The Woman in Green…

In the Woman in Green, the movie opens with a scene found in the 1957 film, 12 Angry Men.  Holmes is a private investigator, the leading man, the star of the show, the one who never fails.  Early in the film Holmes assists Scotland Yard in an investigation.  Holmes and the Scotland yard detective go to a night club for drinks.  There they encounter Sir George and Lydia, who works for Professor Moriarty.  They are having drinks and Sir George is lighting her cigarette.  Here is a romantic scene where cigarette smoking and using alcohol are also romanticized. Holmes comments Lydia is quite handsome, she and Sir George an admirable couple most anyone would like to emulate.  Days after seeing this film, a male viewer might have had these thoughts about some new female encounter and might have projected these toward her. This could have resulted in conflicts within the community, intrapersonal, or even restricted to interpersonal conflict, conflict within the self, until he was awakened from the hypnotic suggestion, if that happened at all. I argue the correctness of the use of the words intra- and inter- as defined by many psychology books since I was taught inter- referred to things within and intra-refers to things outside of or surrounding a person or organization, etc. If one is made to doubt one’s most basic education, then one is in doubt and in conflict most of the time.   

In the case of Lydia, some males might be inclined to stay clear of all blonds until they become conscious of how the film has affected them. If the viewer had forgotten that he saw the film he might have taken his interest in the girl further, he may have accused her of being a seductress when he knew nothing about her. He may even have raped, assaulted or killed her if he feels strongly enough about what he was being programmed with from this film and what she had done to Holmes or the others as he has introjected Holmes and Moriarty into his personality.  Introjected here seems to mean the viewer’s brain and mind has been programmed with the behaviors and nuances of the character Holmes, and really all of the characters. This is not introjection as it is referred to by scientists. Introjection is more like what Tony Robbins describes in his book Unlimited Power, or what many people would do upon seeing Sir George and Lydia in the elegant restaurant, dressed in their elegant attire, I called it emulating. There is more to being like those people that emulating fails to provide. Introjection here is more like being programmed with nuances of behavior such as one hears in the voice or sees the characters acting out such as playing a violin, smoking a pipe, the mumbling Watson does or even the wrinkling of one’s nose. If the viewer attempts to thwart these nuances programmed into the brain, by projecting them onto another, he is still programmed with them, especially if they are not acted upon by those onto whom they are projected. The male viewer may be plagued with them, at least until they are diminished from his memory or acted out and the real Holmes may be nothing like the character dramatized on the television. 

Upon leaving the night club Lydia invites Sir George to her flat for a night cap and then hypnotizes him.  Lydia is now unlikable. It is clear Lydia is up to no good and so any identification with her by the female viewing audience starts to wane and any attractions to her by the male viewing audience are also diminishing.  The female viewer may disown these aspects of her own self for fear of some legal trouble. This means many women might have refrained from using any kind of gentle relaxing tone of voice or relaxing conversation with their children, husband or boyfriends for fear of hypnotizing them or hurting them in some way. It is quite possible some women might take interest in luring a man to her apartment with these same kinds of activities. Was the woman influenced by the dialogue or did she act of her own free will. According to most scientists it is unlikely she was able to act of her own free will, unless that dialogue was stripped from her mind and memory.   

Moving on, another Finger Murder has been committed.  The novel and films Fingersmith by Sarah Waters,  follow this part of the story.  This could possibly have resulted in the loss of fingers in some manner by an immature viewer or one who disdains its associations.  I have had visions of some young person sticking their hand into a blender. Whether they lost their fingers or hand I cannot say, but one gets the idea. The growing science of robotics comes to mind as the motivation for some of this kind of activity and was dramatized in the film Artificial Intelligence. Which came first the chicken or the egg? Since novels, films, history and simply the nature of our own brain function, it is clear these existed before the science of robotics. Revenge tactics were possibly woven into this film and then would have been programmed into the minds of viewers who might have hurt themselves or others. Even Queen Elizabeth II was attacked by some unknown male.  Certainly one can review our history to see the motivation for this kind of intricate thinking. Germany was destroyed during WWII and before that WWI. Sir George awakens in a strange hotel and fears there is something wrong with him as he can no longer remember where he had been after leaving Lydia, (Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde film) because he was hypnotized.  Here is an allusion to Sir George being a Jekyll and Hyde kind of character, in hopes of saving those who viewed those films from a similar demise as Sir George. In the mean time, in the film, Dr. Moriarty pays Lydia a visit and attempts to bribe Sir George by making him believe he committed the Finger Murder, showing Sir George his cigarette case Moriarty took from him before depositing him in the hotel.  Clearly Moriarty and Lydia are up to no good by now and the viewer shifts his identifications away from these two people.  I have often been plagued with this kind of paranoia I attribute to television viewing and possibly this film simply because of the manner in which the dialogue is written.  I once thought a television commentator was talking to me and I had responded to everything she was saying by writing notes on pieces of paper and holding the up in front of the television.  I was sent to see Dr. Heyder in Powell’s Point, NC for an evaluation shortly thereafter.  It was six years after my first incarceration in prison.  Pending transport to prison one of the prisoners told me she was accused of being an accessory to child abuse and molestation.  She told me she believed the television was talking to her during the times she was viewing it.  Six years later I act this out or re-enact what she was doing, of which one I cannot be certain.  I later, when I regained control of my mind, she was mixed up with the prison execution team. 

Moriarty tells Sir George, “it fell out of your pocket”, when referring to his cigarette case. The viewer might receive this as a personal threat to his or her integrity, an insinuation the viewer was guilty of the finger murder, however allusive these thoughts might be as the viewer would first receive the insinuation as being directed to him or her then they would direct it back onto the character Sir George but Sir George doesn’t receive this redirected content, it is directed locally or within one’s own family.   A conflict between two partners might ensue and all sorts of denial would go on possibly even while the viewer is watching the film but may be totally unaware of this.  It might then cause the viewer to dissociate this part of himself in order to keep his ego intact, until the end of the film and he is able to reconnect with those parts of himself or he simply continues to dissociate that and maybe other parts of himself until the content is removed by acting out in which some innocent person could easily fall prey to the content and find himself in jail for assaulting someone who accuses him of stealing. Another might even resort to stealing a cigarette case believing it is their own. Reacting in this way is a part of the less mature mind in that they are unaware of the potential problems with novel reading, television viewing and of the cultural symbolism that could have an effect on the unconscious mind. Jung mentions this kind of activity which he termed possession, in his book Man and His Symbols, pg. 192. The one possessed is rendered unconscious by the dissociation or projection. In the case of a projection, one may then find one’s self identifying with the projection, feeling he or she is the one having the thoughts and feelings. Legally, one might consider this an imprisonment or enslavement if one is more mature and recognizes what is going on and by that I mean the intentions to string the viewers along for future episodes or some future novel. 

Sir George’s daughter shows up at Holmes’ flat and invites him to her home to talk with her father.  When they arrive they find Sir George dead.  Suicide was thought to be the cause of death but Holmes quickly deduces it was murder.  Now Sir George is eliminated from the identification game.  This undermines a viewer’s potential for seeking a more elite kind of life. After returning to their flat, Watson is tricked by a phone call from Moriarty which Holmes suspects but says nothing to Watson.  Dr. Moriarty then pays Holmes a visit.  He threatens to do away with Watson.  The viewer then likely shifts his attention from Watson to Holmes again or maybe even Moriarty by now.  While Watson isn’t the star of the show he is a dear and loyal friend to Holmes having risked his life for him many times.  Following Moriarty’s visit, Williams, another of Moriarty’s victims, in a hypnotic state attempts to shoot Holmes who’s keen deductive reasoning foils the plan.  Holmes is still the hero and one to identify with but, during this process the viewer might briefly shift his focus to Dr. Watson or Scotland Yard who takes Williams, the hypnotized sniper, off to jail.  One might also shift identification from Holmes because Moriarty wants to get rid of him.  Sympathy towards Williams is likely to be found with the female viewers, especially those who have received little affection or care from parents, who then might have succumb to the hypnotic suggestion presented later in the film. This could also create stress and paranoia in the identifying viewer’s mind.  There are many Williamses in my hometown, one who was the butcher for the Red and White Supermarket in Engelhard where my parents lived and my mother still lives.  I went to school with a Williams and lived with one in 1973 and again in 1976 while in college.      

All seems well again with the viewer until Holmes and Watson visit the Mesmer Club.  They observe a man being hypnotized followed by other stage antics.  Any normal sane person would then think hypnosis fallible and a hoax from what they viewed.  Then Watson, a very logical man being a Doctor, is invited to participate in an experiment, as a subject to the hypnotist. This could clearly have been intended to also lead the viewer into participating in some future experiment, likely with the CIA and the effects of the television itself. This of course would be to investigate the truth of Freud’s inferences that man is innately evil.  Watson agrees and in minutes he is hypnotized and seems to perform acts suggested by the hypnotist.  The viewer then shifts his identifications away from Watson because he has contradicted himself, has fallen prey to the suggestion and appears to be the old fool Holmes calls him frequently in these films. Unless the viewer takes exception to the comments he too would have succumb to the inferences.  Watson is then told to wake up, only to find he was hypnotized and feels like a fool, how Holmes frequently refers to Dr. Watson and in the film as old fellow.  Was Watson programmed by Holmes’ comments, to behave like a fool?  The viewer possibly having been caused to feel like a fool, he may have acted as a fool in numerous ways after having seen the film or again he or she might have projected this onto another who acts the part in some way. Since the focus is returned to Holmes we are left dangling as to whether Watson’s actions were deliberate or due to the hypnotic suggestion. The viewer thinking back on the previous subject on stage, might have considered the whole matter a hoax and might have shifted his focus back to Holmes or even onto the hypnotist because one’s curiosity would have been aroused by what the hypnotist was doing.  Before leaving, Holmes runs into Lydia again, a chance meeting arranged by Moriarty and agrees to accompany her to her place.   

One can now easily deduce what kinds of problems might result from this part of the film. Some man may have attempted to drug a woman and rape her or tried to seduce her with mind controlling conversation to get her into bed. He might have even considered there were women out there who were already hypnotized if he was aware of the potential of the part of the film in which Watson was hypnotized. This might have even been the motivating force for taking a nice young woman to the theater to see this film. This dialogue clearly enters the viewer’s mind. How one perceives Dr. Watson after that would determine whether the viewer identified with the suggestion and became hypnotized or whether the viewer would avert the suggestion and possibly repress this content and dissociate it from the self, at which time another could become possessed by it and act it out. My behavior from 1991 until 1999 clearly indicated to me this was the case with some of the people I have been entangled with or with my own mother. I have been unable to determine if these suggestions were already in her mind because of her entanglements or from her having actually viewed the film.   

They arrive, have tea and then he agrees to let her hypnotize him also.  Lydia talks in a calm relaxing voice, like most parents would to their children.  Holmes is loud and quick speaking, Moriarty’s voice is a bit lower and raspier while Watson’s is even lower and mumbles frequently.   Lydia give Holmes a sherry and offers him a drug before the hypnosis as she claims he is a difficult subject.  He refuses at first but then agrees to take the pill.  She then proceeds with the hypnotic induction.  By this time the viewer doesn’t know who to stick with.  Lydia is clearly a femme fatale and is associated with Lydia in Alfred Hitchcock’s, The Birds as Brenner’s mother, but Melanie gets the brunt of the angry feelings especially when they are trapped in the restaurant by the birds attacking and one patron calls her evil.  Lydia in The Woman in Green might have been considered evil. Moriarty then arrives at Lydia’s and soon is directing Holmes to pen a suicide letter.  He then directs Holmes to go out onto the balcony where he intends to end Holmes’ life.  This is indicative of mind control. In the mean time, Watson rounds up Scotland Yard and arrives just in time to keep Holmes from stepping off the balcony almost falling to his death himself.  Holmes quickly rescues Watson but then they turn to discover Moriarty jumping onto the ledge of the next building, tearing the drain off and falling out of sight.  Lydia is taken into custody.  Now that all is solved the viewer has only the two central men onto whom they can identify, Watson a retired Doctor and Holmes a private investigator.   

During the course of the shifting of these identifications, dialogue contaminates the viewers brain and mind.  It now requires the assistance of an expert writer or psychoanalyst to extract the contaminated parts and clean them and this process gives them insight into the thinking of the viewer.  This of course takes time and energy and may disrupt one’s sleep.  Children of those who have viewed this film might resist taking needed medications from the mother despite Holmes’ claims he took something to counter the effects. I am certain there were advertisements to counter this potential as I have been an avid user of various kinds of medications, what one might call the subject of an experiment. This might also lead some viewers to look for antidotes to sedating drugs and in our country cocaine seems to have been a major choice, likely amongst those who were infected with the ideas in this film. Others may have been subjected to the use of heroin or other sedating drugs and in my case may have attempted suicide by overdosing or trying to jump from some height in a building, parking deck or even cliff. I am a witness to this effect on behavior. A young blond Desert Storm Veteran who I shared a room with for a few days at the Durham, VA, was speedballing cocaine and heroin in the bathroom. Speedballing refers to shooting cocaine into the vein of one arm and heroin into the other. This is likely due to the guilt perceived by blonds who viewed or participated in the making of the film. I myself used cannabis (marijuana) and barbiturates, then consumed large amounts of caffeine in the form of Dexedrine, and black beauties. I also used and was addicted to alcohol. I have been addicted to sedatives for many years, feeling as if I wanted to go into a never ending blissful sleep. This emulates the undefeatable Holmes who took something to counter Lydia’s sedating drugs and alludes that Holmes likely lifted her and Moriarty, why Moriarty was the one to fall from the ledge rather than Holmes.   

I am still recollecting and discovering the numerous things which are related to this film such as my Aunt’s favorite punch, lime sherbet and ginger ale.       

In summary, there are many variables, as many as there are people with varied thoughts on the same subject at the beginning of this article.  I am clear that most of us do identify with the numerous characters we see on television or deal with in our daily lives.  This has a powerful affect on our own personal character, thinking and ways of being. 

I think this is one – have not seen…

Artificial Intelligence, 2001

Despite the obvious about this film, I think it dramatizes the aspects of the control and manipulation of individuals and the end result of those who fail to control and direct themselves. It is about a seemingly lone scientist who lost his son, obsessed and refusing to accept his loss. In desperation to recapture his son’s life, he has masterminded the creation of a robotic boy called David, who looks like his son. This sounds like the accusations made against scientists acquiring and using stem cells 30 years ago. Upon finding out about his origins David runs away. David’s replicas are sent out and one is purchased by Henry Swinton, for his grieving wife Monica, who’s son Martin is terminally ill. The story moves through the twists and turns of Monica and Henry’s adjustment to David. During this time Martin recovers and is brought home. Martin becomes envious of Monica’s attention to David and various competitions and childish pranks go on throughout his adapting to David. David too grows more interested in the human qualities of Martin’s relationship with his mother, wishing to be treated more human. Just when Martin is getting over his jealousy of David, an innocent prank causes an accident resulting in the near drowning of Martin and David is thought to be the cause. Unaware of the manner in which David would respond to a knife striking the palm of his hand (The Woman in Green) he is thrown into defense mode. He grabs Martin and unable to release him, they both fall to the bottom of the pool. Henry rescues Martin while David remains behind. Because Monica imprinted with David, giving him his human like qualities, they cannot return David and Henry then insists Monica dispose of David and takes him to a forest where he is left alone with his teddy. She gives him money and points him in a safe direction, apologizes for not teaching him about the world and then leaves. He responds to Monica’s abandonment as if he were a real boy. The story then moves through the various trials and tribulations David faces out in the world. He befriends a Loverboy mecha who gets David in and out of his many predicaments but is captured and returned to scrap for his misdeeds. David finally crashes into Manhattan, depicted in the future as being beneath the sea, where he remains for a long period of time. Upon awakening he discovers the Blue Fairy he sought for so long and believed could make him a real boy. The remainder of the film involves his re-acquaintance with Monica who went to sleep, but is brought back to life briefly, enabling David to recapture his relationship with her if only for a short time.

Do we possess artificial intelligence? Are we the result of what has been programmed into us? I think this is the true intent of the film, to explore this thinking. We do develop thoughts and feelings in response to what we see and hear, the nature of our brains. We as humans can develop thoughts and feelings independent of what we are programmed to think and believe. It takes the work of attention, a willingness to gain knowledge of ourselves and a reflection upon ourselves and what we have done and what we do, in creating our future selves and our future lives.   At some point in the process we do learn to love ourselves.  It may start by simply saying I love myself even if we don’t feel it and then we learn what it means to love one’s self and to act toward the self in a way that is loving.  Sometimes we acquire knowledge from the observations of the behaviors of others as David did and Martin failed to do in order to learn about ourselves and how to be, but turning our attention outward may fail us more often than turning our attention inward. We may choose not to love as we are programmed to do and at other times we love when we are made to think we should not. The following argument between the female colleague and Professor Hobby is the crux of the film.

Female Colleague: It occurs to me with all this animus existing against Mechas today it isn't just a question of creating a robot that can love. Isn't the real conundrum, can you get a human to love them back?

Professor Hobby: Ours will be a perfect child caught in a freeze frame. Always loving, never ill, never changing. With all the childless couples yearning in vain for a license, our Mecha will not only open up a new market but fill a great human need.

“Female Colleague: But you haven't answered my question. If a robot could genuinely love a person what responsibility does that person hold toward that Mecha in return? It's a moral question, isn't it?”

“Professor Hobby: The oldest one of all. But in the beginning, didn't God create Adam to love him?”

Did God really create Adam to love him or were we made to think this? Did love really enter the picture or was Adam the product of a sexual urge? Like David and the rest of us, Adam and all of his descendants learned to love through pain and suffering, yet as I have learned from the wisdom of others, suffering is optional and if we open our ears and our minds we learn to avoid unnecessary suffering.  Is hating or disliking certain kinds of behavior really inappropriate? Doesn’t it lead to a better way of behaving? I am reminded of Scott Peck’s book The Road Less Traveled. A love of money or the ruthless acquisition of it with no regard for others has nothing to do with love and in my opinion should never enter the market place. The word love is frequently and impulsively misused and exploited. Greed is destructive and is evil. An unloved child or unrequited love can become destructive and evil. Love for others in our capitalist society has been equated with the emptying of one’s pocket often for products that cause harm to the self in the end, and at the expense of the self. Caveat emptor, beware the ouroboros, he who wishes to escape the trap he has set for himself.  For some love thyself as thy neighbor should be the order of the day.

Romanticize me…

Amazon.com: Science & Weather: Season 1, Episode 9 "The Incredible Human Machine": Amazon Instant Video

…this is an excellent video and I prefer it over later versions.

Network, 1976

It is saddening to have to admit I have never seen this film in the 36 years it has been out.  When it did hit the screens my life was so chaotic I didn’t even think about looking at a movie and the ones I did see at the Drive-In Theater were mostly because I was working there.  That was true until about 1982 after I had settled into a good job.  Within a year that all changed and it was chaos but no Agent 99.  It stopped and started several times and I still didn’t see this film and no one mentioned it to me.  Now I know why.

It isn’t as good as it could be, but  some of Hollywood’s finest actors give it their best.  Mr. Peter Finch is stellar as Howard Beale and Holden comes in second place.  Dunaway holds her own amid these two well seasoned actors, this film not being one of her best.  Duvall is quite convincing in his role, having topped himself since this film.  Beatty’s role brought together the Beale character’s god delusion.  Beatty is another fine actor having better roles and performances since this film.  Ferrell and Warfield give talented supporting performances as well.

In this scene Beale orates his sentiments about the television and man’s demise because of it.  Of course I think it is assuming most people have viewed The Woman in Green, and Stepford Wives and are peeved at what corporations are doing to people with it, so this film helps move this emotional repression along but creates another by its ending.  In this dialogue we are confronted with the same I,me, you problem, ie, “we are the illusion”,directing the viewer’s attention to Beale and the news reporters, who actually aren’t illusions.  They actually represent the projections of those ideas we repress and often hide even from ourselves, this film quite clearly being one of those ideas and the fear of being murdered by those in the industry, another.  To do it any other way to correct the I, me, you would seem odd but I think it would be better received by the brain.   The brain receives this as me the viewer being an illusion yet, from the film we also deduce this is how many corporations see viewers, as illusions, little robots to be manipulated, our every move directed, or even nonexistent.   The illusions created by the film now become evident.  Beale isn’t the one who loses his job and he doesn’t really get shot down but our brains receive the information this way.  Schumacher’s illusion is an incestuous relationship acted out with a woman not much older than his pregnant daughter which is never mentioned in the film, while they do mention Diana’s father complex.  Of course this likely never happens in reality.  I wonder if this film is alluding to the Kay Francis film titled Illusions?

I don’t think this is as it sounds.  I think it is in keeping with the ideas of Ernest Holmes and others who believe man has learned all he needs to learn.  Of course this isn’t altogether true as man in his quest for more is always creating some problem to be overcome or some thing to be conquered, so we have to keep learning new things.  And too, from my own experiential knowledge of consciousness, it has to be frequently reinforced from external sources, though sometimes human memory is enough.  So the individual isn’t finished in that sense.  We don’t all know everything nor do we have the capacity, unless we do develop larger brains.  Of course the film presents this segment to the viewer, as man becoming less rather than more because of his television viewing.  We do know what we see on television, to the brain, is like having experienced it in real life (wish I had seen Caged before I ended up in prison myself, not that I wanted to go to prison mind you…).  With that in mind, more is not always better where it is concerned, but consider that not having experienced something at all might leave one vulnerable to some real life catastrophe.

I do think people are angry.  I think we’ve been angry as children and we often stuff this anger for decades and we then hurt ourselves and others with it.  So it is therapeutic when Beale gets riled up and gets everyone else to get riled up enough to confess they are even angry.   Then the Ecumenical Army is breathing down Diana’s neck about their ratings because Beale has depressed his audience at this point.  Unfortunately Beale hasn’t reached the people who employ him and in a shocking ending, on their course for wealth at the expense of others, they conspire to have him murdered.   Beale is one of the illusions and joins the ranks of the viewer, one of the chess pieces in the game of life that fails to comply, memories of Kent State come to mind.  The others are concerned about points and ratings and how that calculates into dollars.  Of course this scares the hell out of the viewer who then becomes more compliant with the wishes and desires of the corporations using such tactics to manipulate behavior, which was to be the end result of Kent State.  I received this as being an omen to giving over so much power to these kinds of bullies. 

Shattered Dreams (1990)

Michael Nouri and Lindsay Wagner are excellent in this portrayal of upper class domestic violence.   While thinking about this film and studying the unconscious, subconscious and conscious minds, it occurred to me that John started abusing his wife, not because of anything innately wrong with him. Charlotte did not commit her verbal acts of aggression or compliance because of anything innately defective in her, they both were the victims of the unconscious thoughts and feelings of possibly their parents or other authority figures in their lives. Carl Jung mentions this in his book, Man and His Symbols, pg. 192, "...whenever one of these personifications of the unconscious takes possession of our mind, it seems as if we ourselves are having such thoughts and feelings. The ego identifies with them to the point where it is unable to detach them and see them for what they are. One is really possessed by the figure from the unconscious. Only after the possession has fallen away does one realize with horror that one has done and said things diametrically opposed to one's real thoughts and feelings - that one has been the prey of an alien psychic factor." This of course was also true for Jung himself as he was a student of Freud's. The Veteran's Administration also has documented information of a similar nature in their International Handbook of Traumatic Stress Syndromes.

My concern is whether this type of film truly offers any healing to the viewer who may also have been a victim of a similar situation as it can desensitize one to abuse.  For those who suffer PTSD, I think viewing a similar traumatic circumstance may only re-enforce a personal trauma and all of it's symptoms, including the physiological responses to personal traumatic events.  To resolve the dissociative problems resulting from trauma, is to reintegrate that which has been dissociated.  Leading one to seek divorce is not true healing of the family unit.  Some situations make it necessary, so that one can seek additional help if desired. I do realize this film was made at a time when people were becoming more aware of the prevalence of domestic violence.  Unless one has been trained to see the mental and emotional patterns, it is difficult to see what this film is truly dramatizing. 

In Beyond the Brain,, Stanislov Grof states, "Thus, the insight that it is important to experience more of the same discomfort to reach resolution is essentially accurate. However for this to happen, the experiential pattern must be completed internally, not acted out."   This is part of the healing of the developmental issues.  I think similar ideas are expressed in L. Ron Hubbard's book, Dianetics in which he talks about clearing an engram by having an auditor walk you through certain steps of the clearing process. This is of concern to me as it seems confusing. We see actors and actresses acting out scenes and yet we are told by Psychiatrists and Psychologists that acting out can actually inhibit healing.  They have not experienced the trauma.  

The body can also store memories of movements, feelings and postures that can possibly trigger traumatic memories.   This is normal and how our brains record events for our future safety.  I think healing a slap on the face would better be treated by some other means than an auditor.  By that I mean that erasing those memories isn’t enough and can set one up for the same problem in the future, Modified versions of events in films can help integrate various aspects of one’s life and provide an opportunity to move beyond the traumatic event. 

Having lived through a similar situation in my own family, I didn't understand why one would not just pick up and leave after the first blow was struck.  I could relate to this film despite the differences in economic backgrounds as abuse is abuse.  The dynamics are more complicated than they were able to portray due to time.   Other films like Nuts and Magdalene Sisters also detail the struggle of getting free from abusive situations.

 

One of the best actors, my favorite, in a compelling film about prison life…

…a film I related to, based on my own experiences.  Jane Alexander, Kotto, Hamilton, Freeman, Keith, Ness and all, giving stellar performances in this important film on corruption in prisons.

Prime Suspect, Final Act…

In her final act, Tennison crosses the line, escalating an already heated situation.  A young black man is being blamed for having sexual relations with a white girl, then killing her. He's been pursued by the police, injured himself trying to escape and now is face to face with his tormentor, while the real killer is free and leading Tennison down a dead end street.  Jane has been chewed out by her boss for her drinking.  She wakes up on a sobering morning unable to recall the night before, is finally forced to confront her drinking problem, and her father has passed away.  She is making mistake after mistake in the course of events leading up to her confrontation with Curtis who calls her a bitch and on whom she unleashes her rage, leading to the death of a fellow officer.

Curtis and Jane are very much alike, it is only their labels, positions in life, and the forces that work to maintain that position that prevent them from seeing each other for who they really are or for having any feelings of empathy toward each other.  We at first think Curtis is going to be a good guy and offers to give Jane a glass of water but walks away. Jane is no different than Curtis in that she is being haunted by her past, Curtis is haunted by a dead girl and hunted by the police.

Why is Otley the one who gets shot instead of Jane, this isn't the first time Jane has fowled up and she killed her own unborn child?  Isn't there a transference or some projective identification going on between Jane, Curtis and Otley?  Jane is suicidal, drinking herself into stupors at every chance?  I see upper class chauvinism all over this film.

Is this really entertaining or is it showing us who we really are?   Is it any different than watching the gladiators in Rome. Why do I like them? Is it really about eking out the truth and getting the real bad guy, despite your faults and failures or is it about the sado-masochism lurking around every corner waiting to come out of hiding to get us, that keeps us looking for ways to cope?   Maybe Agatha Christie would have said it better.

One of the best crime films I’ve seen, superbly acted.   You hardly know they are acting.   The directing is much better in this film than in earlier episodes.

An important film…

This film is one of those fact based films that gets turned into a myth by film makers…

…I did view this film and understand perfectly what it is dramatizing as I have experienced it myself.  Therefore one can conclude some films do intend educating the public.  The subjects of the film lose sight of their reality hunt, with a surprise ending inserted into their reality, that would shock most viewers unfamiliar with sci-fi crime films.  Because of the shock effect, viewers would hardly entertain any other reality about this film, thus their truth is lost.

There are sleeping issues in this film.

Taylor and Rorke, who I am familiar with from I dream of Jeanie, are very good in this film but Stanwyck makes several obvious flub ups I attribute to misdirection.  One case in which it is obvious the director tells her to look up at the camera at the wrong time and she seems to have jumped the gun when responding to Hudson’s character in the film.   It also appeared there was intent on selling the public on electric percolators, so the sleeper might have been viewing an ad for an electric percolator which may have attributed to Stanwyck’s error.   These ads were popular in the 60’s with a woman dressed in a full skirt, tight fitting blouse and glaring look and wide smile.  If I had not experienced this for myself in my sleep and during my waking hours, I would never have deduced this information from this film.

Proxies for Reality