephraim and Manasseh, a material and national blessing, to be distinguished from the Scepter Promise to Judah (Genesis 49:8-10). And, of course, the shortly-upcoming dissolution of the Birthright Nations (Revelation 12) is anciently symbolized in the Pharaoh who "knew not Joseph," and the bitterly tragic consequences of that! The ancient "Apocalypse" which God, through Moses, had brought upon Egypt, was a type of what shall shortly occur on a global scale, when the seventh seal opens, as it does only once, at the beginning of the latter 1260-day interval shortly to come; while the first six seals open three times, with the last, or "Anti-Typal" opening shortly to occur, at the beginning of the first 1260-day interval. . . . For a continuation of this critique, go to the first sequel to this film, Damien: Omen II.

Damien: Omen II (1978)
Another Thought-Provoking Springboard to the True Configuration!,
19 November 2006

Although this account is also a sequel to the one I'd begun (with a most relevant cross-referencing of Stephen Hanchett's book, Is George Bush the Antichrist?) in commenting on The Omen, I am trying to keep it as briefly albeit indispensably and crucially cogent as possible, as a means of structurally outlining the wider pattern within which Mr. Hanchett's fits, as well as the corresponding actual meaning of his. Because America has betrayed its Divine Mandate, God has structured the scripturally prophetic patterning to where the current president can indeed be plausibly argued to be the Final Antichrist!--In accordance with a scheme wherein the first six seals open only once, followed by the "Millennial Sabbath Rest" of Rome, and the "Holy Roman Empire," and then the "Setting loose of Satan for a little while" (Revelation 20:7-8), in the form of the Protestant Reformation. America, as Mr. Hanchett brilliantly elaborates upon in the most unaccidentally compelling detail of his own, has become an Image of the beast! And, indeed, what more cleverly self-disguising manner for the actual antichrist to re-emerge, than in the form of the one who replaces or gets rid of the antichrist, just as Hitler had been similarly deposed! Intriguingly enough, even the previous Pope, just before his death, had reportedly been entertaining thoughts that Bush could be the Antichrist!!!--While, to be sure, Iraq (along with how many historically Roman Crusades, for that matter) hardly satisfies the Classically Roman definition of a "Just War." In Mr. Hanchett's scheme, the Roman Deception is perfectly accommodated, as the interval between the wounding of the fourth beast (explicitly pagan Rome), and the healing of this fatal head wound!
Of course, Mr. Hanchett counts Rome as the sixth head, based on the manner in which he calculates. However, a clue to his limitation, in this sense, is provided in Daniel 7:6. Not unrelatedly, the Holy Roman Empire, contrary to Mr. Hanchett, is not "one" of the ten horns on the Eighth Beast, but rather embodies them all; just as, for that matter, there is more than one way of accurately configuring many of these symbols, including, in the instance of the ten horns, those which serve to symbolize the ten major persecutions, from Nero to Diocletian. Moreover, as for Revelation 17:10? Mr. Hanchett's very popular interpretation, like unto the one which falsely identifies the Lord's ministry as the sixty-ninth week, is not the only possible one; any more than that, at least for Mr. Hanchett's purposes, it is even at all optimally desirable, let-alone necessary; as an alternative, that is (and notwithstanding all the structurally pivotal "loose ends" which are much more "accidentally overlooked" in Mr. Hanchett's historically prophetic paradigm), to calling explicitly pagan Rome the seventh head, and America, the "Eighth Beast!" Yet, like unto all such possible interpretations (Isaiah 28:7-13), it does have a Divinely-intended usefulness. And, finally, here, at least for now: Situating the seventh seal, within Mr. Hanchett's scheme, is quite an intriguing puzzle all its own. We find it fitting most "perfectly" into place after the wounding of Mr. Hanchett's sixth head, as well as contiguously with the beginning end of the thousand years, or "Millennial Sabbath Rest" of Rome, and extending, after that, no less contiguously with the unfolding of Mr. Hanchett's resurrected or seventh head.
Moreover, in this scheme, the recently popularized application of Revelation 8:10-11, involving "Wormwood," or Chernobyl, appears to be, in retrospect, quite chronologically, harrowingly well-timed!-Indeed, so much so, in addition to just about everything else already covered here, that one can only wonder whether Rome is still deliberately concealing, until the "proper moment," this much less "poetic" or "allegorical" version of John's "vision" or "dream," or whether even it has yet to receive this particular "revelation!" At any rate, an objectively real and physically invisible spirit being called the Devil quite consciously understands, or essentially and no less "cleverly" believes he does, exactly what he is doing! In this connection, even the historical evidence suggests that the popular "Rapture Theory" had been deliberately set-up, in advance--for an extremely useful--fall!--Save for a single, hitherto doctrinally and tragically misunderstood "snag" (Revelation 12:12-17), involving only 144,000 people (Revelation 3:7-13); while most, who vainly, presumptuously expect to be "Raptured," are, again, identified in Revelation 12:17, as well as Revelation 3:14-22; 6:9-11; 20:4, and many other places. Moreover, take one guess, if you dare, concerning which country to which the next to last application of Revelation 18, falsely posing as the very last, is quite imminently, by now, slated to apply!-Immediately followed by the final Satanic counterfeit of Daniel's Seventieth Week!-Including such parallel occurrences as that between, say, Matthew 27:51 and Daniel 9:27, or between Matthew 21:12-13 and Revelation 17:16-18!
Moreover, If we count, from 554 A.D., we arrive, one-thousand years later, at the point where the spiritual exodus, from Babylon, in the form of the Renaissance and Protestant Reformation, begins! Therefore, take, say, 1517 A.D. as an approximate benchmark date (Matthew 24:36-51), and count 483 or 490 years ahead on this "mirror image!" Where does that take you? Moreover, count, from Christmas Day, 800 A.D., when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as "Holy Roman Emperor," to, again, 1517 A.D., so that all one need do is add another zero to the seventy years the Israelites had been in captivity at ancient Babylon. The next phase, now shortly as well as briefly-upcoming, shall rather necessitate the removal of both zeroes. And, again, as for the "Falling Away," of II Thessalonians 2? Within the real paradigm, this occurred, or, more accurately, came to a most pivotal form of fruition (II Thessalonians 2:6-8), when the last explicitly Pagan or Anti-Christian Roman Emperor, Diocletian, was "taken out of the way," by the "Christian convert," Constantine, early in the fourth century A.D., thus paving the way for the "Christian" Man of Sin. In the Roman Catholic paradigm, however, it is the Protestant Reformation which moves the "Christian" monopoly of Roman Catholicism and Economic Feudalism aside, thus making possible, as a result of this "Falling Away," the emergence of, as symbolically understood here, Nero's successor, following the Roman Catholic "Millennial Reign of Christ" (the Popes), and culminating in the current American president (check out even his birth date!), and the final, "Post-Millennial" Cataclysm, not of Revelation 19:15-20, but rather of Revelation 20:7-19, as the Protestant Reformation, rather than Roman Catholicism, ends with the account in Revelation 18!

The Final Conflict (1981)
Packed With Thought-Provoking Symbolism,
28 November 2006

Of course, Michael York's version of The Final Conflict was much more literally on the mark, even though Sam Neill's no less chillingly, charmingly magnetic performance was packed with an even more in-depth, thought-provoking element of symbolism. In this connection, beyond the drawing of a few logically plausible inferences, in conjunction with various questions of "military strategy," it would be quite an ambitious leap to attempt a clinically psychological analysis of Satan. It's certainly beyond much real doubt that, having lost everything he'd been so abundantly handed, on a proverbial silver platter, he was, again, as Damien so passionately expressed it, in a bit of his own kind of agony; although, for all that, there were apparently no regrets, except for what only his enormous pride, as so well expressed by Milton, had blinded him to foreseeing; namely, the inherent inevitability of his losing the War in Heaven he started. Thereafter, the thought of anything short of taking what he wanted by force had still been no less unbearably demeaning and compromising to him, particularly in the form of his having rather attempted to more honestly earn his rightful place, God's way; although, about as self-compromisingly albeit unavoidably, one can just about hear him, even now, putting his enormous rhetorical skills into action, once they'd been about all he'd had left, by way of personal defense; in his argument to the effect that it was God, and not he, who amounted to the real "Tyrant!"
Moreover, now that Satan has had about six-thousand years to no less incorrigibly continue "inadvertently" proving himself so categorically dead-wrong, one should not even need the prophecy, so graciously provided in advance, as to how utterly unbroken he shall prove to have been, even subsequent to a yet future one-thousand year period of confinement in the Bottomless Pit of Revelation 20:1-3!--Which is undoubtedly one important reason, from among others too fascinatingly lengthy to delineate here, why God patterned the prophetic sequence of events in precisely this way, in answer to the logical question of at least a few, as to whether it would have done any good for even the Infinite Compassion of God to have provided some kind of "savior," or whatever, even for him; that is, merely assuming, but only in the most academically insoluble sense, that such a thing would have been possible at all; or, at least, somehow provided for, under an alternatively-predetermined Plan, had the Lord foreseen such a fruitfully-redeeming necessity to have been the case.
On the other hand, though, there just may be a Judicial Criterion here which does not simply, unequivocally embody the question of an individual's "reachability" per se; to the exclusion of some point at which even God has to draw the line, regardless of how "willingly heartfelt" the prospective convert might finally happen to be. Of course, it's difficult to conceive how the Principle outlined in II Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 33:11, and John 6:37 could be coherently nullified, on the basis of any alternately discernible Principle, even in cases where an individual human resurrection from the First Death would have otherwise resulted in genuine repentance and conversion. Yet, one might attempt to argue for even what could be, at least to the limits of human discernment, the most "apparently," disturbingly "nominalistic" form of judgment on God's part; while using the equally "apparent" evidence that the rich man, in Luke 16:19-31, seemed to have finally awakened, as to the eternal severity of his error, and would have been totally willing to repent and convert. But, then, to the contrary, his apparent sincerity, which, if genuine, it would seem a monstrously insensitive waste for God to utterly discount; isn't necessarily or even probably what surface appearances would serve to suggest at all, when one considers that the rich man had changed his tune only when it was his own selfish tail he'd finally found on the line, just as he undoubtedly had at least himself "sincerely believing," at the time, that he gave one hell of a damn even about his still "living" relatives!
However, either way, one can be certain that God takes no pleasure in having to forfeit any of His most magnificently angelic creations, just as He considered Satan to have been no less personally than symbolically, judicially, and even didactically more than worth the kind of six-thousand-year Trial of the Ages, at human expense, which is now about near its end. Of course, God had been sporting enough, in the process, to have given Adam the choice (as to whether each individual's morally free options would subsequently have to be decided on the easy road, rather than the hard one); one which could have rather resulted in Satan's having lost his wager, right on the spot, thereafter no longer to have been potentially useful for anything, either, other than the Lake of Fire, in Revelation 20:10! After-all, Adam's choice could not have been a real one, if this hadn't also constituted a correspondingly real possibility. But, alas, it didn't actually materialize, after-all!
Finally, there's no comparing the Fairest of Trials having been granted, by the alleged "Tyrant," God, to Satan; with the kind of "Trial" Satan delivered to the Only Begotten Son of God, in return! Additionally, just about anybody worth everlastingly salvaging, by now, should have well-surpassed Satan's continuing level of denial; in his insistence that even democratically, capitalistically "scientific" competition, the kind which has allegedly "synthesized" the "principle" of universal selfishness with a system of "lawful checks and balances" which externally if not motivationally serve to prevent the unscrupulous victimization of anybody in the process, thus at least potentially opening the way for the individual self-actualization of all, is anything better than the inevitably, decisively unacceptable failure it is still very terminally proving itself to be. And, to be sure, subsequent to his defeat at the Cross, Satan has been utilizing the only real strategy he has left; in that, for about two millennia now, he's been systematically masquerading as the only credible thing remaining (John 16:7-11), even to the most characteristically, "morally-minded" of atheists, namely, his Opponent, along with an array of remarkably-interlocking though "contrastingly" effective results! No "Tyrant," after-all, could possibly have demonstrated His point (or, for that matter, Satan's, too) any more effectively, selflessly, expensively, indictingly, and, of course, no less redeemingly!--Than had been accomplished at the Cross!--That is, the total antithesis of everything "scientifically socialistic" or "altruistically" hedonistic as well!--Although, for essentially the same reason, His was not the only "Time of Jacob's Trouble," to the exclusion of still another, shortly to commence!
The Tragic Irony is that one doesn't have to tell ole Cool Hand Luke how compromising to God's Image Satan has inherently demonstrated himself to be, and what a brutally painful "Failure to Communicate" it's helped to foster; to the point where His Very Existence per se would appear the greatest of every Impossibility in which He claims to specialize, especially for one who's struggling as desperately as even Anthony Quinn's Barabbas to make Him "compute!" Howard Beale discovered, too, in a manner which didn't turn out to be very funny, after-all, about the kind of Court Jester to which God has been reduced; just as even His Clinically Bi-Polar Sense of Humor is perhaps the most Absurdly Bearable thing about Him, but only if there's really Nobody There to Thus Have to Blame, other than the most "Easternly Wholistic" or "Pantheistically, Adventurously, Amorally, 'Self-Dismemberingly' Ever-Dreaming" Culprit of Dostoyevsky's "Notes from Underground!"--Or, as John Lennon said, "Ain't no Jesus gonna come from the sky; now that I found out, I know I can cry." How many even wonder, let-alone begin to grasp, what he must have meant by that?
Satan must get one of his biggest kicks of all, however, from the childishly, shallowly Socratic doctrine that, if he exists at all, then even he really wants to get caught, but simply doesn't "self-consciously" realize it! What Satan doesn't find so very "amusing" at all, however, is the Inherent Impossibility of nevertheless continually trying to "outflank" the same Master Architect who had originally programmed his mental computer, too; so that every single "compossible" which Satan contributes to the series, in an attempt to thwart God's Master Plan, only serves the purpose of helping to complete it!--Romans 8:28-31! Is it "unfair" of God to have "stacked the deck" here? Not when one considers that Satan, in aspiring to replace God, thus necessarily bargained for the chore of having to juggle as many balls as necessary; even to the point that whatever God doesn't do, to make it any more difficult for him, amounts to nothing but charity!

Exodus (1960)
The Seven Annual Holy Days of Scripture
28 November 2006

Just as the Lord was completing His Creation Week, He rested on the Sabbath; the last day of the week, rather than the first. The weekly Sabbath had been, at that point, formally, inalterably ordained; not just as a perpetual reminder of the Original Creation, but also in conjunction with still another, more amazingly prophetic Mystery. Just as God had rested on the Sabbath, the world shall rest, during the seventh one-thousand-year segment of man's mortal existence; when all the burdens of his earthly, sinful labors and follies shall have been lifted. Thus, each literal day of the original Creation Week symbolically represents a one-thousand-year segment of human history, just as the seventh such segment is about to begin.
However, under the Old Covenant, there were likewise instituted seven annual Sabbaths, with their own prophetically didactic significance. The original Passover had been followed, the very next day, beginning at dusk, with the first of these annual Holy Days, which is also the first day of the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread, symbolizing the release from bondage; just as the last day of this week constitutes the second annual Holy Day, which foreshadowingly symbolizes the end of Daniel's Seventieth Week (Acts 10), just as the end of Daniel's Seventieth week is structurally foreshadowed, under the Old Covenant, in Numbers, Chapters Thirteen and Fourteen!-Along with a Tragically Ironic "Twist," which only served to temporarily victimize Caleb and Joshua; just as, for that matter, all the Jews, save for a Small Remnant (Romans 11), had been temporarily left behind, at the end of Daniel's Seventieth Week! Moreover, whichever day, within that week, falls on Sunday, is the same day from which one counts ahead, fifty more days, to arrive at the third annual Holy Day, Pentecost; which, therefore, is deliberately patterned to always fall on a Sunday.
Just as the original Passover, of Moses, begins this process, with all its spiritually symbolic, prophetically-foreshadowing significance; so, also, does the third annual Holy Day signify, under the Old Covenant, the receiving of the Law, by Moses, from God, as a foreshadowing of the New Covenant, at Pentecost. The fourth annual Holy Day is represented, under the Old Covenant, by the Israelites having crossed over the Jordan, into the Promised Land; just as the fifth annual Holy Day represents the successful completion of the securing of the Promised Land, under Joshua's leadership, and the "At-One-Ment" of Israel, under God, in this sense. The sixth annual Holy Day represents the Coronation of David, which begins the symbolically-foreshadowing week of the Feast of Tabernacles; just as the last day of this week, so vividly symbolized in the reign of King Josiah, is followed, not long thereafter, by-Nebuchadnezzar!-That is, the typal foreshadowing of Revelation 20:7-15!
However, these Old Covenant events, which correspond to the seven annual Holy Days, were, again, only shadow fulfillments. But their historically one-time New Covenant fulfillments are still in the process of unfolding. Thus far, only the first three annual Holy Days have been anti-typally fulfilled. The Passover, of course, was fulfilled when Christ was crucified, on the very same day of the year the Passover itself had been annually celebrated by the Israelites; and, no less symbolically, in the very middle of the literal week, as well as in the middle of Daniel's Seventieth Week! The first annual Holy Day, which could only have fallen on a Thursday, in its historically one-time fulfillment, followed immediately, the very next day, after the Passover; just as, again, the third annual Holy Day had its historically one-time, anti-typal fulfillment at Pentecost.
After the Passover, Christ rose from the dead, three days and three nights later, right before dusk, at the very end of Saturday, the weekly Sabbath. Then, of course, counting fifty days, from the Sunday when the Lord first appeared, in his resurrected and imperishable form; one arrives at the day of Pentecost, the New Covenant anti-type of the giving of the Law, by God, to Moses and the people. The Old Covenant Law was replaced, or, more accurately, completed, in the form of a better Covenant (Hebrews 7:11-28), the Covenant of Grace, and the indwelling of each personally regenerated individual by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9). Again, only the Passover, along with the first three annual Holy Days, have thus far been anti-typally fulfilled, in their historically one-time unfolding.
The fourth annual Holy Day, the Feast of Trumpets, is about to be anti-typally fulfilled (Revelation 11:15-19) (I Thessalonians 4:13-18) (I Corinthians 15:50-58) (Zechariah 14:1-5) (Acts 1:9-12), in its historically one-time unfolding; just as the fifth annual Holy Day foreshadowingly follows, ten days later, to be anti-typally fulfilled, in its historically one-time unfolding, at the point of Revelation 20:1-3. Five days after the Day of At-One-Ment, the sixth annual Holy Day, the first day of the week-long Feast of Tabernacles, is foreshadowingly celebrated, and shall have its anti-typal, historically one-time fulfillment at the point of Matthew 26:29 (Revelation 19:6-9), just as again, the ancient Coronation of King David had been a typal foreshadowing of this event. The last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, foreshadowingly celebrated at the end of that selfsame week, shall, again, have its anti-typal, historically one-time fulfillment, at the point of Revelation 20:7-15.
We are, now, historically in-between the one-time fulfillment of Pentecost, and the one-time fulfillment of the Feast of Trumpets, that is, again, the First Resurrection to Immortality; although, of course, while being incalculably closer to the latter, now, in the last Gregorian month of 2006 A.D. Just as the third annual Holy Day occurs in the third Hebrew month, the fourth annual Holy Day occurs in the seventh Hebrew month, almost on the other side of the solar year; thus symbolizing a vast and indeterminate amount of time, between Pentecost, and the First Resurrection, yet, as well as, by now, shortly to occur. Ten days after that is what is annually celebrated as the fifth Holy Day, the Day of Atonement, symbolizing that Christ shall become, very soon, by now, "At One" with his people, the spiritual "Children of Abraham" (Romans 2:26-29); while the Devil is cast out, the way Joshua had cast out the heathen, in type, from the Promised Land!
Again, the ancient crossing of the Jordan, the typal fulfillment of the fourth annual Holy Day, foreshadows the beginning of the Last Great Millennial Day (John 7:37-38), when the Great Harvest of Souls occurs (as distinct from the Small "Firstfruits" Harvest, which is now almost complete); retroactively as well, for those who are resurrected mortal (Ezekiel 37:1-14), to complete their preparation for transformation from mortal to immortal; since, at the point of personal moral reckoning, even for those without the Law (Romans 2:9-16), they freely chose not to Decisively Blaspheme the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Love, in their hearts (Matthew 12:30-35). Moreover, what was the reason the Apostle Paul had Scripturally broken out into Ecstasy, while writing Romans 11:25-36 (but beginning in verse 33)? Paul had been given a special mandate (I Corinthians 9:16-18), as one murderer having replaced another (Judas Iscariot), to preach the Gospel (Galatians 1:11-24) (Ephesians 3:1-11); so that, just as Gentiles shall be teaching Jews, during the Seventh-Day Millennial Sabbath Rest, Paul himself, who could have been left at the end of the line (Matthew 21:31), was shown mercy, and moved to the front of the line, as one who had persecuted the Church in ignorance (I Timothy 1:12-17) (Luke 23:34).
Moreover, what can also be symbolically discerned, from the fact that the typal fulfillment of all these events preceded the Babylonian captivity, of seventy years; followed by the Decree of Syrus, which began the Seventy-Weeks-of-Years countdown to Christ's First coming? Symbolically and Tragically instructive, here, is the fact that, under the New Covenant, only the first three annual Holy Days were anti-typally fulfilled, before the "Mirror Image" of the seventy-year captivity in Babylon, or the roughly seven-hundred years, between 800 A.D. (the Coronation of Charlemagne, Nebuchadnezzar's "Mirror Image"), and 1517 A.D. (the year of Martin Luther's Proclamations), had intervened; that is, prior to the advent of the equally foreshadowing Image of the anciently typal events, symbolized from the crossing of the Jordan, to the captivity in Babylon, had occurred. Thus, just as the anciently typal unfolding of events symbolized in the fourth through the seventh annual Holy Days had been physical, and not spiritual (in the sense they could and should have been, which would have avoided the Babylonian intervention); the counterfeit millennial reign of Roman Catholicism had followed the anti-typal fulfillment of the first three annual Holy Days, in the form of the spiritual (the truly Regenerated Church, in the midst) which had not become physical.
Also, It was only in the midst of the "Mirror Image" (beginning with the benchmark date of 1517 A.D.) of Daniel's Seventy Weeks of Years that a "Mirror Image" of the crossing of the Jordan (this time, the Atlantic Ocean), and the securing of the Promised Land, followed by a "Mirror Image" of ancient Israel, under David and Solomon, had begun; yet, a "Mirror Image" which had been, again, in a sense, something spiritual (given the existence of, again, the truly Regenerated Church, in the midst), but not actually physical (just as even the outward forms had been "Babylonianly" twisted, as had been the case anciently, both before and especially after the Babylonian intervention). In fact, as Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong pointed out, modern America, in having symbolically abandoned the true weekly Sabbath Day (Exodus 31:13), had lost all sense of its true identity! Even worse, as a "Mirror Image" of the Ten Tribes, which had, under Jeroboam, broken away from Rehoboam, and moved, from Jerusalem, to Samaria, over the issue of taxation without representation; America, as with Jeroboam, had finally become another Image of the Beast, the very Beast which had its counterfeit "Christian" millennium under Roman Catholic Rule, during a stretch of time which can be counted, symbolically, in two ways, first, from 554 A.D. (when Justinian resurrected the wounded seventh head), to 1517 A.D. (the advent of Protestant Fundamentalism, or the Church of Sardis, Revelation 3:1-6), and, also, from 800 A.D. (with the Coronation of Charlemagne, the "Mirror Image" of Nebuchadnezzar), to 1814 A.D. (the fall of Napoleon, or "Mirror Image" of Alexander the Great). This American "Mirror Image" of the Beast shall soon be taken captive, by the seventh and last head on the "Mirror Image" of the Beast, thus ushering in the final "Babylonian Captivity," to last seven years, to be ended by the actual, historically one-time, anti-typal fulfillment of the events symbolized in the fourth through the seventh of the annual Holy Days themselves, when the spiritual and the material, the inner and the outer, are finally synthesized!
What we have here, in summation, is actually a patterning as intricately and exquisitely complex as it nevertheless is extremely simple and clear, in its general outlines and meanings, once it is sufficiently grasped in its totality. Basically, we can identify three "grids," which all fall synchronizingly into place, with relation to one-another, on the very temporal map of events which can be so very unmistakably discerned in historical retrospect (Daniel 12:8-10). First, there is, again, the patterning of the seven annual Holy Days, with their physical, typal fulfillment, under the Old Covenant, which reflect their spiritual, anti-typal fulfillment, under the New Covenant. But there is also, secondly, the patterning of the Beast with Seven Heads and Ten Horns, and Its Image, to configure within this scheme as well. Just as the seven annual Holy Days are followed by a "mirror image," so, also, is this Beast similarly followed by a "mirror image" of itself, the Eighth Beast, which both is and is not of the seven (Revelation 17:11), but is still on the seventh head, which is like no other of the heads (Daniel 7:7), as the "Christian" or "Holy" Roman Empire, with its Seven Heads and Ten Horns. Then, thirdly, there are the Seven Seals to be configured, or superimposed onto the same patterning just mentioned. According to the true prophetic paradigm, the fourth annual Holy Day, the Feast of Trumpets, has not yet occurred, but shall come to pass at the First Resurrection to Immortality. Yet, according to the false paradigm, which God structurally built into this selfsame fabric (II Thessalonians 2:9-12) (Isaiah 28:13), the anti-typal fulfillment of the fourh annual Holy Day immediately follows the time of the Ten Major Persecutions (and, just as symbolically, the sacking of Jerusalem, by Rome, forty years after the anti-typal fulfillment of the third annual Holy Day; contrary to the very opposite occurrence, forty years after the typal fulfillment of the third annual Holy Day!), from Nero to Diocletian, when the Church of God was brought into the wilderness, subsequent to the anti-typal fulfillment of the third annual Holy Day (Pentecost), and the completion of Daniel's Seventieth Week, with the baptism of Cornelius. In the false paradigm, these Ten Major Persecutions represent the one-time opening of the Fifth Seal, which, in the true paradigm, opens three times.
When the falsely paradigmal one-time opening of the Sixth Seal occurs, Rome is being sacked, in 476 A.D., to the wounding of its by now falsely "Christian" head. However, when this wound is healed, in 554 A.D., by Justinian, what is being represented, in the false paradigm, is the anti-typal, historically one-time fulfillment of the fourh annual Holy Day; followed by the fulfillment of the fifth annual Holy Day, the Day of Atonement, which Charlemagne unfolds, the way Joshua had, as the land is again cleared of all the heathen, and militarily brought together under one rule; just as the sixth annual Holy Day commences at the Coronation of Charlemagne, by Pope Leo III, on Christmas Day, 800 A.D., during "Holy" Communion, at Mass, in St. Peter's Basilica, at Rome. This Coronation represents, in the false paradigm, the anti-typal reflection of the Coronation of King David, under the Old Covenant; whereas, within the true paradigm, this Coronation is a reflection of Nebuchadnezzar, the first head on the Beast. In accordance with the false paradigm, this supposed reflection of the Coronation of King David ushers in a symbolic thousand-year rule of "Christ," followed by the benchmark date of the dissolution of the "Holy" Roman Empire, 1814 A.D., with the end of Napoleon, which ushers in the fulness of the falsely paradigmal "Falling Away," in II Thessalonians 2, as the Protestant Reformation yields what is, in the true paradigm, the end of the 2520-year period of Divine Chastisement, imposed upon the Northern Kingdom, the Lost Ten Tribes of ancient Israel, as Britain and America are exalted. Remember, again, that, in the false paradigm, the "Falling Away" occurs "Post-Millennially," as Satan is set loose for a little while (Revelation 20:7-15); whereas, in the true paradigm, the Church is being brought out of the wilderness, out of a typal fulfillment of Revelation 12:13-17, which shall be anti-typally repeated with the dissolution and chastisement of the Birthright Nations (Ephraim and Manasseh, or, respectively, the British Commonwealth, the "Company of Nations," and America, the "Great Nation"). In the true paradigm, the sixth head, Napoleon, on the Resurrected Image of the Beast, is wounded, and shall be Resurrected, again, with the dissolution of the Birthright Nations, in the form of the Seventh Head on the Image, the Seventh Head of the Seventh Head, which is like no other head, but rather a composite of all the others, upon which the first six Seals open anti-typally, followed by the one-time actual opening of the Seventh Seal, in the middle of that seven-year interval. Moreover, just as the Northern Kingdom had its 2520-year interval of chastisement, the same countdown had actually begun, for the Southern Kingdom, as many years later as had been correspondingly required for modern-day Jerusalem to be captured by the Jews after America gained its independence; just as, for that matter, Jerusalem shall again be sacked, by the Revived Roman Empire (the Seventh and last head on the Re-Resurrected Beast, or, more accurately, the Eighth Beast, of the Eighth Beast, into which he, in turn, shall personally Resurrect), three and one-half years after the dissolution of the Birthright Nations themselves.
More specifically, though, what about Napoleon, just for openers? On the true reflection of the Beast with Seven Heads and Ten Horns, the Eighth Beast, on the Seventh head, which both is and is not part of the seven, Napoleon is, again, the structural image of Alexander the Great. Yet, on the very image itself, this structural reflection of the Beast, he both is and is not the Sixth head, both is and is not a "Holy" Roman Emperor, and, just as symbolically, both is and is not a Hapsburg, the sixth ruling dynasty of crowned "Holy" Roman Emperors, which had technically been dissolved in 1806 A.D.; just as Alexander the Great both is and is not the Third head, the head of the third ruling empire. Moreover, Napoleon, contrary to Charlemagne, had symbolically subdued Rome, rather than having been subdued, indeed, seduced, very cleverly and ironically, and just as symbolically, "sacredly," by it. Napoleon, for that matter, had occupied Rome, in 1799 A.D., just as Nebuchadnezzar had anciently done in Jerusalem; so that Napoleon reflects, on the false image, not Alexander the Great, but rather, again, Nebuchadnezzar! On the false paradigm, contrary to the true one, there is a gap between the Seventh head on the Beast, and the emergence of the Eighth Beast, with its structural image of Seven Heads and Ten Horns. This gap, on the false image, is, in fact, the actual Eighth Beast, the "Holy" Roman Empire, of the true image; just as the structurally and symbolically pivotal of the two true Fallings Away (the latter shortly yet to occur, as of this writing) are such INTO this empire, whereas the one Falling Away on the false paradigm is such FROM the Eighth Beast of the "Holy" Roman Empire. On the false paradigm, the reflection of the First head emerges, then, again, with Napoleon, whereas Hitler is the Ram, or, even more specifically, a reflection of Haman (Esther, Chapter Three), while the Goat which defeated the Ram is the post-WWII Ten-Horned American reflection of the Beast identified by Stephen Hanchett. Yet, even more specifically, Hitler can be seen to reflect characteristics of Belshazzar, whose defeat resulted in the Exodus back to Jerusalem, as had been the case with the defeat of Antiochus Epiphanes, of whom Hitler is also a reflection, whereas Britain and America reflect the two asymmetrical horns on the Ram, Cyrus and Darius. Indeed, while reflecting these, America also has ten presidents, as pointed out by Stephen Hanchett, from Truman to Clinton, whom the false paradigm would, unfortunately, not so very counterfeitingly, "at least" in spirit, identify as images of the Ten Horns, or ten major persecutions, from Nero to Diocletian. Even more, on these Ten Horns, there is another ambiguity, like unto the one where Hitler can be seen as a reflection of Nebuchadnezzar and Haman, as well as Antiochus Epiphanes. On these Ten Horns, from Truman to Clinton, there is a struggle occurring between the symbols of the Ram and the Goat. Truman has characteristics of both, but the latter increases its foothold even more overshadowingly with the assassination of President Kennedy, then, even more so, with the usurpation of President Carter, and, finally, with the usurpation of President Clinton, the third symbolically "Ram-like" image on these Ten Horns which Stephen Hanchett identifies as having been "plucked up by the roots." Yet, the Goat characteristics still quite overshadowingly or underlyingly dominate the images of all the Ten American Horns in temporal succession, as reflected, overall, again, in America's defeat of Hitler; just as this Goat-image manifests itself in a most uniquely and pivotally overshadowing way, when, as Stephen Hanchett also elaborates upon, President G.H.W. Bush strikes down the "Hitler-reflection" or "Ram" of Saddam Hussein, and is thereafter dethroned, with his image shattering into Four Heads, those of his four sons, only one of whom is to become the Eleventh or "Little" Horn, following President Clinton, and the only one of the Ten Horns which is also a Head. Whereas the Ten Horns from Nero to Diocletian had been followed by the actual "Little" Horn of the Pope, the Ten Horns from Truman to Clinton are followed by the "Little" Horn of George Dubya Bush, Jr., who, within the framework of the false paradigm, is currently acting out the scenario, again, beginning with Revelation 20, VERSE SEVEN. Curiously, and even quite "poetically," however, Rome, the Seventh head (with Dubya actually being number six, as the falsely paradigmal reflection of Antiochus Epiphanes), which shall replace Dubya, is not characterized, on the false paradigm, as a Beast, but rather as the very liberating representation of Christ, foreshadowed also in the liberating image of Cyrus; whereas Dubya symbolically assumes the ancient position of Belshazzar at this point, as well as of Antiochus Epiphanes, and Diocletian--PLUS ZEDEKIAH!

The Making of 'The Passion of the Christ' (2004) (TV)
Very Well Done,
28 November 2006

The simple truth is that there is only one Christian God, one original Person of God, contrary to the well-founded criticism of Islam that Roman Catholicism, with its "Triune God," is indeed quite non-biblically (this being my added emphasis, rather than that of Islam) albeit ambiguously and rhetorically rather than "paradoxically" polytheistic in form. What about the traditionally-argued claim that God had originally been referred to in the plural, via the term "Elohim" (Genesis 1:26)? Actually, if the angels were present at the creation of the physical universe (Job 38:1-7), then it is hardly a far cry to assume that they were also present at the creation of man; just as, for that matter, it would have proved "awkward," to say the least, had God not addressed the angels themselves, directly, in the second person, on that very occasion! But, then, what about John 1:1-15, in which Christ is referred to as "The Word," who, in the beginning, was with God, and was God? In the beginning was the Creative Power of God, and the Creative Power of God was with God, and the Creative Power of God was God. As for John 1:2? Before Christ's physical conception as a separate manifestation, He was with God, but in the same way any offspring is "with" his parents before conception (Hebrews 7:9-10), but not as a separate identity. Christ was, again, with God, and was God.
Christ represents the Creative Power of God (Colossians 1:15-19), the Distinctive Person of God; which can have no coherent meaning apart from the concept of a beginning, and His creation of that which is not God (Revelation 1:8). This Creative Power of God had eventually produced (or, more accurately, reproduced) a created and separate manifestation, or Perfect Reflection, of this very Creative Power. Christ, as a separate and mortal individual, per se, with a distinctive Identity, did indeed have a beginning. But, then, what about still other statements, from Christ Himself, which seem to indicate the "pre-existence" of a "Second Person" (John 17:5)? This is rather a reference to predestination! Cross-reference it with, for instance, Ephesians 1:4! And, if one still insists upon more, then try Revelation 13:8! Moreover, one can only praise the heavens, the way Jesus did, in Matthew 11:25-27, upon marveling no less at the, at bottom, no less merely political in motivation than childishly pseudo-religious wrangling (Colossians 2:1-10) (I Corinthians 1:10-29) of those who finally concluded the current "Trinity" Doctrine! While you're also glimpsing through I Corinthians, Chapters Two and Three, concerning even the "wonders" of the current "non-denominationalism," too, for that matter (1:12d), please try taking particularly special note of 3:10-20!
But, then, what about statements to the effect that "Before Abraham was, I Am" (John 8:58)? Actually, the Spirit is Indivisibly One, and it is only in this sense, along with the fact that Christ is an Exact Duplicate of the One who thereby became His Father, that Christ, as a separately mortal individual, had been "Pre-Existent" as such. Even scriptures such as Matthew 19:17 quite symbolically serve to reinforce this point, as Christ therein attributes His Own Goodness, distinctively enough (from Himself), to God. Moreover, Christ very explicitly disavows any claim, as a still mortal individual, to Omniscience as well (Matthew 24:36). As a separately mortal individual, Christ did indeed have a beginning, when He was miraculously conceived (quite distinctively, in this sense, John 1:14, next only to the first Adam) minus a human father (although Satan had been capable of siring offspring through human females, too, Genesis 6:1-4, like right out of Rosemary's Baby!). The only real paradox, here, is that of how such a thing could have occurred per se, of how Christ could have been (the Son of) God, and yet also not God (the Son of Man), too (Matthew 26:64; 27:40); rather than in the form of how God could have been "One," and yet "Three Separate Persons," before the advent of Christ's conception in Mary's womb.
Christ, as distinct from God, rather sits at the Right Hand of God (Romans 8:34). He is God, in the sense, also, that all authority has been handed unto Him (Hebrews 1:1-6). Similarly, those who shall rule with Him (Revelation 3:9), in their Immortally Transfigured States, likewise share in this very distinction, albeit to various degrees, from beneath Him (Matthew 25:14-23) (Luke 19:11-19). The simple, rhetorically uncluttered truth, is that God the Father had a Son, with a beginning, and yet no end (Isaiah 9:6-7) (Hebrews 1:8-12). All the rest of the ultimately redeemed, with their mortally human fathers, shall yet be, each in their own order (I Corinthians 15:20-25), imperishably transfigured, but as spiritually adopted Sons (Romans 8:14-15). Unlike only Jesus Himself, even the "Natural Branches" (Romans 11) share merely in His maternally biological lineage; which ultimately, individually profits nothing, in and of itself (Luke 3:8). See the second and final part of this critique in Impact: The Passion of the Christ

Impact: The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Also Very Well Done,
28 November 2006

(This is a continuation of the critique of The Making of The Passion of the Christ.) The actual Trinity (Matthew 28:19) is a reference, not to the "Three Persons" of God, but to the Three Functions or Manifestations of God. The Holy Spirit is, not an "It," contrary to what Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong contends (just as he uniquely errs in saying there were, not Three Persons, but rather Two Persons, in Eternity Past), but rather the very Spirit of the Father. That's why Jesus, in having been conceived by the Holy Spirit, is thereby the Son of the Father, rather than being the Son of the Holy Spirit instead of the Father. Consider an ordinary human being, created in the image and likeness of God, consisting of a soul (an animated body) and an individual spirit; however, not, again, as two persons, but rather as one (just as the mortally human soul and spirit are separated, at the point of physical death, Hebrews 4:12). God the Father was the separately Creative Manifestation of God, in the beginning; and, thus, the Symbolic Image of the Word, or the Son; until, that is, He became the Father. But, while the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, Jesus had an individual human spirit, which united with the Father's, after His water baptism in the Jordan; so that the two had become one, and blended, in the most uniquely, virtually indistinguishable way of all.
However, that very process had been unavailable to Fallen man, in the most Judicially open sense, until Jesus had become a totally Perfected and Glorified participant in the Holy Spirit, so that this Spirit was actually Their Spirit, in the most Completely Finished sense. Moreover, Scripture further confirms the extent to which Jesus had to be Perfected (Hebrews 2:9-10); in a manner which would not have been necessary, for Him, had He "simply" and "unequivocally" or "unparadoxically" been God! That's why Pentecost could not have occurred before all this was fulfilled (John 16:5-11). The most which can be said for the concept of the "Three Person Trinity" is that, paradoxically, the very language being employed, here, in defense of the Real Trinity, could also be quite logically, consistently applied to the concept of "Three Persons," too; however, in a manner to where the very question of whether "Three Persons" are actually involved becomes, at best, something hopelessly, paradoxically insoluble. Moreover, at least some of the reasons the "Three Person Trinity" is no less structurally disjointed than strictly superfluous per se, should be explicitly clear enough by now. Even the very best possible manner of defending it is necessarily as inadequate as the very thing being defended in the process, as an "adaptation" of the polytheism of pre-Christian Rome.
When carefully examined, the only real difference (aside from Rome's uniquely historical predominance, as the Mother of all cults), by way of Mainstream Protestant Fundamentalist definition, between a "sect" and a "cult," is that the former embrace the doctrine of the Trinity, while the latter do not. Indeed, aside from this one essential difference, Rome fits virtually every Mainstream Protestant Fundamentalist definition of a "cult." Just to cite but one "minor bit" of such predominantly astonishing blindness in this respect, particularly among professing Christians of all "sectarian" denominations; where does, for instance, Romans 14:5-6, appear to condone the teaching that everlasting torment is the inevitable result of "unrepentantly" missing a Mass on Sunday, or a "Holy Day of Obligation," or eating a piece of meat on Friday? Such regressions into spiritual bondage are quite elaborately exposed for what they really are in Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. Grace, in general, as opposed to Law, is also poetically symbolized in the outline of Daniel's Seventieth Week (Daniel 9:20-27), which begins with a baptism (Matthew 3:13-17) and ends with a baptism (Acts 10). Just as John the Baptist, who symbolized Law, had said he must "decrease" (John 3:30); so, also, did the order itself symbolically "evolve," from that of the Holy Spirit following the baptism itself, to that of this same "Baptism of Fire" preceding the baptism itself. More accurately, Peter, at the end of Acts 10, is commanding, as such, not that baptism be mandatory, but rather that it not be forbidden. There's an infinity of difference, in spirit, between having to be baptized, and having no reason not to be, as beautifully ushering in as well as symbolizing the overall spirit of New Covenant obedience. A real Christian is free rather than bound to be baptized--after the fact.

Falling Down (1993)
Screaming "Fire" In a House That Is Perhaps Actually Burning!,
15 December 2006

Why do I like Mr. Foster so much, and even empathize with him so completely?--Albeit Purely Hypothetically! Is it really just because I must be no less crazy than he, as most would readily insist? Or, could it possibly be something much less typically simple (non-) minded than that, which is more popularly, normatively, thus alone unassailably reflected in what has happened, what we've all allowed to occur, to every one of us, and insist upon keeping that way? Perhaps it's the form, and not the content, of how he'd begun expressing himself? Well, then, maybe he should have just found a friend to talk to, or even a stranger on the street; one who would, no doubt, have sarcastically called him crazy, regardless of how calmly and sensibly he'd tried to share his feelings! In fact, far-too-many, if not most, instinctively interpret kindness as weakness and stupidity! About the only form of somebody's need to falsely or at least ignorantly but sincerely believe himself at all Christianly Compassionate, rather than much more predictably and viciously resentful, which he'd thereby have had even a small chance of encountering; would have undoubtedly assumed the conventionally and evasively falsifying expression of a suggestion that he see a psychiatrist, where the presupposition that he's the only one with the problem remains axiomatically supreme. At best, the psychiatrist might uncharacteristically concede, if he's sufficiently "one-upped," that, while society itself unwittingly suffers from its own pseudo-collective form of psychosis, there's nothing anybody can do to change that, thus leaving the only realistically sane alternative that of adjusting to it, while antiseptically neutralizing the very reason why society itself could and even should consider changing, one real individual at a time, if not all of them, at once!
His wife was certainly not available, just as the film itself at least appears to presuppose that no account as to how the brutally-insensitive hostility in her attitude had come about needs to be offered, since the answer to that is allegedly right before the horrified eyes of the audience, which smugly assumes the way he's expressing himself to be nothing but the cause, rather than perhaps at least as decisively an effect of the fact that no other form of approach had ever made any constructive difference. In fact, try saying "please," to the Devil, and his technique will often be to get your goat, so he can be the one to point the finger! The only thing which never self-vindicatingly comes into focus is the kind of man who just wants to see his daughter, or the kind of man whose reasons for feeling so dangerously perturbed should have been no less self-evidently and understandably revealing. Perhaps he should have made a movie about the problem, although it would have thereby been reduced to nothing but a form of contained and squared-away entertainment, infested with mere actors (as well as Circus Maximus spectators), who've learned nothing, but only want to be, as Nietzsche so cynically and accurately observed, well-paid, and "glorified," in full (Matthew 6:1-6). Or, what if he'd tried to share his thoughts on a web site such as this, about a similar kind of film; only to have received a long string of negative votes, and even complaints to the web site masters about how he's not sticking to an appropriately relevant or artistically non-controversial critique of the film; from many-too-many who are offended due to their unwillingness to handle any deeper, more meaningfully relevant kind of truth, and whose demands that the comments be deleted would thereafter be instantaneously honored?
I was going to say that such people are typically reflective of Hitler, in their spontaneously instinctive inclination to insist that anything they don't like be totally censored; particularly if their feeling is prevalent enough to where they know their demand would thereby alone be self-evidently vindicated, no questions asked, as well as very undemocratically minus any respect for perhaps even the many who would have appreciated a chance to read such comments. But, then, on second thought, perhaps even Hitler was also if not even primarily reacting, in spirit, to the very kind of people who would have unhesitatingly reacted, in precisely his way, to still others, who would have reacted, in exactly the same way, to them, had any one of them, from either category, simply had the chance Hitler did to do so, coupled with what Scarface called "the guts to be what you want to be," which alone most so very "virtuously," timidly, domesticatedly, albeit no less brutally, uncompromisingly, in attitude, lack.
I have no doubt that most would want my head, or at least my comments bigotedly deleted, for what I'm about to say, in the more constructive way that they'd thus quite hypocritically suggested the Columbine boys should rather have expressed themselves! Nevertheless, what I do believe is that there is a great deal of truth to the assertion that Hitler had been at least as much a reaction to "Hitler" as anything else (he had himself called it "Fighting Terror with Terror!"), and that this is at least as much the reason he's been so hatefully, hysterically demonized, from beneath all the indispensably good arguments against him behind which they conveniently hide from themselves! Even more, how can most people in the world, that is, most, who purport to be qualified to judge Hitler, but particularly his most notorious victims, even think of accusing Him of racism, with any kind of a straight face? Even Bible Believers incoherently forget that, when Paul and Peter speak of all the powers that be having been Divinely-Ordained, Hitler must thereby have been meant, too, at least for the duration of his tenure, and for a much better reason than that he had simply "come out of nowhere, " to disrupt an otherwise "Christianly Harmonious" situation! The biggest waste of all is that nobody's learned, even from Hitler! However, the next and last one will prove to be much more "antithetical" or "diplomatically palatable" than he had been, particularly in his most equally, morally unjustifiable folly!

The Mask of Zorro (1998)
A Superbly-Inspiring Work of Art!,
16 December 2006

Speaking of cinematic masterpieces, the Final Anti-Type, the Seventh and Last Head, on the Image of the Beast (Daniel 7:7), really should preview carefully one of the very best, as well as, now, and, therefore, all-the-more-amazingly, one of the latest; in which some of the finest examples of his dreaded "Oligarchical Principle," Noblemen who, to quote a line from the film, "say one thing and think another," are very vividly displayed. In fact, Zorro is a very personal Trademark to me, as a connoisseur who couldn't be more delighted with the latest enhancement upon an already immortalized classic. Whereas most ultra-modern cinema tends merely to substitute for the lack of any formal resonance, with technological enhancements designed to stimulate the most sensationalistically depraved senses alone, The Mask of Zorro is a genuine work of art; to begin with, in the strictest aesthetic sense per se, as well as in the form of one of the most thoughtfully inspiring and carefully well plotted Morality Plays I've ever encountered, right up there with the inherently insurpassable Robin Hood of Errol Flynn! All the right elements of action, romance, chivalry, and honor serve to bring out the deepest subtleties of the human spirit, with a refinement which can only be appreciated to the unfortunately rare extent it deserves by those who find it nothing short of the most personally and permanently transfiguring experience, rather than as the mere entertainment it no less abundantly is.
Even the casting, as well as the script, and the finely blended musical score, could not have been more to perfection! Anthony Hopkins was in the finest form I have ever seen for him, as Don Diego de la Vega, with his magnificently aristocratic charm, and genuine nobility of stature. And, of course, Antonio Banderas holds his own with an artistic mastery every bit as impressive as the swordsmanship it nevertheless so much less plausibly embodies, particularly on such buffoonably short notice, along with just about all the skills of a Valentino, a Bruce Lee, and even a Tarzan combined; although I wish that little trick with the candles, which had Basil Rathbone laughing out the other side of his face as well, in 1940, had likewise somehow found its way into this particular script, in some imaginatively analogous form.
Even while exaggerated to the point of the most deliberately fanciful ludicrousness, I only wish I could say in everything but the strictest ethical sense as well, one embodying a fight for the most genuinely independent kind of California; such antics are, in the process, really only intended to lend greater buoyancy to the spirit and imagination of a Vision for which almost nobody is even soberly religious enough to search. The truth is that the herd loves and insists upon nothing more than to be kept fattened, contented, dumbed down, and led by the nose, particularly with the most beautifully self-flattering delusions! Indeed, about two-hundred years of modern democracy have done more than the past few thousand to completely confirm perhaps even its grossest incapacity for anything else, as well as its strongest instinct to murder anybody who dares tell it as much!--Speaking even of most Working Class Heroes who think they have any more use for John Lennon than he did for them! What most of them really need, to replace the unwarrantedly inflated view they currently have of themselves, is enough of the right kind of guidance and discipline, for a totally unprecedented change!--Revelation 2:27!
Catherine Zeta-Jones could not have been more charmingly tailored to her role, with the same added sword-in-hand through which Stuart Wilson likewise compounds so dynamically upon the original 1940 script. In fact, I never realized just what a superb character actor Mr. Wilson actually is, until given a chance to compare this performance, of Don Rafael Montero, with his part, for instance, as the equally though much less demandingly evil "ex" cop, Jack Travis, in Lethal Weapon III. As Captain James T. Kirk, from the Star Ship Enterprise, would have put it, he's definitely earned his pay for the week, along with other compensations just about as harrowingly reminiscent of the great Kodos; that is, next to an equally fine performance, of Captain Harrison Love, played by Matthew Letscher, whose own chivalrously ignoble sense of "honor" had also come to its most Divinely-Predestined End (Psalms 57:6), as seen through the eyes of its very own worst enemy.
And it's certainly no surprise to see the name of Steven Spielberg among the list of credits, for the same reason it would have been quite a surprise to me had just about anybody else been able to pull off this particular little stunt. However, don't misunderstand me here; for, although this version is one of the best remakes, of any film ever originally presented; it is still nothing but a cheaply modern imitation, along with its just as excellently well-crafted sequel, The Legend of Zorro, including a most charmingly talented young son, of the only real version, with Tyrone Power! Finally, to quote still another line from the film, which might as well have come directly from, again, the Final Anti-Type, the Seventh and Last Head, on the Image of the Beast, "The children should never have to see the things we do," after-all; and yet, to the contrary, he, as with any real "traitor to his own class," should be among the first to insist that the children not be spared even the most tastefully as well as meaningfully well-proportioned violence in this one! But, to be perfectly honest, I have very little hope here, for essentially the same reason--He'll Never Be Rid of Me!

A Christmas Carol (1938)
The Angst of Ebenezer Scrooge,
21 December 2006

For my part, the bitterness and cynicism of Scrooge is something much more genuine than all the self-righteously, judgmentally, venomously, "wholesomely sweet-smelling" hypocrisy which can't wait to get its hands on his money; in a way which makes even the merchants more honest, and which the image of Tiny Tim is prostituted for the purpose of obscuring most effectively. And they dare call Peter Lorre The Face Behind the Mask! I've had the lifelong displeasure of knowing their kind well, just as it was because of my formerly, vulnerably childlike innocence and trust, the kind they conned out of me, that they'd hated me even more, before the fact, and to the spoiling of my soul, than they do him in their compassionlessly backstabbing spite and envy. I've never encountered anybody, in religion, education, or anywhere else, conservatively or liberally, who cares at all about the "Business of Mankind," contrary to the therefore compoundingly, nauseatingly, brutally, mystifyingly self-deceptive endlessness of the infamy of their mere words! The most "inadvertently" redeeming ending to the Dickens story is the deeper reason that Scrooge had been judged worthy of a final chance at redemption!
If there's anything this typically "sweet-smelling" kind will turn on even more vindictively than one who tells them the most scornfully they don't really love a living thing, it's the person whose innocence awakens the Claggart in them, but less honestly or woundedly than even he'd ever had it in for Billy Budd! Claggart's too internally complex for them, but even a final product of his kind of handiwork as refreshingly uncomplicated as General Zod knows most of them better than they do themselves! In fact, I can just about understand, but with the most genuinely "laughable" of tears in my own eyes, why it was that even General Zod had soon begun to find these earth creatures so very boring! They're almost enough to make me wish I could trade my Father God for something as mutually exclusive as The Godfather, given how they love to mock the kind of anguish they have no capacity to feel, but only to inflict! Try asking Rock Hudson, from The Spiral Road, about that; although even his preacher of a father had been more inquisitionally, transparently sporting about showing his true colors, and his own already tragically destroyed sense of humanity! Ultimately, at any rate, Xmas doesn't at all bring Santa Claus up to the level of the Lord Jesus Christ, any more than the Easter Bunny shall ever be resurrected from the dead. Instead, it brings Jesus down to the level of Santa, and the Easter Bunny; that is, "at least" quite "subliminally" down to the level of myth, with its origins in nothing but old wives' tales, all woven into a fabric of paganly religious traditions which had their common origin in Babylon, prior to God's having divided the tongues, and scattered the inhabitants into separate tribes.
Thus, in case anyone believes the usual "merry countenance" is all I really have against Xmas, there's also the scripturally-compelling evidence that this uncoincidentally, anciently Pagan Winter Solstice could never have been Christ's birthday, any more than he could have died on a Friday. The only annual Holy Day biblically calculated to fall on the same day of the week, every year, is Pentecost!--Not the Passover! Indeed, if the Lord didn't die on a Wednesday, in the middle of the literal week, as well as of Daniel's Seventieth Week, just before sunset, then Christianity would have to be just as false as God's Word! So much for their outright lies. But these typically self-professing Christians can't even utter a single truth without turning it likewise into the most hatefully-bigoted kind of lie! That's why Spencer Tracy was so much more palatable than Fredric March as to have been capable of literally mopping the floor with him, in Inherit the Wind! On the contrary, though, speaking of "hobby horses," about the only real "scientific proof" Henry Drummond and his kind actually have for their half-baked theories, is the even more philosophically mediocre, presumptuously nimble-minded "conviction" that, because there cannot possibly be any God in the first place, it therefore simply "must" have happened in the only way there is left!
And, again, who can really blame even them, given the extent to which they're up against the most viciously anti-social Darwinists of all, those about as philosophically inconsistent as the "naturalists" who nevertheless speak of nothing but a "love" I've never been able to find in any of them, either! You can, for instance, behold the "Spirit of Xmas" in any shopping mall, with people walking about drooling over inanimate objects, while completely ignoring one-another, and even giving dirty, petrifying looks if you try to "suspiciously" acknowledge their presence, as the most worthless objects of all! They're right out of George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead!--Or, as Rodriguez (Brock Peters) said to Sol Nazerman (Rod Steiger), in The Pawnbroker, "Right in the middle of one big whorehouse, right in the bosom of the world!--Right in the middle of it, and you don't know it!--Or, maybe something else, maybe because you don't want to know! Are you the kind who doesn't want to know about things, feel about things, are you that kind?" Who says Satan never tells the truth! In fact, he tells much more of it than most "good" people could ever dream of comprehending, let-alone admitting, even and especially to themselves! One of his biggest lies is that he does nothing but lie, when one could only wish this were the only truth he's ever by nature uttered, in which case, of course, he wouldn't! The difference, here, however, between God and Satan, in addition to the fact that God inherently tells nothing but the truth (Titus 1:2) (Hebrews 6:18), is that Satan never by nature tells the truth, simply because it is the truth, either! Then, there's what a hired gunslinger, Vern Hickson (Robert Loggia), said to Victoria Barkley (Barbara Stanwyck), in an episode of The Big Valley, entitled The Profit and the Lost: "Bankers don't kill people? Everybody, everybody kills! And for the same reason--money! My way's more honest--that's all!" Or, to very closely paraphrase Damien (Yaphet Kotto), speaking, again, to the Great Lady Herself, from still another episode of The Big Valley, entitled The Buffalo Man: You're good at endlessly spouting all your camouflagingly idealistic words, about "Law" and "Justice," but they don't mean nothin'--nothin' at all!

The Last Mile (1959)
Mickey Rooney Gave a Superlatively Masterful Performance!,
24 December 2006

While the original 1932 version, with Preston Foster, was good, there's no remake more worthy than this 1959 one, or more impossible to find anywhere, just as I strongly suspect Mickey Rooney to have had something to do with that. Never could a mere performance have ever been so masterfully brilliant, or a script more thought-provoking, as well as an improvement upon the original. Many years after the last of my several viewings of this film, in 1970, I read an article in which Mickey Rooney was recounting a visit he'd made to death row, and which had apparently very drastically eliminated whatever sense of personal identification he'd felt with people in similar circumstances. The article was about as short as the main character here, and didn't cover much, other than the extent to which his extreme disillusionment with the quality of the inmates themselves had been emphasized, even in language I would not care to explicitly quote here.
One of my main problems with capital punishment is that, of course, it is not evenly, impartially applied, just as many innocent people are far-too-carelessly, thus unnecessarily sent to meet this particular fate. Check out, for instance, Alan Alda, as Caryl Chessman, in Kill Me If You Can, and the criminally contemptuous scorn of his far-too-typically "impartial" so-called "judge" in particular! Barbara Graham, played by Susan Hayward, in I Want to Live, also received the kind of "trial" which only helps hurl me into the arms of Rose Bird! Another problem I have with it is that it is not applied swiftly enough (rather than inordinately delayed, as a deliberate means of torture, as well as in the form of the most theatrically, formally "sanctifying" ritual!), or, for that matter, even publicly enough (murder, by nature, being no "antiseptically innocuous" affair, although the State virtually, "inadvertently" admits its perception of its own guilt, of being an accomplice to murder; just by "virtue" alone, if nothing else, of trying to "hide" as much, perhaps even and especially from itself)! The bible makes a special point, in such cases, about one of the more important purposes of such, as a deterrent, being ineffectually obscured, minus, not only a public viewing, but also the direct participation of all! As for those who claim to prove, statistically, that such is not an effective deterrent? In addition to having a problem about the reliability of their data, I have little if any objectively disprovable doubt many are behind bars now due to the extent that such a deterrent is lacking. However, I do have a problem about the fact that Robert Duvall, in The Apostle, had been punished at all, for his particular "crime," or that the only hope of leniency for one such as he would have to be based on a "temporary insanity" defense, as though that would serve as the only acceptable excuse in his kind of case.
In addition to various other questions concerning the motives of Mickey Rooney for that particular visit he'd recounted, and about the answers to which I can only try to speculate, I suspect the main one had been of a decidedly religious nature. I don't know exactly when he'd become the professing Christian he now makes it a special point, whenever possible, to emphasize that he is; but, as anybody should be well-aware, this particular category of people tends to be the most vehemently out for blood, when it comes to extracting an eye for an eye. However, I have no particular bone of contention concerning that, per se, just as there's no doubt, scripturally speaking, that not all, and perhaps not even most, shall be spared the same ultimate fate, at the hands of the Lord Himself, as a result of His sacrifice on the cross. However, there is a problem, for me, about the spirit or attitude with which most professing Christians emphasize their enthusiasm for capital punishment; for, contrary to the Lord Himself, who would love to see everybody saved (Ezekiel 18:32) (II Peter 3:9), they seem to go vindictively out of their way to find reasons to condemn!
What most people, on either side of this superlatively ever-burning issue, cannot appear to sufficiently appreciate, is that the Lord is as dynamically and elusively soft in nature as He is hard. The two sides of His nature appear to be so inherently incompatible as to render Him mentally deranged, at least by any strictly human reckoning. Yet, regardless of how harrowingly ungraspable this miraculously dynamic blending of the water and oil in His nature surely is, there can be no doubt that anything short of it, or anything fanatically and characteristically on either one side or the other of this equation, falls inadequately and unacceptably short of the entire judicial truth. Indeed, I've seen the most blood-curdling thirst for the same come out, self-contradictorily enough, on far-too-many occasions, whenever the categorically anti-death penalty advocates are confronted, even in the most rationally well-balanced ways, with the fact that, although the Lord died for everybody, not all are thereby going to be saved. After-all, in order to receive absolution, one must, to repeat the same term, reach out and receive it, that is, repent (Luke 13:3-5). Could anything make more sense?
But, then, what about the Lord's command to forgive, even in the case of one's enemies, of those who despise and persecute you without a just cause or provocation? One of the far-too-prevailing difficulties with this kind of sentimentality, as popularly misinterpreted, is the way it obscuringly over-simplifies the real meaning of forgiveness. The act of forgiveness does not, in itself, mean the same thing as unconditionally excusing the one being forgiven. When one takes a clearly sober, rationally well-balanced view here, from the perspective of God's own attitude, all it actually amounts to is a fervent wish that the one forgiven will ultimately succeed at finding his way, seeing the light, and being granted mercy. This attitude is, of course, the very opposite of, say, that of Jonah, who actually resented it when God told him that his preaching to the people of Nineveh would result in their repentance. Jonah didn't want them to repent, but vindictively desired that they be destroyed. How self-righteously, cold-bloodedly like unto most professing Christians he was, save that even his reasons were undoubtedly better than most! I envy Jonah almost as much as he would me! However, minus the repentance of the one being forgiven, any forgiveness he may receive from a genuine Christian is not going to do him any good. In such a case, the only one to benefit is the real Christian himself!
Finally, and, again, concerning Mickey Rooney himself, I don't surmise that Capital Punishment's having been "On Trial" in this film, at least "implicitly," and perhaps even "inadvertently," gets, per se, to the main essence of the problem I believe he'd finally decided he'd had with it. More clearly to the point, in this sense, is that the movie has a most penetrating way of putting Faith Itself on trial. At one point, early in the film, the Death Row priest, Father O'Connors (Frank Overton), is asking Mears for a chance to talk with him "about God, and about faith," after which Mears snaps back, by saying "I've got two lousy weeks left, and you're asking me to have faith? You'd be wasting your time! John Mears has got to see it in black and white! I'm not talkin' myself into nothin'! What kinda world is this that you believe in, anyway? Have you ever seen it? Has anybody ever seen it? It's easy for you to talk, because you're out there! You're not inside, waitin'! You're not afraid! You're not afraid!" After that, O'Connors calmly assures Mears that, were he inside, waiting, instead, he's certain he wouldn't be afraid. As O'Connors is walking away, Mears gives him a look I'll not soon forget, while his lower lip is uncontrollably trembling, and he's also about to drop dead, just from the sheer exhaustion of, as he also pointed out, not having slept for nights. Even Richard Walters (Clifford David), in cell four, next to Mears, is struggling with faith. Another prisoner says to Walters, "Just keep right on praying," to which Walters very passionately replies, "I'm prayin'! It's no use! I guess I'm not bein' heard!" Frankly, I have the strongest suspicion Mickey Rooney had felt those lines so deeply, that he wanted to flee away from them. The very lines which moved him, perhaps, to seek his faith, were the same ones he instinctively repudiated, in an effort to confirm that faith! But, in so fleeing, he was only very fearfully, disingenuously compromising the very faith which should rather have embraced them; instead of having also perhaps felt the false sense of guilt, as well as fear, in being at all associated with them; particularly given even the fact that he was ready to murder the priest, too, no less than anything else, as a symbolic expression of his contempt for the very concept of faith, in his determination to escape! Richard Walters, particularly, only helps to demonstrate, at the very end, what a strong testimony in favor of faith itself, rather than a repudiation, The Last Mile serves to represent! No less symbolically here, even a bit of rationally healthy suspicion, in the presence of the "absolute assurance" of a Roman Catholic priest such as Father O'Connors, is perhaps not entirely remiss!

Lethal Weapon (1987)
A Very Poetically Symbolic Message,
27 December 2006

Please consider this very symbolic remembrance of me, as it reflects the internal struggle I have been undergoing just as coarsely yet sensitively; including certain language I hope you need no more tastefully shun than embrace, despite my deepest apologies, even for some of what can be much-too-plainly seen as well. I'm also sorry it's so intricate-an-interweaving of just about everything to which I most essentially relate, and just about every image I've so thoroughly come to renounce; but perhaps not quite on time to avoid dying of cancer, almost as Fatalistically as I sometimes feel tempted to jump, if not indulge the most compulsively-evasive appetites!
It's as if the good guys, those only the god of this age really loves for what they are, but no more than to the point where even that remains so unavoidably expedient to his most tenderly domesticating sensibilities, were not any other than Mr. Joshua and The General. That is, contrary to the viciously, systematically slandered image of just about everything this god as dishonestly, shamefully despises, while insuring that it hates him back in a way which really does work, if only to prolong the dirty little secret that it's not crazy!
They're still denying it a more chivalrously sporting Shot at the Title, and have even quite carelessly written it off for dead, due to a zeal for being thorough which they mistakenly assume has penetrated to the very heart of the problem! They thereby defy a Force of Reason it need renew, every single day, in order to continue doing the only thing it's ever really been good at; over-against their need never to admit how accidentally neat they are at even wounding it in the leg, let-alone with such rhetorically mystifying impact?right between the eyes!
That is, just as far-too-many of their more intentionally fatal blows must be even more accurately yet lyingly listed by them as accidental, at least in the only way which can possibly matter at all; to those who quite conveniently pay no more real mind to the motive than to the deed, lest even by luck the worst kind of marksmanship does operationally manage to redeem. That is, while embodying a Reason of Force which often tells the truth, but never by nature because it is the truth; contrary to as explicitly-relentless-a-denial as necessary of this very truth, in the form of their most fundamentally, categorically misleading expedient.
How much more gracefully yet I'd love to be able to put my weapon permanently under the pillow, rather than needing a hollow point to do the job right; as one who never really expects to be home for Christmas, but only followed without mercy by one last reminder that the closing theme is all that remains, even of his dreams. If there are any real heroes left in the world, I'd sooner include even a future heroin dealer who got off anything but easily, before nominating any grandson of slaves with a concept of law which still can't even look a simple child in the eyes, with the kind of answer he needs about whom that law is really glad to shoot!
That is, a concept of law which intimidatingly flaunts its own vulgarly intoxicating duty to bypass, not only the most legitimately overriding sense of personal debt, but also nothing less than the First Principle of the Nuremberg Tribunals! Right? Or Wrong? Wrong! Right! And Right! But, this time, about as lightly as the Miranda concept is trivialized, as an opposing mirror image! That is, at least until Due Process is just as questionably exchanged, even for a general's time to die; just as it had only thus been for a family member, grounded under punitive asylum; as if these allegedly opposing images lacked an operationally identical point of origin, obscured by eternal contrasts made manifestly relevant only after the fact, minus any optional way to die.
That is, as well as contrary to their own insufferably paternalistic insistence that the lesser substance by nature leads to the greater, but with the same Bad Faith behind their raving that sellers would be impossible without buyers, until the truth is ironically taken hostage, against even the most consistently incoherent incentive not to know. Ordinarily, I'd have been much-too-negatively overwhelmed by the misleadingly pretentious duplicity of such a twistedly-discordant composite, were it not for the way even those more bitterly offensive elements had been Divinely grafted in; albeit with the aid of those who already have their reward, save for the very dismal fact that it has barely begun to be paid in full!
That is, as a reminder not to continue cursing our civilized heritage, even for let-alone through its grossest misinterpretations of just about every genuinely moral principle it even more self-indictingly knows so very well how to preach, and just as demandingly impose! But, rather, let us mourn for it, as it continues, right to the very Razor's Edge of every rapidly-narrowing Shade of Gray, to demonstrate that its is the kind of Superlatively Idealistic Imagery which needs be just as artistically, compellingly subdued; via a few jolts of shock therapy which cut so anorexically thin that one is almost doomed to say?Good Night!
Yes, right up to the closing cemetery scene, with its tenderly somber and solitarily meditative mood; which speaks so clearly of the love I'll always have for my own "Victoria Lynn," and of a metamorphosis which just may succeed at putting me again in touch with my deepest feelings. That is, contrary to an inner sense of emptiness which still projects only the illusion of her absence, as well as a very serious form of blindness which time cannot for very much longer afford to indulge?before even its Diplomatic Immunity is fatally revoked--and involving the real meaning, here and now, of Ezekiel 24:15-27!

Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)
All Men Are Created Equal In Value, If Not Abilities, or Privileges, Either Deserved or Otherwise!
27 December 2006

If there are any bigots out there who find something which you believe needs correcting, at least have the quotatably qualifiable "decency" to rub it in my face (Jeremiah 11:15-23). I do believe, however, albeit with less than a Uniquely "Papal" Breed of "Infallibility," that I have finally caught all such errors thus far. Quite relatedly, while you're cosmetically "lamenting," particularly in the mirror, that so many of your children aren't even learning how to read, can any of their supposed "teachers" as much as stimulate them to think at all?--For one fundamentally "patriotic" thing, about the "reason" a Negro slave had been "Constitutionally" (though "only parenthetically") counted as a mere "three-fifths" of a human being? How pathetically ironic, that the very Yankees who otherwise defined them as entirely human, at least by clear implication, didn't want them counted as human, for purposes of determining the number of slave-state members in the House of Representatives; while, to the contrary, the very slave-states who otherwise considered them no less entirely sub-human, suddenly, and very conveniently, wanted them to be counted as entirely human! Indeed, no less symbolically, it was the south which won, by an edge of one-fifth!
Of course, short of a more "perfect" solution, at least it can be said, for one thing, that the voting had a great deal to do with determining the rates of taxation, for each individual so counted; even were the price, of having a greater number of votes, to have been a correspondingly greater burden, in the form of the quantity of heads to be counted, for purposes of taxation. A greater irony here, to be sure, is that the south won the vote, again, by a symbolic edge of one-fifth, of the individual human soul; when, independently of any question as to whether universal suffrage ought, in fact, to be truly universal, it is at least more consistent, after all, not to count, for purposes of representation, those who are not permitted to vote! Even more, it would make every bit of the greater sense, here, not only to totally discount the blacks, for the purpose of determining representation; but, correspondingly, to count them, at least as five-fifths human, and probably, in the name of a truly proportionate breakdown, as much more, individually, even than that (since we are, again, after all, speaking, here, about mere property, rather than people!), for purposes of taxation. It seems a much more appropriate Symbol of America would have been, not the eagle, but, rather--the vulture; for much the same reason that the relevance of reparations, today, dares remain a "controversial" issue at all!
Roughly a century, subsequent to "Emancipation," and, correspondingly, the most ungratefully disappointing generation of blacks to date (at least to the extent that they're tokenly, complacently, philistinistically no less fat-in-the-belly than the average rich, white bourgeois parasite; in the very kind of manner King himself, along with Kunta Kinte, would have considered a worse nightmare than the very one both had been opposing, but also quite inadvertently paving the way for); not only was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., one of the most wisely gifted interpreters of Scripture, but it is also the case that his message, as God's messenger, had been, at least hitherto, murdered, along with him. I'm not even saying that his real murderers be brought to Justice, at least not in this world; or at least not any more than King David had been, by God Himself, for murdering a most faithfully-innocent and loyal servant, Uriah, just to steal his wife! Not only do these kinds of kings have uniquely unchallengeable powers, in this world; but, even more, Dr. King's real murderers may really have believed they were doing the best thing for their country, and for reasons which can be very persuasively though ultimately as unsoundly as nevertheless forgivably defended.
I, as a United States Citizen, by birth, am willing to see all such participants, who were and are directly "in the loop," totally pardoned, under United States Law; just as, for that matter, I would gladly volunteer to defend them, in court, probably much better than they could themselves! This offer of defense, on their behalf, for virtually everything illegal which they nevertheless may sincerely have deemed necessary to America's national security; extends likewise to one man in particular, a law enforcement officer who is no longer alive to defend himself, but whom I am certain Dr. King himself would have forgiven. But, please, do not oversimplifyingly, sentimentally misunderstand me, in this particular regard: I speak of forgiveness, at least from my heart; merely despite the fact that it comes so hard, from one who nevertheless considers you perhaps the most despicable tribe of creatures imaginable (Ezekiel 3:24-27)!--Including, of course, even most "Liberally Democratic Humanitarians," who, like unto most of their "Christianly Conservative" counterparts, or "opponents," are hardly in any real position to be throwing stones, anyway!
However, the kind of "benefit of the doubt," as to their intentions as well as accomplishments, which I have it in mind and heart to see them extended, even in the country which formally grants them the least conceivable right of any, in the entire history of civilization, to take the illegal liberties they did as leaders; should be offered, nevertheless, only on the condition that they come clean with the truth, and submit their explanations, hopefully as persuasively, to even the American People who currently know the truth here, and thus blame them the most, as I would understandingly and forgivingly feel thus persuaded. The decisively symbolic crime, of Dr. King's hitherto unrequited murder, is causatively and symbolically related to the attacks against America now; and God is not going to spare this nation, while the truth continues to be denied, denied, denied! Please, if you are one of those who currently hate me for my stance, even in the very country where all theoretically declare that "I might not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it," consider the millions of American lives alone you can yet perhaps persuade God to spare, as well as being legally pardoned yourselves, at least in this world; by finally coming clean with the truth, and asking God, as well as the American people, even the entire world, for forgiveness.
As of now, God's relatively tame warning is apparently going unheeded, even by virtually all the "churches," which are deriving the totally opposite message from what God had intended. Therefore, even though nobody knows either the day or the hour, despite the imminency of the signs of the times, it's only a question of how much longer your current American "leadership" (for which I am likewise praying, despite all your sneering against my "real" motives here, as well as against an inner pain you only yet have to learn outwardly about how severely you have caused it inwardly, to those relatively few who can so feel) will require, in order to prove to most of you how "effective" their "bombs" really are. The Children of the Bondwoman shall have to decimate--how many major American cities?--Before even your "ministers" begin sending for me! You may be still laughing at these warnings. However, when you have finally realized I am no longer that "funny," or "entertaining," rather than seriously informative; then the wrong reaction, on your part, to that change of "mood" in particular, will only serve to hasten the last thing you only "think" you ever want to experience! Of course, in answer to those who do find me "merely entertaining," particularly in my anguish, thanks to their kind: Such creatures shall inevitably discover just how very expensive-an-entertainer I really am! Indeed, if I still had any hair left to speak of, I'd be tempted to dye it green!--Particularly since, after-all, even Dean Stockwell's had failed to grow back the same color, contrary to what he'd at least originally anticipated!--Or, even as Michael Douglas also so movingly expressed it, in an abrupt "about-face," upon having "caught himself," just before exiting the podium, "How do you declare war against your own family--your own children?"

Lethal Weapon 3 (1992)
Shot for Sport, as Prey, While Jaywalking?,
28 December 2006

While things do have ways of becoming complicated, all by themselves; there's still just enough thought, quite systematically though collusively embodying them, to where the prospect of things becoming uncomplicated, all by themselves, would never be permitted, by any statistically viable measure of effort; save to the extent of such being the only possible solution, or at least the only one potentially required, in its capacity to insure that every vital truth is just as fatally shot in the back! That is, to the virtually categorical exclusion of just as individually and intelligently-systematic-an-attempt to successfully as well as deliberately and even quite forcefully untangle all this sinisterly-underhanded intrigue; with nothing, one could only wish, but the most effective of ex-cop killers, at least in terms of the kind of armor which really needs be officially pierced; while targeting about the only real threat to, just for openers, Second Amendment Rights, in particular, which the NRA would be the very last to confront.
Riggs was an extremely slick act, even to those without the eyes to see completely through the loop of such a vitally indispensable parable. Yet, perhaps only because I'm still a lover of Mad Magazine, as well as the only kind of required reading in which I could never really believe; I wish he'd grow back that beautiful mane, despite even the extent to which we'd both love to be able to bypass the Mayhem and Chaos of the past fifty years alone, not to mention various other things which dare no less unjustifiably clash with the most uniformly rank-and-file blues. I do hope it's not merely a false assumption that he is more than the most typically modern kind of Thespian, contrary to the abject probability of an alter-ego whose Greek even most Classically sneaks up from behind; so as to project the mere appearance of a Pathos bordering on the very Razor's Edge of self-absorption, within a Continuum of Being involving nothing but Involvement, and its redeemingly-transfiguring embodiment of even the most otherwise "merely professional" forms of detachment as well.
As a Christian, of course, I'd have no official authorization to follow the lead of the NRA, assuming it is even consciously let-alone explicitly aware of the implication that its guns would be of any use against the very Institutionalization which so systematically threatens, should I rather say, last, and even least of all, the Second Amendment; even given that the only other conceivable alternative, a reinstatement of even the Second Amendment, on the basis of Due Process, is the most hopelessly futile as well as sanely-reliable alternative. As an American, though, minus any scripturally-prohibitive restraints (which, again, is certainly not the case), I'd be duty-bound, by our very Constitutional Philosophy, to act in the only way left, according to It, upon how systematically I've been denied Official Redress of so many of my more seriously intolerable grievances. But, then, thank God I'm not an American first, particularly given her own logically non-sequitur inversion, when carefully examined, of the real meaning of Separation of Church and State.
The "trial" of Marcellus Gallio (Richard Burton), with Caligula (Jay Robinson) presiding, at the end of The Robe, is more than adequate to help make my meaning here clear; at least for anyone, if anyone, with even the brains, let-alone the will, to distill it! That is, coupled with the kind of Class Warfare, between those relative few for whom society exists, and those many by means of whom it exists, which reduces the NRA to the most tactically-misleading kind of Ornament, along with Emmanuel Goldstein and the so-called "liberally" American institutions, at the other end of this collusively well-coordinated panorama of "equally represented" images. Ordinarily, it would be a real dilemma, particularly for a real Christian, over-against the typically professing ones, who compel me to much more meticulously define what I mean, lest I be confused with them, almost as much to their consternation as to that of my own!
That is, to decide which constitutes the real law of the land; either the de facto law, the kind only brute force could ever challenge the equally brutal enforcement of, if necessary; or, the very Constitutionally abstract codes, over-against the many layers of which this de facto law at least theoretically should be measured; assuming it is possible to overcome the most endlessly rhetorical debates, in favor of anything more than just as arbitrarily-rhetorical-a-consensus as to the difference, in any particular kind of case. But then, again, it's only in a purely hypothetical sense, at least for purposes of action rather than definition, that such an issue concerns me at all, even as an American; as one, that is, who is duty-bound not to react, in any violently opposing way, to any facet of the de facto law; regardless of how illegal, by any real Constitutional definition, it may happen to be, or may not merely happen to be; as opposed to how even the Riggs in me would sometimes just-as-soon opt to handle the problem, that is, on any normal day! . . . Part II, in Lethal Weapon IV

Lethal Weapon 4 (1998)
Is it Really a Freedom of, or From, the Law?,
3 January 2007

In fact, that choice of movie directors, from the previous segment, who needed the Moe Howard treatment, and a few corresponding lessons, in the most uncommonly respectful, humanly-dignifying of manners, minus an army of conveniently available cops, to rescue him from the more evenly, immediately, and constructively chivalrous consequences of an insolence only characteristic of the most deliberately, systematically, victimizingly ill-cultivated swine, even with relation to still other, equally, and solely, by nature, self-defining projections of the same, until he finally saw the light; had been about as cleverly, symbolically "subtle," in its clearest implications, as, for instance, a never-seen look-alike, of Amanda Bearse, from right out of Fright Night; although even the nature of the error which provoked his, over-against the "more understandably defensive" indignance of his reaction, rests upon the flimsiest, most conveniently, sinisterly obscuring foundation, of one who, for his part, is merely acting, at acting, at not acting, to the overshadowing of a more urgently real and dangerously neglected problem, involving, to speak almost as obscuringly as synonymously, those who prove even more convincing, when it comes to the practice of not acting, at, one could only wish, the even finer art of merely acting.
Either way, though, Riggs remained just as impulsively, even innocently, refreshingly true-to-form, in his target, as well as method, when it came to upholding his image, or what was at least still salvageably left of it, even to behold at all, as had the vampire, referenced immediately above, with, by then, his own even more irresistibly compelling lack of choice; although one can only wonder why, for instance, Clint Eastwood had failed to be nearly as astutely on-cue, when, in The Gauntlet, his already so dangerously faltering intuition, on several almost terminally reckless occasions, had begun manifesting itself in the terminology of a preacher, with his answer, to Sondra Locke, about taking certain things on faith, rather than in the form of even a most dire warning, as to the kinds of answers which can only be acquired the Hard Way; but, merely assuming, of course, against all the real odds in the world, that they had made it nearly as far as city hall, let-alone actually prevailed, even then, out of the jaws of a legal system so "efficiently" infested with a predominance of henchmen who are paid, as Blakelock said, not to think, but only to "react," to what is "right," simply because it is the law, minus any neatly-quantifiable concept of the only real law being that which is already so "debatably" and, thus alone, "insolubly" right.
Contrarily, though, given the inherent need of interpreting even the most clearly unambiguous kind of language, for content as well as applicability, rather than leaving even the latter to be determined only by the most Pontifically Infallible kind of authority; even an Adlerian Slip or two, which Murtaugh employed, for the purpose of laying down the nature of the law, to Leo Getz, is about the only kind of "improvement" to be otherwise so indispensably, even urgently expected, perhaps even more often than not, even on a totally freelance basis; as well as being so harrowingly reminiscent, in intent as well as quality, of Broderick Crawford, to Stephen Boyd, in The Oscar, or Brian Dennehy, to Sylvester Stallone, in First Blood, or even the Honorable Henry T. Fleming, to Arthur Kirkland, in And Justice for All, as to almost have necessitated the greater desirability of even a reprisal of Joe Pesci's characterization, from Goodfellas! Moreover, were it not for the fact that, as an ambassador (II Corinthians 5:20) (Ephesians 6:20), minus any "Diplomatic Immunity," my formal mandate authorizes nothing more than the attempt to peacefully, rationally persuade; I'd have been preparing a sequel, to The Patriot, single-handedly, if necessary, by now; over the issue, just for openers, of Tea, and Taxes, again!
Jet Li, unfortunately, had been far-too-correct, as well, in his understanding as to the real nature of the law; along with his frighteningly superlative proficiency at the kinds of skills intended to help Riggs save a bit more face, the kind he'd also so cleverly salvaged while exiting ringside; just in case, that is, of any possible errors in judgment, from his audience, that he'd actually regarded himself as the greatest master of all; over-against even a much more seriously sadistic streak, too, which just about rendered even his own almost as genuinely unamusing, especially to him, as well as to the department psychologist, not to mention Murtaugh, as an actual trip to Uranus (or should I say Neptune?) could also very easily have been! Also, had it been me, rather than Leo, who'd been the victim, of one-too-many pranks, such as that mean-spirited set-up, subsequent to all the unprovoked bad-mouthing and belittlement, at a certain traffic stop, even after the times I'd already been impulsively thrown to the ground, face down, for no good reason, with cocked guns aimed at the back of my neck; I might have been almost tempted to remember the words, of Glycon, to Demetrius, in the sequel to The Robe, when he said, "Forget your religion, for just one day . . . Your God will thank you for it!" In fact, that pipsqueak, in the back seat, really needed a Jocko DeParis, The Strange One, to have dispensed with him; before far-too-many, of the likes of both, even on this side of the Rubicon, had undoubtedly ever graduated from the academy! But, then, if six long years of such, even at the university, followed by the related drowning, of my Natalie Wood, from Splendor in the Grass, had not decisively broken me down, I've therefore already long proved myself to be among the safest prospects of all! But I'd better stop now, as I'm getting a bit too "misty!" Nice guys still finish last, but Payback is going to be a real bear, while not a bone of His Body was broken (John 19:36)!

Getting Straight (1970)
It Doesn't Work!,
11 January 2007

We had our ideals as well, until a most institutionally, unassailably beastial atmosphere of corruption had so gladly helped to harden them into an angst which eventually left barely anything more in my own leading lady than still another version of Kim Stanley, at the end of Paddy Chayefsky's The Goddess, right next to my own real-life version of Steven Hill. There had also been an intervening version of Lloyd Bridges, to help complete the analogy of that particular script; but minus any part of her left behind for me to cherish, which made it more like something out of Jane Eyre. The major difference, from Jane Eyre, was that mine had arrived more at the beginning, but with nobody to replace her at the very end.
Or, on second consideration, to speak quite forgetfully (I could only wish!), there had been someone; in fact, who had been waiting, right there at the coffin! It required me an incredibly lengthy three years to decide I'd finally had enough, although she'd demanded an additional six, to the almost terminal detriment of my soul! I'm referring to Mercedes McCambridge, from right out of The Exorcist; or, to speak most synonymously, she followed my Angel Baby, in a reversal of that original script. A strong dose of Norman Mailer's An American Dream must not be overlooked, either; just as the one "replaced" had derived scarcely any emotional consolation that we'd both known my real-life Dominique Francon, from Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, turned out not to have been fit even to lick her feet. About all that's left of me, by now, is Henry Hull; although he, especially, would have gone out chanting, despite his terminal disillusionment, that such is an incalculably far cry better than the typical dislikes of Kent Smith!
We were both Liberal Arts majors, and that served to provide an overwhelmingly incredible array of strictly academic amusements; which occasionally resulted in the most rudely appropriate outbursts of uncontrollable laughter, right in the middle of the lectures. More specifically, it was a very culturally well-endowed exchange student, Inga, from Russia, whose temperament precluded any seriously self-brutalizing attempts to suppress this kind of flamboyance. Those lectures might have been somewhat useful, had their mouthpieces been the least bit intellectually let-alone morally or artistically qualified to do justice to their subjects. Even now, over twenty years later, I still wince, while reminiscing on the mechanically sterile tones alone, abrasively assaulting my most conscientiously vulnerable sensibilities. I wish there were space enough here to catalogue the long list of imbecilic one-liners alone which accompanied their coldly-petrifying glances, along with so much endlessly malicious gossip which totally destroyed my ability to function!.
But she died, twelve years later, as agonizingly nondescript as I, never having succumbed to their numerous attempts even to bribe her away from me, with promises of the most professionally lifelong security, but only in exchange for her willingness, in return, to do--anything! It's unfortunate I'd neglected to study just enough chemistry to have paid some of them a visit, in the form of Buddy Love; especially for the purpose of viewing such a moving performance of Shakespeare, from Dr. Warfield himself!--Or, in the case of Getting Straight, from the likes of Leonard Stone--instead! My favorite scene, however, shall always be of a flashback, likewise performed by The Master, Jerry Lewis, along with Ina Balin, from The Patsy, which most find just as murderously laughable as all the other typically-insufferable non-entities in that scene. I'm only sorry my alma mater hadn't also been Carrie's, for I wouldn't have wanted to miss that particular prom, even in high school; although nobody else there would have been fit even for Eddie Murphy to escort, rather than the likes of Spencer Tracy himself! As much as Ingrid Bergman puts most of them to shame, even she needed his help, too; despite how costly it turned out to be, almost beyond even the extent of that for which she had so very "inadvertently" bargained!
About the only one upon whom I'd bet my money, that she'd be successful at giving even him the hardest run of his, is Murphy Brown herself! As hard as she tries, and she could never try hard enough, since it's not really even in her at all; it's still impossible for me not to like her immensely, despite the extent to which I can only experience this to be, nevertheless, a most painfully agonizing form of confession! Yet, even she doesn't hold a candle, next to Jackie Benson, played by Patricia Crowley; who stood up so very well, even over-against one of the slickest devils of them all, Mr. Smith, as played by the great Burgess Meredith; in an original, hour-long episode of The Twilight Zone, entitled "Printer's Devil!" One could only wish Eve herself had been so intuitively diligent, as well as decisively less susceptible to the same ambitious temptations which so "inadvertently" lured her. Yet, it probably wouldn't have made any difference, in that case, either; had that original manifestation of Satan been in the form of Miss Devlin, as played by Julie Newmar, in still another hour-long Twilight Zone episode entitled "Of Late I Think of Cliffordville!"
More seriously, though, while the Devil may not be a woman, he did appear to have specialized in teaching her just about everything he knows! And that's quite a trick indeed, for the greatest personal paradox (of a-priori miscalculation as well, on the most profoundly, crucially elementary level!) of all time (Psalm 52) (Ezekiel 28), next only to The Very One who ever ordained that he was worth even an instant of anybody else's (I only wish I could say virtually everybody else's, but that would be so grossly inaccurate!) most genuinely unwelcome time and trouble (to the extent that I could just about pray, on behalf of most as well, along with Lionel Barrymore, from Key Largo, "Take all of us, if necessary, but--destroy him!"). For that matter, even Walter Huston, in The Devil and Daniel Webster, wasn't "quite so bad," either; although, were most to wake up, one fine morning, and find Mr. Pip (Sebastian Cabot), from Serling's "A Nice Place to Visit," standing over them, with a big handful of money to offer, along with just about anything else for which they would never have "knowingly" bargained; I doubt they'd ever stop to ponder the question of exactly which place they'd finally entered, any more than do far-too-many, right here and now, who have absolutely no doubt whatsoever they must have already long arrived!

Requiem for a Heavyweight (1962)
The Art of Boxing,
11 January 2007

Although Mountain Rivera ties, with Mike Benson (Nick Adams), from an original episode of The Outer Limits, entitled Fun and Games, along with Joe Smith (James Edwards), from an original episode of The Fugitive, entitled Decision In the Ring, at being only my second favorite prizefighter (or, actually, the third, if one counts Jack Palance), only a viewing of my expanded layout shall reveal the answer as to who my number one is. But, as I also reiterate there, the difference is so very razor-thin only for the sake of those who no less meaninglessly than pedantically glory at splitting hairs, for essentially the same lack of any overwhelmingly factual reason there can only be a single winner, in any given category, during the Academy Awards. When viewed in such a symbolically endemic light, one cannot but regard boxing as being perhaps the most honest of all the professions, save perhaps for the gloves, in a manner which particularly the greater multitudes of its spectators are not even artistically discerning enough to savour. Moreover, here's a belatedly sour note, for all those who insist upon a single winner: Lest I turn in my resignation to myself, as any kind of competent evaluator of such things, I must, more technically, declare it a virtual draw, for the number one slot, between the two whose brothers were both just as superbly performed by Arthur Kennedy! In fact, since, as Stalin (Robert Duvall) once observed, to two of his closest comrades, a stool cannot stand on two legs, but is stronger at its center than a table of four; perhaps I am stuck with a single choice, after-all, that of "arbitrarily" moving still another, whom I'll leave to be searched out elsewhere instead, into the number one slot as well.
An unusually rare yet elementary level of perception is required, to avoid falling for such a pious fraud as Rocky Balboa, the Italian Stallion, despite the vast extent to which even I had initially been moved by the aura of his innocence. Such opponents as Apollo Creed and Clubber Lang most coherently understood, speaking about the real "Eye of the Tiger," that there's scarcely any such thing as a "nice, friendly round!" It's only in training that anything approximating the isometric principle even at all instrumentally applies, but about as precariously as the shifting winds of circumstance. That's why, contrary to something I'd read about Stallone, my favorite, from between the two, is Rambo, rather than Rocky; but only in the first segment (where I really started liking that soldier--a lot!), while Rocky ended, for me, in the third installment, just about as Fatalistically as it had for Mickey Goldmill! In fact, how hypocritically, callously presumptuous, even of Apollo, to have so soon forgotten the kind of sense which needed to be beaten into him; even though he'd still failed to learn, nearly well enough at that, to avoid just as senselessly paying with his life! Moreover, what form of denial could ever have been more disingenuous, than the kind which demonized Clubber, due to an honest win; coupled with an even more questionable attempt to "sanctify" the selfsame denial, by "proving" it "right" during the second bout, not to mention at the very end of part four!
In fact, Stallone's Cliffhanger got a truly raw deal at the box office; undoubtedly, for that matter, insofar as it had been much-too-deep, rather than high, to avoid being at least as insufferably bone-chilling to most! Aside from the impossibly daring acrobatics involved, it was a movingly-portrayed example of the kind of painfully, tragically spiraling road to which particularly if not exclusively the deepest, most meaningful kinds of friendships are characteristically susceptible; and how they virtually by nature end up being, as Nietzsche would have said, even stronger, for having endured the most excruciating kinds of trials; first, those which served to inflict the most hopelessly-unhealable kind of breach, followed by those which very cathartically yielded precisely the opposite effect. And, as any coherently-thinking person knows, on either side, there's no turning back, or underestimating even a real pig "philosopher's" appreciation of the most self-sacrificial kind of love! A more popularly as well as "optimally well-balanced" example of the latter can be encountered in Lentulus Batiatus (Peter Ustinov), when he said to the Mighty Crassus, in Spartacus, "If you want something from me, I would be lacking in respect for my own conscience if I did not say I wish something from you." Yet, even such expressions of "patriotism" potentially have no limits, as when Anthony Quinn's Barabbas said, at his trial, to Pontius Pilate (Arthur Kennedy), just before he was found guilty, anyway, basically the same thing Eric Qualen (John Lithgow) uttered, in Cliffhanger: "Kill a few people, they call you a murderer; kill a million, and you're a conqueror. Go figure." Even more "viably unproblematic," depending upon one's perspective, would be the kind of "love" exhibited by Peter Craig (Joe Maross), in Serling's "The Little People," or by little Anthony Freemont (Billy Mumy), in Serling's "It's a Good Life," or even by the Kanamits, in Serling's "To Serve man!" Moreover, the fallacy, that virtually any "Civilized Christian" at all is trying in the least to do any better, from beneath even the most "wholesomely" domesticated facade, is, itself, so intolerably monstrous as to invoke a line, at the end of Serling's "Black Leather Jackets," to the effect that "humanity" itself simply "isn't worth it!" In either case, however, "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street!"
And, speaking of real artists, once again (or, rather, for the very first time, unless only my number one favorite is counted here, along with Mike Benson and Joe Smith), it required a connoisseur of Rod Serling's own supremely superlative stature to understand, in a manner even Mountain Rivera had remained too romantically punch-drunk to grasp, what the sport of boxing really does entail (as also very cogently depicted in a little Night Gallery segment, minus any dialogue); especially for a real-life champ who has therefore alone managed to retain the Unchallenged Title of his name change, and corresponding conversion to Islam, even despite the further handicap of an inalterable pigment in his skin. Malcolm X, to cite but one equally, symbolically showcasable illustration here, hadn't been quite so enthusiastically, ever-popularly celebrated at all! But this current sentence, and all the following, to the very end of this paragraph, really ought to be dated, as they are appearing so much later than any of the others. Since I've already filled in my number one slot, I have no higher one but zero. But even number one can take a hike, let-alone all the others; for my real favorite is Bolie Jackson, played by Ivan Dixon, in Serling's "A Big Tall Wish!" I simply forgot--that's all! Or, perhaps, what I was really so afraid of that I couldn't even see it, any more than I can bear to look at it now, is that, like Bolie, I'm just getting--too old--and tired! Like Gart Williams (James Daly), I'm so Fatalistically Disillusioned with all this "push and drive," and the ravenously insatiable "appetites" which continue to animate it, as to be about as ready, by now, for "A Stop at Willoughby!"--Just as James, my brother, is not alone, in having come so very close, years ago, to making it, along with Stallone, entirely Over the Top--big rig and all!
What Serling undoubtedly lamented, all the way back to The Twilight Zone, about the hopelessly-ineradicable nature of this sport, shall perhaps yet quite terminally prove to have been symbolic of America's greatest weakness, once all her corresponding strength has been totally milked to the bone, for all it's worth. This could be particularly the case, given the kinds of fights she goes so enthusiastically to engage, particularly with the gloves so very "civilizedly," self-handicappingly donned, let-alone if they ever come off, in the form of nuclear devices which totally self-defeat their only potentially useful purpose, precisely to the extent that they have to be used at all! But, then, as long as this continues to be a plutocracy, governed by nothing but politicians and voters who merely want to win, regardless of the truth, and regardless of justice, as Al Pacino said, at the end of And Justice for All, I find very little reason to hope. How different it could have been, had there only been more to as worthily, gratefully fill the shoes of a noble pioneer such as Christian Horn (Cliff Robertson), in Serling's "A Hundred Yards Over the Rim." But then, even "The Passersby," along with the "last casualty" of the Civil War, have been totally forgotten, in the most dishonoring way of all, in everything but name also! Just a flimsy, superficial veneer of "civilization" currently succeeds, even at quite "believably" repressing every real instinct which longs to come forth, under circumstances as "conveniently" accommodatable as those in Serling's "I Shot an Arrow Into the Air!" Even "The Brain Center at Whipple's" is pulling up stakes, and cynically moving to China, leaving callously in the lurch even those thousands of employees who'd just as polarizingly, lopsidedly refused to learn anything at all from Karl Marx! As for the many who are still at least fortunate enough to have jobs? Unlike Hector B. Poole (Dick York), I wouldn't even consider paying "A Penny for Your Thoughts!" About all that yet remains is that Final Cry, so imminently on the horizon, entitled "I Am the Night--Color Me Black," now that we're already "Third From the Sun!" Perhaps the next scene shall be a dog-fight to dominate "The Shelter," if only due to a "false alarm" which brings out the "very best" in most; followed by "The Old Man In the Cave," if any are fortunate enough to find him, let-alone wise enough thereafter to heed.
Even Serling himself tried, at times, to be too "politically correct," for instance, in an episode of The Twilight Zone entitled "The Mirror," where, to use one of the favorite terms of President Ramos Clemente (Peter Falk), the writer himself turned out to have been the real chameleon, for all the good it ended up doing him, even in Hollywood! Similarly, certain more well-balancing "revisions" could have been offered, say, of "Judgment Night" or "The Jeopardy Room," although "He's Alive" is already somewhat "inadvertently" revealing enough. Indeed, it might not have cost him any more, in the end, had he even been inclined to muster up the incentive, let-alone the nerve, to do a real version of "Deaths-Head Revisited," featuring the real Allied sponsors of those such as Lutze (Oscar Beregi) and his gang! As for me, "One More Pallbearer," such as Paul Radin (Joseph Wiseman), is not too compromising, considering certain "necessary" inaccuracies in the analogy which serve to compliment me, anyway, in conjunction with the thoroughly unsavory, transparently theatrical disingenuousness of the characters Serling had seen fit to heroize at his expense; just as, for that matter, McNulty (Richard Erdman), in "Some Kind of a Stopwatch," was actually about the only participant, in that particular episode, whom I found to have been humanly palatable at all. "Civilization" has truly come a long way, quite "Christianly," Effeminately down, from the "good ole days," when the average, Explicitly Pagan Roman at least much more self-consistently, and no less clear-mindedly, not to mention courageously, manifested no "moral compunction" whatsoever about attending the Circus Maximus, and sporting events which make today's bouts look like nothing but country square dances by way of contrast (Revelation 3:15-17)! Moreover, speaking of the Real World, as distinct from the kind of "Christian" Fantasyland so many continue to presumptuously, self-righteously, even victimizingly take for granted; while butchering, in the process, the more Dynamically, Tragically Paradoxical nature, even of Truth Itself, in a way which shall yield many unexpected surprises, on Judgment Day: Let's not forget cowboy Joe Caswell (Albert Salmi), in the Serling episode entitled "Execution!" I can't exactly classify him as a hero, but he certainly had something to say I can safely bet I'll never hear from another "Christian," even if given a thousand years to wait!
Hell, even King Arthur's more "Christian" Knights of the Round Table had greater moxie than even today's most characteristically murderous football superstars; let-alone an incalculably more noble "animal" yet, such as Spartacus, when he'd finally been pushed quite unendurably over the line; or even Preston Foster, from The Last Days of Pompeii, let-alone Demetrius and Glycon, who even "danced" so much more prolifically and theatrically together; although Richard Egan as well, no doubt, would have had a much more hearty laugh, today, even than he did from a real Christian warrior who quite "misleadingly" had only one other cheek to turn; but who proved, thereafter, right alongside Anthony Quinn's Barabbas as well, to have been "somewhat" less "amusingly" true-to-form, in the correspondingly so very much more tremblingly unsteady view--of that mad-hatter, Jack Palance, too, as well as a no less cynically, brutally, sadistically wise-cracking "friend" such as Charles "Marcellus" McGraw! But Lee Marvin, in Serling's episode of "Steel," is quite another matter entirely, even by way of the most anciently impressive of standards; just as, to be sure, his performance, in The Dirty Dozen, was no less a masterpiece of the greatest refinement in style! But my own more favorite paragon, even than he, of even the kind of inspiringly moving "insubordination" from which an entire "civilization" could profit, is The Mighty Casey himself; although about as gratifying, at least immediately if not ultimately, is that slap, delivered to Mr. Whipple's face, by his foreman, with the back of his hand, and accompanied by the following: "That's for your insensitivity, your lack of compassion!"

Let No Man Write My Epitaph (1960)
Any Real Lawyer Must Have an Office!,
15 January 2007

Like Burl Ives, who was scornfully, belittlingly laughed out of "court," because he didn't "have an office," even though his defense of his client had been as genuinely eloquent as would have put most soberly licensed counsellors to shame; so, likewise, did I learn, even from my alma mater, through a similar experience with the campus attorney (another pipsqueak, cut out of the same cloth as that "therapist," who couldn't answer Jack Nicholson's remark about the "dirty laundry," in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest!), that nobody has any Civil Rights, at least not because that's what they're supposed to be. Whenever anyone is deliberately, cynically denied Due Process, particularly subsequent to years of useless Petitions; then even those who seem to have such rights, especially while sneering contemptuously at those of others, are enjoying them merely by accident, rather than based on principle!--Or, as one prominent enthusiast had expressed it, during the previous impeachment hearings, "Two standards of justice equal no standard of justice!"
No, I wasn't even drunk, so they hadn't that to use, as a conveniently mean-spirited excuse, another ad hominem, simply and impurely! Next to the fact that they'd cheated me, simply because they could, in the instance of a victim they'd gleefully known would have nobody to defend him, even from them, the "problem" was that I'd simply been "weird!" Just ask any of them, the "attorney" to whom I'd gone for help, or those from whom I'd needed his protection; but whom he'd rather called on the phone, in an "impartial" determination to sweep the problem under the carpet, entirely for their sakes. Try asking any of them what they mean by "weird," and their most "intelligent" answer, atop all the murderously malicious slander, would be "Well, you know--weird!" In "minds" such as these, even the structurally indispensable principle of self-evident truth, upon which alone even Aristotle reminds us that anything more discursively demonstrable can by nature be built, is abusively turned into the most dangerously self-discrediting kind of lie!
It's been over twenty years, and I'm still being maliciously, philistinistically ridiculed, by everyone I attempt to inform about the nature of all this; while they continue running a public, tax-supported institution of higher learning as though it belonged personally to them, governed by nothing but their whims. I'd had about the same proverbial ghost of a chance, even while having broken none of their laws (and also while having been threatened, just for "daring" to file a report!), as Ella Fitzgerald would have enjoyed, in any attempt to argue that her heroin injections should not be considered any more illegal than Burl's right to purchase another bottle. Unlike a similar "criminal," such as Cameron Mitchell, as the great war hero, Barney Ross, in Monkey on My Back, who'd been permitted massive doses of morphine, but only to stop the pain of his war wounds, then "legally," mercilessly thrown to a dog like Paul Richards; Ella's problem had been that such was simply her means of coping, with too much soul, in a totally soulless environment.
In an intimately-interrelated vein, already touched upon, by way of "implication," above, I totally concur with the great Humphrey Bogart; in tender memory of my own dear, sweet father (another of whose favorites was the frolickingly inebriated Dean Martin, whom he particularly liked, on a more serious note, in Rio Bravo, just as I must grudgingly confess to having enjoyed even "The Duke" as much as he did!), too, as well as his favorite philosopher, the Immortal--Omar Khayyam! So much for anybody who either "doesn't drink," or else frustratedly, mindlessly, scapegoatingly, over-generalizingly, venomously salivates to hang, from the nearest tree, not merely the many-too-many (and I'm not even including all drivers here, but rather "merely" most of them!) who should never have taken their first nip, nevertheless (it's really the person, not the substance, stupids!); or, who should at least have been somehow denied driver's licenses, like unto about as many-too-many who again, "don't drink!" Even Cliff Robertson, who'd been denied his medical license, over a similar kind of insensitivity, in The Interns; would have had a better chance in England, had he been faced with an issue identical to the one here, where such "experiments" have proved most practical. Indeed, Dr. William Stewart Halsted had successfully fooled them for years, and in a manner more socially productive than anything like the current "war on drugs," including Ricardo Montalban's way of involuntarily recruiting new customers! While God may not be an advocate of such substances, there are other addictions, including a current epidemic of junk-food gluttony, which makes the "legal" distinction here totally arbitrary and discriminatory!
Most would be thoroughly indignant against me, upon encountering such an opinion; but only for the same "reason" such behavioristically, self-righteously, judgmentally well-trained seals are, by now, just as hopelessly, "legally" dead to the kind of infamy which impelled Robert Duvall, in The Apostle, to come to the defense of his family, and of God's Laws; over-against the pathetically anemic nature of man's, which defined him alone as the "criminal!" Those who would condemn him, particularly on the basis of any religious defense he might have offered; are also the first to demand Ella's head, on what would basically amount to the same alleged basis; despite the fact that they'd be hard-pressed to find even a single scripture to support it, over-against Matthew 15:7-9, or Romans 14:10-23, which too many hypocrites would rather falsifyingly hurl at one who is trying to unimposingly mind his own business! If anything, adultery has become the most socially-disintegrating epidemic of all, while being "legally" applauded! Even those who religiously rave against alcohol, conveniently ignore Proverbs 31:6-7, not to mention verses 4 and 5! Moreover, as for the kettle "legally" calling the pot black, in a most mentally-defective way, consider Billy Jack, and the "crime" he'd committed, at the very beginning of The Born Losers! Paul Kersey, of the Death Wish series, was no "criminal," either; despite my official authorization, nevertheless, to formally advocate only against such kinds of actions; contrary to the way the Reverend Barney Clark (Keenan Wynn), from Johnny Concho, elected to handle a problem, when he could find no scripture to cover it.
Of course, The Star Chamber, starring Michael Douglas, along with Dirty Harry's boss, Hal Holbrook, pose somewhat of a dilemma here. An episode of Walker, Texas Ranger, entitled "The Committee," attempts to resolve this problem as well, but not totally to my own satisfaction! Perhaps I'm more than fifty percent reconciled, but not nearly one-hundred percent at all! In fact, one of the most hairbrained statements Ranger Cordell Firewalker ever made, was to his good friend, Ranger James Trivette, while they were discussing the problem of a racist sheriff, who turned out to have been secretly murdering prisoners and burying their corpses. Walker said it was a good thing such creatures are the exceptions in law enforcement, rather than the rule! Would he perhaps consider it an insult, instead, were I to say it would be, if nothing else, a lucky hit, to find even one--for real--of his most theatrically well-paid stature--where the highest ideals come so much more easily, and even as mystifyingly as in the case of Archie Bunker's adopted son, who was using the stuff off-screen, while busting others for the same as "make-believe?" Those occasionally "tender" references to a governor, whom the "real" Walker would have had in a cell, long ago, also serve to suggest, quite compellingly, that it's me, if anybody, whom they'd be delighted to transport at least one-thousand long, excruciating miles, on that hard, bumpy floor, in back of their pick-up truck; and without even a coke, particularly upon request, to quench the thirst; if, for no other reason, precisely because of the way I'm writing, now!
In fact, I have meant a few good cops who are better, after-all, even than these cowboys; who've told me, personally, that they'd deliberately look the other way, in cases of "offenses" for which nobody really ought to be busted at all, particularly while real terrorists are being pursued! Of course, they'd never admit it on television, but not for the same kind of "perfectly understandable" reason you'll never hear Walker, Trivette, or C.D., admitting it, either! These "strictly personal" friends of principle corollarily have the honesty, and, thus, even the brains, to understand that, if somebody, who should be enjoying at least the abovementioned kind of "immunity," is caught committing real offenses, at the same time; then what no real officer, let-alone any, "if" any, real judge, would ever do, is to allow the one thing to be behavioristically paired, in his strictly albeit "sincerely," mechanically, typically defective "mind" (although even real computers are more innocent, as well as internally consistent, at least!), with the other; thus avoiding the criminally prevailing fallacy, as well, of at least "implying" that everybody who does the one thing, is automatically of the kind who have no moral compunction whatsoever about doing the other kinds of things as well, and that perhaps even quite prevailingly not doing the one thing even perhaps quite probably if not certainly means the other would be strictly out of the question, too, even when "nobody's looking!" Yet, I'll have to give Walker credit for at least one extremely unorthodox little gesture, which really brought out the more Nobly Poetic Sense of Justice in his instincts; after a manner I'm almost tempted, tragically enough, against my own better, more painfully-cultivated nature, to actually begin to trust, in addition to simply admiring per se. While busting a meth lab, across the border, in Louisiana, during a medically-induced "vacation," he decided not to turn in the confiscated drug profits, but rather to give them to a mother and her son who had much better use for them. In all fairness, that was a very daring move on television; although, ironically enough, for all that, perhaps only on television!
Thus, just to help attempt to balance out any shallowly premature misimpressions most have probably acquired concerning mine, immediately above; I'm happy to end, here, about Walker, on the extremely positive note that, even despite how questionably proud he is of his war record, or, more specifically, the particular war to which this record pertains; he's still a man after my own heart, albeit in the very manner he could only rightfully be were the feeling entirely mutual--at least in my wildest dreams! He sounds off quite often about the importance of education, too; and that's one boast I'd personally like challenging him to back up; although even he would undoubtedly need to be accompanied by the best "Medicine Man" available, as I'm referring, quite literally enough, to nothing short of--Fright Night Itself--For Real! God, how I choke upon the extent to which I am forced to love those guys, as one who ordinarily has no more use for P.I.G.S. than for "Judges" or Politicians, let-alone "Professors" or "Ministers!" Not unrelatedly, and, in the process, speaking, once again, about Archie Bunker; his guest appearance, as a real oinker, in an episode of The Fugitive entitled "Flight from the Final Demon," really does serve to bring out the very "best" in him! He even looks the part of one so thoroughly unsavory as to have been unable to as much as accidentally avoid spoiling the very end of Lonely Are the Brave. Indeed, even a physically close resemblance such as Rod Steiger had failed to so abrasively assault my spirit quite as much, In the Heat of the Night, and that's going some! I'm certain this all-too-dismally-real strain in his personality, the same one rendered so "humorously inert" on his own show, was just as important-a-reason as the cleverness of the scripts themselves, and, of course, the equally realistic performance of Meathead, for rendering All In the Family such a superlatively well-deserved classic of satire, right next to those charming little perverts in Married With Children! But a more worthy recipient, of the kind of lesson above, with relation to the dangerously normative extent to which no "merely personal" initiative in judgment is ever to be self-permitted (although, as Sartre would observe, it is inherently impossible to escape, instead!), exactly as Lieutenant Philip Gerard loves to emphasize; was, for instance, Officer Percy Rodriguez, in still another episode of The Fugitive entitled "Passage to Helena!" This was a damn good cop, along with his boss, too, for that matter! What he needed to learn, however, didn't go down very easily at all! Yet, when the chips were down, he came through with the most admirably flying colors! Another good cop, in still another episode entitled "The Last Oasis," had to be a bit more intimidatingly forced into seeing the light, albeit for anything but the worst of all understandable reasons, by a magnificent lady of the stature of Hope Lange, who also held her own no less movingly, alongside Elvis, in Wild In the Country! But R.G. Armstrong, the cop in an episode entitled "All the Scared Rabbits," is really among my very favorites, contrary also to Pat Hingle, in the "Nicest Fella You'd Ever Want to Meet!"

Guyana: Crime of the Century (1979)
What Does This Painfully Symbolic Episode Really Mean?,
17 January 2007

In a reversal of their positions, as well as of the entire spiritual atmosphere, from Francis of Assisi; it is now Stuart Whitman who assumes just as commanding as well as demanding-a-lead, with Bradford Dillman filling a main supporting role, as one of his disciples. Just as Bradford Dillman's lead, above, had been quite admirably on a par, in its own unique way (particularly during a confrontation with an Islamic Sultan, which all contemporary "Crusaders" should view!), with that of Graham Faulkner, in Brother Sun, Sister Moon; so, also, might it as well have been by way of nothing more than a mere toss of the coin, that I've selected Stuart Whitman's leading performance, here, over-against the equally superlative one, of Powers Boothe. However, although Stuart Whitman has always been one of my favorite actors, it would have been impossible for me to have had to arbitrarily select, between him and Powers Boothe, had this "contest" been anything like the kind of real-life, crucially consequential "Blood Sport" it was, in The Oscar, for Frankie Fane (Stephen Boyd, and, "incidentally," the only "Real Man" in the film, even compared to a Miserable Flesh Peddler such as Milton Berle, let-alone such Typically Endemic Dog-Meat as Joseph Cotten or Walter Brennan! In that sense, Frankie was incalculably more wrong, but in his favor, than he was right, when he said, "I'm no different from anybody else in this damn town," just as Kappy was incalculably more wrong, but against Frankie's favor, than he was right, when he replied, "That's not true, that's not true."), over-against Frank Sinatra; just as, for that matter, it would have been similarly impossible, to have chosen Kirk Douglas, in Champion, over John Garfield, in Body and Soul, or vice-versa, as my favorite prizefighter. Otherwise, John Garfield had also come out second, next to the only other three with whom he'd tied, for me.
But, then, in the case of Jim Jones, why should I, or anyone, find anything not to so popularly condemn, even in the real-life character being portrayed here, and at the risk of thereby being no less popularly condemned, myself? Stuart Whitman very cogently helps answer that question, in the opening sermon of his version; just as Powers Boothe helps fill in more of the related biographical background, which tragically helped bring Jim Jones to that point. Is it a "cop-out" to suggest that, in any way, America itself had helped, in transforming the initially more innocent idealism of Jones into the twisted nightmare it finally became? Such would only be the case, were it utilized to shield Jones from the moral culpability of his own free will, in the same way that America tries, no less disingenuously, to shield itself, from behind the free will of Jones! Even to blame the drugs amounts to one of the most popularly as well as criminally falsifying cop-outs there is, on a par with what Maximilian Schell so desperately tried to accomplish, in Judgment at Nuremberg, despite even the otherwise profoundest truths of his closing arguments! But almost nobody wants to hear the whole truth, just as perhaps even most Christian pastors are accounted for, in their own ways, about as much as Jones, in verses such as Isaiah 56:6-12! From what I'd so dissentingly encountered over the years, in the case of various "ministers," to the point where I'm not even welcome to attend; it appears they aspire to being, not "mere" guides, but more like the most self-indulgent, Papally Infallible "Gurus" (I Peter 5:3)! A very prominent one in particular, who reminded me of Lonesome Rhodes, from A Face In the Crowd, ran his congregation more like an outpatient concentration camp, "at least" in spirit, than anything else!
Had Jones survived his final ordeal, and I'd been a member of the jury; I would not have hesitated to find him guilty of a capital offense, despite the fact that I otherwise feel more personal empathy in his case, than with relation to most other preachers; that is, I would have unhesitatingly voted him guilty despite even the most tragically understandable extent to which he'd felt himself to be doing his victims a favor, unlike most who need to believe they "care" so much! Unlike Euliss Dewey, in The Apostle, or Billy Jack, at the end of The Born Losers, or Paul Kersey, throughout his Death Wish ordeals, or Robert Ginty, as The Exterminator, or even William Foster, in Falling Down (particularly given those in whose deaths he had been instrumental), Jones went indefensibly over the line of terminally and involuntarily victimizing the most clearly innocent people. Only God can be the Final Judge of the things about him with which I empathize, but any truly responsible member of his jury would do well to as honestly understand (I John 1:8-10) why I feel as I do (John 8:1-11); thus making him less hypocritically incompetent to judge (Matthew 7:1-5), and thus less part of the kind of problem which virtually guarantees that "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it!" Gregory Peck faced a similar dilemma, in David and Bathsheba, during a scene where an adulteress was about to be stoned before his eyes, but before he had himself become more honestly and repentantly "without sin," thereby. Moreover, even Boaz (again, Stuart Whitman), in The Story of Ruth, had been faced with the dilemma of how to sit in judgment of Ruth; in a manner which helped serve to illustrate the extent to which the letter of the law must, ideally, be tempered with the spirit of the same, when arriving at a truly just and balanced verdict. This may be an elusively, frustratingly precarious line, one which must be no less prayerfully than rationally tread; but a real, sacredly, indispensably non-negotiable one, nevertheless.
Moreover, the Lord moves in such mysterious ways that even an occasionally, more poetically tragic kind of resolution, from right out of Witness for the Prosecution, cannot be categorically ruled out, either! Does that statement "morally shock" most of you?--Probably even most of the same who simply lack the guts, let-alone the actual "concern," and, thus, even the brains per se, to at least "consciously" realize how salivatingly they admire, and even envy, Bonnie and Clyde, with Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway (a real work of art, in every conceivable sense, on Mr. Beatty's own ingeniously creative behalf, I might add!), or, for an even more "cheerful" ending, 'Doc' and Carol McCoy (Steve McQueen/Alec Baldwin; Ali MacGraw/Kim Basinger), in The Getaway! Oh, but they call it, to themselves, something much more "innocently neutral," after-all, don't they?--Namely, to use one of their favorite terms, "Entertainment!" Moreover, I know why I cannot help but to like all of these scoundrels, and with far more "poetically subtle refinement" than in the instances of any of those who are more typically "shocked" at me, or, that is, "merely entertained," by them; even despite the considerably rigid extent to which I am morally as well as legally disinclined to approve, in a manner I'm certain they're equally incapable of appreciating, at least not on their own genuinely mature and responsible recognizance; particularly, with regard, again, to my disapproval, of the fact that certain of these dangerously, unjustifiably violent criminals actually got away with it in the end, for every delicately impressionable child to see, too, while feeling "at least" more "implicitly" welcomed, in the process, to come to his own "strictly personal" conclusions!--For, after-all, these children at least realize they're more free to disregard the ending of the McCoys than they would be that of Barrow and Parker, or Kit Carruthers (Martin Sheen), in Badlands!
On the other hand, though, how many Charlie Sheens are typically out there, to help cynically push someone such as John Wisdom so fatally, otherwise avoidably over the very Edge; in much the same way Henry Fonda was pushed, in You Only Live Once? I should know, for, at a much younger age, I had to work under more of them than I can count, and minus anything to hide on my applications, but with the same dismally-unwarranted results, due to nothing but the most maliciously mean-spirited spite--a particularly ugly emotion!--Just as, for that matter, how many college "nerds" and the like are being deliberately and maliciously pushed, for about the same kinds of reasons to be found in one of those New Outer Limits episodes, to just as chillingly dream they could master the secret of Cold Fusion? Yet, it's not a question, legally speaking, of whether I, or anybody else, personally fails, even with the most "poetically moving" of reasons, to dislike any given character here. Hell, I love Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, along with a magnificently photogenic kind of chemistry between them which equalled, in its own uniquely superlative way, the level of charisma between Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock. But Butch and Sundance still got, in the end, exactly what they deserved, when one not even need so penetratingly grasp the "humorously" unjustifiable nature of their deeds! As for even Martin Brundle, The Fly? Well, in his case, along with that of Frank James (Henry Fonda), I'll simply say their fates should be left in the hands of a judge and jury, rather than being permitted to "poetically" bypass any such process. Even Mel Gibson, as Porter, in Payback, got off too easily in the end. Despite there being so much more about him than I'd personally or even "poetically" relish having to legally set aside in the process, he's nothing like the kind of hero Socrates would have seen fit to present to children as a role model! Robert "Butch" Haynes (Kevin Costner) truly deserved better, at the end of A Perfect World. But, then, even he had to find out, the hard way, about the kinds of things for which one should never bargain in the first place, let-alone therefore actually get! Rocky Sullivan (James Cagney), in Angels With Dirty Faces, is, on the other hand, one of my greatest heroes, even before he'd finally come through; but he had to pay a very heavy price for it, particularly given the last noble request of the best friend he ever had in this world!

Hard Times (1975)
Bronson at His Best!,
21 January 2007

I've seen about all of them, but there's only one which is Vintage Bronson, and that's Chaney, in Hard Times! This characterization was as resonant with meaning as it should be no less unnecessary than pointless to have to attempt to describe; just as any such commentary would inherently make no difference, to anyone who requires such a thing, for a man of so very few words himself. Like something almost out of this world, he emerged from nowhere, and disappeared just as enigmatically. I would have thought to include him before, in my attempt to rank at least the very few fictional prizefighters I consider worth instructively mentioning at all; save for the fact that he was as thoroughly "unprofessional," by his own definition, as he would have been unclassifiably over the very top of the scale in either case, and certainly a natural-born loner as well. He fought with the same single-minded, simply well-focused kind of attention which animated his every breath, as one who appeared no less symbolically predestined by nature to be incapable of defeat than Johnny Cash, as Abe Cross, in A Gunfight. Guns were not exactly his specialty in this one, even though he knew how to deliver the most unmistakably effective message with one in his hand, at exactly the right moment.
In fact, even certain of the more unsavory characters in this film had succeeded at commanding a much higher level of my respect than just about anybody I've ever encountered of a more "lawfully, respectably well-civilized" predisposition, who take such delusionally self-righteous pride at allegedly representing anything "morally above" the most universally primitive kinds of instincts. I'm referring, here, to something even more refreshingly and predictably candid, as coming from such transparently digestible representatives of the real world, than the mere fact that, unlike with the most typically and "virtuously uncorruptible," one can succeed even at buying certain of the most basic human rights from them, if only he has the money; rights which the abstractly disingenuous hot air of even the most loftily letter-perfect of formally-binding Constitutions has never actually intended to guarantee, as difficult as it would be to deliver upon such a promise, even if it did; to so very many who must fight, even for the right to exist at all, in conformity with the most spontaneously, circumstantially, and mercilessly self-defining of rules. What I mean is that, in addition to being the kinds of specimens of humanity with whom alone one can at all do even the most soundly scrupulous kind of business, instead of being inflexibly mowed down by "legal" restrictions only the most typically and formally "law-abiding" have the lack of sense to take seriously, even a most genuine element of Honor is likewise to be found within them alone!
It certainly hadn't been easy for a man of Chick Gandil's kind of pride to conform with the above description, at least not when he finally found himself on the side of a hefty bet only his opponent could not afford to lose. Yet, after having momentarily succumbed to the most despicably futile kind of temptation, he nevertheless came through, in the spirit of something so much better than a mere honor among thieves; which even some of the very worst from among them at least have enough sense to realize is structurally indispensable, if only for the most pragmatically selfish of reasons they are analytically discerning enough to truly appreciate. And, of course, Spencer "Speed" Weed, thanks to the almost innocently self-defeating extent of his own follies, would have been unable to arrive nearly that far along, apart from the kind of loan which required only the collateral of a few breakable ribs, if necessary, after the fact, to secure, minus anything as "respectably" sterile as an "application" to finalize. It's just about enough to make me wish I were living even under Al Capone's "protection," or Peter Falk, from Murder, Inc.; instead of at the "mercy" of the kind of racket which rather took them out, if not having actually been so much more "legitimately" and undetectably absorbed by precisely their kind.
I've been suffocating far-too-long, from the sort of typically, "Civilizedly Christian" lack of mentality which speaks of "love" only as a ruse, and which can thereby even succeed at sneaking up upon its prey from the very front; just as, when it speaks of "forgiveness," such is only to excuse if not deny the most culpably unrepentant faults! Even the most parasitically "learned" of "gentlemen" and "scholars" at the university instinctively hated Nietzsche to a "man," as though they respected anything better than the kind of "strength" he'd repudiated; just as they lack even the guts to fight their own unscrupulous battles, like any self-respectingly Noble Savage; as well as the brains to realize they simply love to slander and wound the rare, thus alone vulnerable "weakness" of my sincerity; while privately, invisibly sneering, right into my face, that they can do anything they want, and get away with it! It's no wonder they chose the only kind of "strictly literary" specialty even their puppeteers demand they be able to bluff their way through rhetorically! The same Hard Times which help cut through every such "Idealistically Civilized" Facade are again about to materialize, but on a scale which shall perhaps render even this higher level of consciousness more terminally incapable of survival. The previous such interval had only been the most senselessly unheeded warning, concerning a Covenant With Death which is, this time, about to be Totally Annulled--Ezekiel 8:6-18!--Isaiah, Chapter 28!

The Graduate (1967)
A Pricelessly Symbolic Reflection of Its Era,
28 January 2007

This film, in terms of form and style as such, let-alone substance, is a uniquely gifted work of art; on a par with other, more wastefully "forgettable," so-called "grade B" masterpieces, such as Desire In the Dust (a must, for every Raymond Burr fan), and Hell on Frisco Bay (an equal must, for every Edward G. Robinson fan). The latter two had apparently been conceived, or, at least, might just as well have been, for the very purpose of showcasing the induplicably villainous talents of, again, Raymond Burr, and Edward G. Robinson, respectively; whereas, quite obviously, Anne Bancroft herself stands out, to this selfsame end, in The Graduate; along with a no less outstanding supporting cast, as is also the case with the other two thus far mentioned. While my own release from prison bears certain outwardly, superficially, and commonly misleading similarities with those of Dustin Hoffman alone, in addition to a strong personal identification with the nature of his internal struggle as well; it is, nevertheless, my sense of deeply temperamental empathy with Alan Ladd, from Hell on Frisco Bay, and with Ken Scott, from Desire In the Dust, which serves, about as overshadowingly, to set me just as apart from Hoffman, too. I'll even expand the analogies here, by referencing myself as a cross, between John Cassavetes, from Crime In the Streets, and, again, John Cassavetes, from Edge of the City; or, similarly, again, to Hoffman, too, but much more grimly, as a cross, between Farley Granger, from Edge of Doom, and Paul Anka, from Look In Any Window.
Despite my enormous head start, over Alan Ladd, in the sense that he'd begun, during mid-incarceration; his own extremely volatile level of intensity had been very equal to mine, on both counts, in my case, prior to his period of confinement. However, Ken Scott had required barely no time at all to catch up, on one of the two counts, subsequent to his release; just as, by now, he's the only one with whom I bear any kind of similarity, at least in one sense, during the very end of his own extremely well-crafted Morality Play. Unlike with him, however, my own particular story-line is not entirely finished yet; even though it is, in the most historically as well as personally climactic sense, just around the bend; as my own real-life version of Jo Van Fleet, from East of Eden, along with her other son, are also about to discover. Indeed, an equally superlative performance, by Edward Binns, from Desire In the Dust, is about to make its mark, too, the hard way; particularly with relation to those who also participate in the selfsame profession he did, but much more commonly than superlatively. Parenthetically, to behold a real Pulitzer Prize winner in action, watch Jim Lefferts, played by Arthur Kennedy, in Elmer Gantry! Watch with what mercilessly well-directed skill he so appropriately submits his religious opponents to the vivisection of the scalpel, based on the kind of authority which has no real difficulty, as opposed to the most commonly-unassailable kind, totally verifying itself! Fortunately, the relatively imminent ending which I currently anticipate is much more historically if not otherwise so very circumstantially well-timed than had been the case, say, for Preston Foster, from The Last Days of Pompeii, or Kirk Douglas, from Spartacus; even when the latter had decided he could endure no more, let-alone when Laurence Olivier had finally had enough of him. What I have to concern myself with the most, however, is the extent to which the much more endurably noble temperament, of Spartacus, is still being displaced, in my case, with the one of, again, Kirk Douglas, from The Last Sunset, during his more dangerously, irrepressibly volatile intervals. Likewise, Al Pacino, even at the end of The Godfather II, let-alone III, just as analogously and tragically comes to mind; alongside the equally unfortunate relevance, on second and third thought, of these very same segments, from Stallone's Rambo saga.
I do consider myself fortunate, nevertheless, that my story hadn't already ended, long ago, in the same way it had for Dustin Hoffman, or even Alan Ladd. More to the point, it probably wouldn't have made any difference, had I decided to continue the same senselessly masochistic ritual, right up to the back of the church; let-alone while slugging it out in a speed boat, against all the forces of hell! By now, about the most absurdly laughable thought I could possibly entertain, one which renders even an otherwise great cinematic classic such as Casablanca about as unconvincingly deformed as Bogart himself had been; is that I had ever wanted it to work at all, contrary to the dignity as well as the patience and self-control which required an alternate form of education to become more perfectly-ingrained; and which, even despite my current imperfections, has a much better chance of finally sinking in on time. Thus, please, don't play it again, Sam; for, even then, I'd also despised the entire lot of them, no less than they did me; the way Jack Ging felt, along with Brett Halsey, about the former's own father and sister, at the end of Desire In the Dust. Regardless of how much time life proceeds to grant their kind, they only seem to continue feeling more and more delighted about what they are; to the point where I also deeply identify with Burt Lancaster, from The Swimmer, and feel just as Desperately, Fatalistically Vulnerable, during my numerously weakest moments. Every such moment, by now, is, for me, about the same as it had been for Anthony Quinn, on the beach, at the end of La Strada! Vincent Price, as The Last Man on Earth, is an appropriate analogy, too; alongside Charlton Heston, as The Omega Man! I feel as fed up, and for the same reasons, as Dr. Louis J. Prescott (Gene Lockhart), when he dived off the mast, to his death, in The Sea Wolf!--Or like Rod Serling's Leading star, from Number Twelve Looks Just Like You, as well as The Obsolete Man!
And let's not forget John Hurt, under the Tutelage of Richard Burton, in 1984; even though Edmond O'Brien, verses Michael Redgrave, would just as convincingly suffice! Yet, even these must take second place, for me, next to Rock Hudson, in The Spiral Road, and Paul Newman, as Cool Hand Luke; including my kind of prayer, at least hitherto, at the very end! As for Henry Fonda, in You Only Live Once, or Peter Lorre, in The Face Behind the Mask? There, but for the Grace of God, go I! And I should also include Farley Granger, in They Live by Night; but, then, most of you had already helped shove my little girl into her grave, over fifteen years ago, in ways you wilfully lack even the brains, let-alone the hearts, or guts, to comprehend; although, unlike Farley Granger, and his, we never did anything to anybody, least of all broken any of your preciously God-Almighty Laws! If I end up not being so mercifully spared in this life, I can only hope there is at least plenty of whiskey to keep me company; in conjunction with the kind of freezing cold encountered by Tony Curtis, as Ira Hayes, at the very end of The Outsider! So much for the outside of the cup, in this sense, as the inside of his has already long been mine as well, along with basically the very same reasons why! What James Whitmore wouldn't have needed, either, in my case, to bring out the "very best" in them, was the kind of pigment change he'd adapted, in Black Like Me! In fact, by now, they'd probably consider it such a vast improvement, if it made any real difference at all, that, if nothing as preferable as Tony Curtis, I'd prefer to stay behind, with Captain Benteen; while letting those other Serling characters Leave for Home on Thursday, as the very kind, after-all, against whom he'd been attempting to warn them! Good riddance! He was my favorite, in that particular episode, anyway, particularly in contrast with still another typically vulgar specimen of humanity such as Colonel Sloane, as portrayed so Philistinistically well by the likes of Tim O'Connor! They still despise me, but with even less reason, as well as more, than Brett Halsey had, for popping Ken Scott in the jaw; just as even the latter had much better reason than I would have, were I to reply, to the numerous jabs I'd received, by saying, "I don't blame you for doing that, doc!" However, my warning is just the same as his, but on even Higher Authority (Jeremiah, Chapter 28), when he continued, "But don't try throwing another one!"

Planet of the Apes (1968)
Is Man Still an Ape?--Or Rather Yet to Become One? Either Way, It's--A Madhouse!--A Madhouse!,
31 January 2007

Many insolently skeptical apes, with their religion of biological evolution, and, thus, by extension, anti-social Darwinism, too, might still be cynically, insultingly sneering that they need to see a "miracle," before they'll ever agree to capitulate, and acknowledge the authority of the Lord; in the only real way there is to verify it, through the most rationally sound and morally sober kind of insight, which leaves even them with fundamentally no excuse, particularly if their only real intent is to violate the Golden Rule without ever expecting to have to answer for it. However, by the time their "miracle" arrives, which it inevitably shall, and shortly, by now, in this world; they "might" just wish it hadn't, as those who insist upon tempting the Lord, and taking it so mockingly, belittlingly, scornfully out, even on the flesh of His servants. Gene Kelly, as E.K. Hornbeck, was so right, from Inherit the Wind, when he said, to Spencer Tracy, as Henry Drummond, "Face it, Darwin was wrong, man's still an ape!" But, then, who knows; for, if Charlton Heston is right, it may be a bit more loosely accurate to say he's not quite an ape yet, in terms, "at least," of how well he treats his own! I could seriously entertain this view a bit more plausibly, were it not for the fact that the words are always just about to come out of my mouth: "Get even your eyes, indeed, even your very 'thoughts,' off me, you filthy ape!" In other words, I feel I'm already here, as I continue screaming, at least internally, that "It's a Madhouse, A Madhouse!"
Seriously, though, is there really any solidly scientific proof that any species transforms into another, rather than their being as separate as the Bible says they were originally created to be (Genesis 1:24-25)? I'm not referring to just evidence, either, with its yet insufficient support of such a possible conclusion. Even God is good at helping provide such misleading "evidence," for the sake of those who insist upon it, even with anything, at bottom, but the most "neutrally scientific" of motives (Isaiah 28:9-13) (Matthew 13:10-17); when He likewise helps it to be "arguable," for instance, that even Genesis 1:20-22 supports the notion that all life began in the sea, although never-mind the birds. Moreover, there's no doubt even the way many animals are structured would seem to indicate that, comparatively speaking, either it had to have happened the evolutionary way, or else God designed it deliberately to look as if it did. The atheist will sneer that he doesn't like it, that such would be a stupid idea, of any such "incompetently bungling" God. Yet, while the real God is about as fundamentally lovable, and animated by a sense of humor, as George Burns; He can also be as "difficult," when irreverently taunted and mocked into provocation (Romans 1:17-32) (Hebrews 11:6), as Jose Perez, in the Steambath; and, in the words of this enigmatic "Attendant," just as "whimsically," harrowingly unpredictable! If one doesn't like it, that's just tough luck, pal; especially if he truly insists, again, upon getting too inordinately insolent about it!
And where's their supposed proof, by the way, that life even spontaneously generates, from dead matter, whatever that is (Hebrews 11:3; 12:25-28) (II Peter 3:10-12), if only the conditions are right? Indeed, even modern science cannot find any "solid stuff" called "matter," which is "apparently" created from nothing. Even Job was smarter than most such contemporary "educators," although he had no answer, when God reminded him that he simply hadn't been there, at the Creation; and that even he wasn't nearly as smart as he thought he was (Job, Chapters 38-41), let-alone his "Christianly comforting friends," despite even their most characteristically, perennially eloquent sermons, to this very day (Job 42:7-9), along with their basically Darwinian instincts against Job! The skeptics also emphasize statistical probabilities, and the odds against earth being the only place which contains life. But, again, it has first to be proved, short of actually discovering any extraterrestrial life, that it does, in fact, self-generate, merely given the right physical conditions.
And, let's be honest, for that's at least one basic reason why the skeptics really want to find life out there. It's not just because the prospect is so "neutrally fascinating." They feel, at least instinctively, that such a discovery will also help shatter the Biblically "primitive myth." They don't want God to exist, and just the fact that one can no less instinctively smell as much, despite all their "pious" denials, even and especially to themselves, often enough, should be more than sufficient, all by itself, in confirming this fact, even though it's not the only evidence to support as much. Also, I'm really not trying to attack or ridicule them, the way they characteristically do to their opponents. I understand their pain! I personally experience every instinct in their bodies, unlike the kind of typically religious people who smell no less intolerantly and provocatively foul! For my part, however, it's not a question of what I wish to be true! To the contrary, the notion of everlasting sleep, beyond the grave, is hardly the most discomforting thought, and would be preferable, in one irreducibly ever-relieving sense, to even the possibility of going to a place of everlasting torment, let-alone one too "eternally blissful" to imagine! It's simply a question of what I do, in fact, believe to be objectively the case, along with my arguments in support of it, which are hardly being exhausted here! (Part two, in Beneath the Planet of the Apes)

Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970)
And the Madhouse Continues!--Part II,
31 January 2007

(A continuation from part one, of Planet of the Apes). . . Although life could very well exist on planets other than earth, in addition to the ironic twist to be found in this particular series of films, as further evidence in support of the theory that life self-generates, given only the proper conditions, and minus the need of any Creator; even this, in itself, would not necessarily prove, in the strictest conclusive sense, that God hadn't been the one to create it there, too, along with all the physical conditions necessary to support it. Yet, I still would not be the least bit astounded, if it turns out there's nothing alive out there, as well as somewhat surprised if the proof finally emerges that there is. God's Biblically-stated purpose for having created life on earth certainly renders no such possibility necessary, rather than even quite superfluous.
Moreover, if earth cannot be calculated, in any demonstrably intelligible way, to be the astronomical centre of the universe, which I'm certainly not stating to be necessarily the case; then it does at least appear that Jerusalem, the Eternal City, is the geographical centre of the earth's own land mass. Even more, the Bible clearly indicates that Jerusalem is, if nothing else, the theological centre of the universe (Revelation, Chapters 21-22). In this sense, even the medieval theologians would have had it right, despite the false and misleading interpretation they'd inherited from Aristotle's way of thinking; just as, to be sure, the Bible itself totally denies that the earth is flat (Isaiah 40:22). Either way, the earth is no ordinary planet, but the very one which is uniquely central to God's purpose. In fact, far from people "going to Heaven," other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself (Ecclesiastes 3:18-22; 9:3-6) (Acts 2:29-36) (Hebrews 11:38-39) (Revelation 11:15-19); it is actually Heaven which is Biblically said to come down to earth (Matthew 6:10), but in stages. It is written that after Christ rules the entire world, from Jerusalem, with a Rod of Iron, for one-thousand years (Revelation 20:1-4), then God the Father moves His Throne down to earth as well, in the form of the New Jerusalem; as the "physical matter" itself is being burned up, and transfigured into the same spiritual substance of which Christ's own resurrected and imperishable body is composed.
One may ask, however, whether Enoch had gone to Heaven (Hebrews 11:5), even though this story necessarily demonstrates nothing more than that Enoch could have been snatched away from an otherwise certain death, at the hands of those he describes, also, in Jude 14-15; just as there is even evidence (II Chronicles 21:12-15) to support the contention that Elijah, far from having "gone to Heaven," was simply transported, like unto Philip (Acts 8:39-40), to another place on the earth; but, unlike with Philip, to a place from where no man could ever find him again. Similarly, the allegorical reference, in Revelation 12:14-17, concerning those who shall be Divinely protected, on the wings of a "great eagle," is undoubtedly another instance of the same kind of "translation," from one place, to another, right upon this earth; just as the common belief, that these 144,000 shall be preaching the Gospel, is compellingly overruled, in Revelation 14:6-9. And what would be the purpose of having made man unequivocally mortal in this sense, save for a resurrection from the dead (Job 19:23-27); so that, in effect, what Jesus said about, for instance, Lazarus having been asleep (John 11:11), would be literally true, while verses such as Revelation 14:9-11 are actually the more allegorical references? The point is that man would have been made mortal, as an act of mercy, to those who reject Him; unlike Satan and the other fallen spirit-beings, who are tormented everlastingly (Revelation 20:10).
Of course, the indication, in this verse, is that the beast and false prophet are everlastingly tormented as well; but, as with other "hard to understand" verses (II Peter 3:15-16), this could amount to nothing more than an ambiguity of language, particularly in the English. Either way, it is necessarily the case that, if the Bible is Divinely-Inspired, and thus consistently coherent in its claims, the factor of allegory, in one direction or the other, cannot be avoided. It could even be that the plural reference, as to those who everlastingly suffer, in Revelation 20:10, is to the multitudes of fallen spirit beings, while the mention of the beast and false prophet being there as well is more in the nature of a parenthetical insertion. What also seems compellingly apparent is that God perhaps intended for the actual meaning to remain unclear, as indicated, again, in the references from Ecclesiastes, above; just as, for that matter, the reference, again, to Revelation 14:11, where it is said that the smoke of the torment, of those who worshipped the beast, shall ascend, forever and ever, is something about which to "literally" ponder.
I Peter 3:18-22 is perhaps the most notorious of all such "hard sayings," although it necessarily means no more than that the same Christ, who was literally, unequivocally dead, for three days and three nights, in the heart of the earth, had formerly preached, to the spirits in prison (the bondage of their sin, while they yet "lived"), through His Divine Spirit in Noah. What is totally clear, however, can be found, either way, in Deuteronomy 29:29, along with Ecclesiastes 12:12-14, which is all any of us indispensably need to know, along with, say, Matthew 16:13-17 (the only real way to know, although many pretend, I John 3:10-18, especially to themselves; just as many atheists, who just as disingenuously sneer that God never shows Himself, have never once even bothered trying to ask Him, in any kind of prayerfully respectful way; and will even contemptuously throw that very suggestion back into your face, regardless of how sincerely and kindly you attempt to present it to them!), and Romans 8:1-18, as well as I Corinthians 15:1-21. Moreover, don't trust any of the typically sodomizing "Greek," either, as coming from so many self-alleged bible teachers; who, in their zeal to unscripturally flaunt their "unknown tongues" (I Corinthians 14:6-28), want their listeners to likewise, but much less conveniently, forget, among other things, that the translators God Himself had chosen, to write the King James version, knew plenty of Greek, too! (Part three, in Battle for the Planet of the Apes)

Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973)
It's Still a Madhouse, and About to Get Even Worse, Before it Gets Infinitely and Everlastingly Better!--Part III, and the Last, of This Series of Critiques,
1 February 2007

(A continuation from part two, of Beneath the Planet of the Apes) . . . I'll continue, here, from the last segment, concerning the kinds of uncertainty to be found in the language of various Biblical verses. What was axiomatically settled was that the statements in Deuteronomy 29:29 and Ecclesiastes 12:12-14 are literally clear; just as Hebrews 9:27 is also unmistakable, "at least" in its English phrasing, at ruling out reincarnation as the method of bringing each individual to judgment. One should also have settled the meaning of II Timothy 3:16, and II Peter 1:20-21, along with Hebrews 6:18, and Titus 1:2; thus enabling a certainty that whatever else seems more problematically indecipherable is intentionally and purposefully so, and not to be carelessly, disrespectfully scoffed at, as is characteristic of those who are seeking only reasons to doubt. Another reasonably certain element of information to use, as a logical point of departure, can be found in Hebrews 12:25-28, and II Peter 3:10-12, along with Revelation 21:1, as the nature of the "Lake of Fire" itself becomes correspondingly clear.
But what does it mean that this fire can "Never be Quenched" (Mark 9:43-48)? Does it burn eternally?--Or, could it more plausibly mean, as Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong contends, that the fire continues until it burns out by itself; while the reference, in Revelation 14:11, would be correspondingly allegorical, along with the "Day and Night" of Revelation 20:10? Also, does being "Face to Face" with the Lord, at the instant of physical death, in II Corinthians 5:8, and Luke 23:43, necessarily mean what it commonly appears?--Or, could it perhaps more plausibly and consistently mean that, since the spirit sleeps (John 11:11), when separated from the body, the reference is rather to one's very next experience, as though even thousands of years had not passed? That meaning would also serve to explain why the rich man, in Luke 16:27-28, had his dates confused; just as verses 29-31 could very easily be "tongue-in-cheek" on Abraham's behalf, also for the sake of making the crucial point therein to be found.
And, speaking of allegory, do even Satan and his fallen angels, one-third of all those created (Revelation 12:3-4), really suffer "Forever and Ever," even if their mortally incorrigible colleagues (Matthew 12:30-37) are shown the mercy of being put everlastingly to sleep? While this would seem to account for the necessity of creating man in a physically mortal state, it is not necessarily the only possibility. Satan clearly suffers, in the Bottomless Pit, whatever that is, for one-thousand years (Revelation 20:1-3); but it is not necessarily any more than allegorically, that he thereafter everlastingly, self-consciously suffers, in the Lake of Fire; unless, of course, perhaps one is commonly, self-revealingly, even self-indictingly vindictive enough to relish such an interpretation! Contrary to those who claim to be "absolutely sure," either way, all one appears capable of conclusively knowing is that various things must be either one way or the other.
Here are a few more apparent "contradictions" upon which to presumptuously "wrest," for those who are of such a mind: Genesis 6:19:20, relative to Genesis 7:2-3; 8-9; as well as Acts 9:7, relative to Acts 22:9, and Matthew 27:5, relative to Acts 1:18, not to mention Exodus 20:5-6, or Deuteronomy 23:2, or even Romans 9:8-21, relative to Ezekiel 18:20, or Deuteronomy 24:16; just as Genesis 1:16 does not necessarily say God created the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day. Yet, even if it turns out He did, the "problem" about whether literal twenty-four-hour days are being discussed is handled, for instance, in the case of the First Day, in another frame of reference altogether, so that what we're told is that the evening and the morning were the first day. Impossible? Improbable? Only until an actual God is postulated. God reminded even Job that he hadn't been there to see what actually happened, and that's anything but a merely trivial point! What about the light? God Himself could have been the Light, just as He says shall again, and ultimately, be the case.
In fact, if the most typically, cynically sneering skeptics really want some scriptural grist for their mills, they can easily turn to, say, James 5:14-15. However, the negative "proof" they're seeking is something they should pursue more RESPECTFULLY than they characteristically have to offer, or than, therefore, they could ever SUFFICIENTLY satisfy, in keeping the "experiment" pure, if they want to avoid getting the same "answer" received by Herod, in his "interrogation" of Jesus (Luke, Chapter 23); although, of course, given that this is precisely the kind of "answer" such scoundrels are so "neutrally" and "objectively" expecting, and even hoping to find, it should hardly be any great surprise to discover they have no compunction about "conveniently" or "conclusively" and even deliberately falsifying the actual reason for such an "answer," the very "answer" they, again, seek, and, therefore, "perhaps" even quite causatively find! In general, when Jesus speaks of others performing miracles, it is superficially falsifying to interpret that anything one whimsically decides to do in His Name shall be the case, if one simply "believes enough." The deeper meaning is, first, that any such things are not impossible per se, and, in conjunction with this, that they never specifically occur, unless God wants them to do so, in which case it is "invisibly" He who is "inspiring" even the requests described, say, in I John 5:14-15. Indeed, considering how unbelievingly ill-rationalized and mindlessly un-self-examined the perspective of the average professing "Christian" is, it's little wonder even, say, I Corinthians 11:26-32 "almost" always yields the most "positively" negative results, particularly when one reads the "fine print," as reiterated, for instance, in Hebrews, Chapter Twelve, concerning who, and only who, really qualifies, in this context, even for the privilege of becoming ill, if not likewise just as Supernaturally killed, after the manner in Acts 5:1-11, let-alone being Divinely healed, in the manner of James 5:14-15, which covers the sins as well!
Moreover, for those who believe God has it in for homosexuals, it's not the uncontrollable inclination per se which He condemns, however its existence as such is actually caused; but rather a freely-chosen militancy, in denying Divine Authority in the matter, even to the point of attempting to formally impose it upon society. Even the heterosexuals who bashingly misjudge here, probably while committing their own sexually though "normally" related sins, are also the kind who would inconclusively insist that Pee Wee Herman is necessarily gay. But, either way, he is one of my favorite nerds; along with Steve McQueen and Jackie Gleason, from Soldier In the Rain. Many, who are not prepared, but also not hopelessly incorrigible (Matthew 12:30-37), at the point of physical death, for the First Resurrection to Immortality, shall be resurrected mortal, for the purpose of completing their preparation, contrary to those who insist upon playing God with everybody now. Such people seem hopelessly inflexible, even were they given billions of years to ponder, contrary to as many aborted foetuses whose fate only God knows. Parenthetically, while it's uncertain how many prospective candidates for abortion can genuinely offer the kinds of reasons which should be legally required, I wouldn't be surprised if at least a solid majority of them are no better than the very ones Steve McQueen and Natalie Wood were glad they didn't even want anymore, at the end of Love With the Proper Stranger, just as it was fortunate for them that abortion had been illegal at the time! Even Murphy Brown had enough Natural Affection to take it the entire distance! And, indeed, even the age of the earth could be billions of years, although not necessarily; just as, even if it were, that wouldn't necessarily undermine every possible interpretation of Genesis. While the theologian can have it either way here, the atheist cannot. Also, there is much popularly neglected scientific evidence to support the theory of a very young earth, just as the scientists who defend this are deemed "necessarily biased," speaking of the pot calling the kettle black! This may seem "unscientific," but why are there still apes?--Who typically swallow all this "Evolution" Jazz entirely on faith!--Even as teachers who couldn't really defend it to save their skins!
Still another thing these "Evil-utionists" crudely, vulgarly, shallowly fail to consider, is that the most difficult things for nature to achieve, assuming she's "biologically evolving" at all, are, not only the most durable, but also the most delicate, easy to destroy, and, indeed, by the only real criterion of these "Evil-utionists," simply worthy of perishing, anyway! Also, if evolution is true, it's hard to see how all have come from Adam (I Corinthians 15:22), while Eve is the mother of all (Genesis 3:20), which also raises objections on the subject of The Da Vinci Code. And, where Scripture appears to provide no absolutely definitive answer to any particular question either way, as in the case of whether Mary had other children (for both sides present very formidably inconclusive arguments in this respect); the issue shifts to one of why anybody insists upon coming to a definite conclusion either way, when God appears to be saying, implicitly, that the answer is not nearly as crucial as either side insists. From where did Cain's wife come? The sneerers could learn even from Donald Rumsfeld here, concerning the nature of an "unknown known," particularly since only Eve's male offspring are mentioned. There's only room left here to say that the question of Origins is Unique, and should be viewed accordingly; even as the issue of Genesis 1:29-30 is pondered, with relation to Isaiah 11:6-9. Even in Fallen form, only man is "progressively" able to militate against a closed eco-system, seeking its own level of balance! If only at least social evolution were anything near to being the Judeo-Christian reality it alone could and should have been! Instead, it has only proven, at best, to be what Mahatma Gandhi once called a "good idea!" Or, as E.K. Hornbeck (Gene Kelly) said, of Matthew Harrison Brady (Fredric March), in Inherit the Wind, "That's why he hasn't an enemy in the world, only his friends hate him!"--As "The only man I know who can strut--sitting down!" Nietzsche characterized a more optimal solution in the formula, "Caesar with the soul of Christ!," just prior to his own Tragic End, as Dionysius, the Crucified! Yet, that's aiming a bit too ambitiously high, particularly in that Tribune Marcellus Gallio (Richard Burton), from The Robe, undoubtedly wouldn't stand any better chance today! I'll offer this one instead: Henry Drummond, with at least as much Bible Doctrine, yet preferably so much more, even of that, than Matthew Harrison Brady was ready to defend, and perhaps as seriously offend, tooth-and-nail, to his very death! Drummond's unmasking, at the end, of a typically contemporary smart-ass such as E.K Hornbeck, coupled with his corresponding defense of Brady, is most symbolically noteworthy here!
Finally, and somewhat repetitively, to sum up the essence of the matter here: Please, as Crassus said, in Spartacus, to Caesar; I beg at least whatever True Philosophical Patricians there may yet be among you, as opposed to the many who, like Gracchus, First Senator of the Mob, much more cynically, disingenuously sneer, in attitude, that "Privately, I believe in none of the gods, but publicly I believe in them all!" I beg you to dare risk the contemporarily, "sophisticatedly" plebeian ridicule, even from their greatest experts and specialists, of transcending the most "naturally obvious," just long enough to more coherently realize the actual extent to which it does matter, regardless of how much like Richard Burton I must sound, from The Robe, as we quite "madly" continue to cry, along with God Almighty Himself, to Job (chapters 38 and 39), "Were you out there?" After-all, if there is a God, who created all this, then he also created apes, but with so much more than merely His own superlatively, whimsically marvelous sense of humor in mind! And, thus, the same God, who would have provided us with "at least" this much clearly, overwhelmingly symbolic evidence, as to His very nature, would likewise have been necessarily serving, in the process, thereby, to leave those of us, who can see and think at all, with the clearest possible message as well; namely, that virtually anything, to the contrary of that which is otherwise so "apparently well-given," on His part, as to how it all "simply must" have begun, is, to say the least, entirely possible!
Even today's scientists could stand to be a bit more meaningfully humbled, on their very own turf; with, for just one additional instance here, the extent to which Dr. Gerald Schroeder, in his Age of the Universe, adds so much more dynamically relevant dimension to the possibilities embodied in the riddle of the original Creationist account, right down to the most plausibly sophisticated form in which its very language is so carefully albeit "primitively" structured. The only plausibly digestible way to proceed, overall, is by starting with the most overwhelmingly, unmistakably verifiable evidence, in the most systematically, comprehensively prophetic sense as well, as to the Divine Authorship, of Scriptures which cannot be broken (John 10:35); and using that to determine the likelihood as to whether a God actually existed to inspire the opening of Genesis as well, in a manner which would therefore have to be consistent with whatever genuinely scientific evidence is likewise discoverable in the processing, regardless of how problematically indeterminate various aspects of this intricately-synchronizable decipherment may at least quite naturally continue to remain. But, if nothing else, "good luck," with the Great Leviathan (Job, Chapter 41), for that's about the best "hope" structurally available, particularly and even most exclusively if God Himself had never actually existed, even to inspire the very recorded words of the Biblical Canon themselves! And, not at all unrelatedly, in closing, keep in mind what the Mighty Crassus answered, to Julius Caesar's remark, which the latter had made, in reply to the abovementioned plea: Caesar said, "My dear Crassus, I face no such choice." The answer of Crassus was, "You will--sooner than you think!"