"PATHS OF GLORY" (1957). Directed by Stanley Kubrick. Genre: WAR. It is an American film. In fact, this is a subversive film against the French military command.
"THE SHINING" (1980). Directed by Stanley Kubrick. Genre: HORROR. It is a British-American film.
Long term psychological operations (PSYOP) promote specific names and ideas through the movies along the decades. Stanley Kubrick also directed "2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY". 2001 was the year of the so called "terrorist" attack in New York on September the 11th. HORROR and WAR together: THE SHINING PATHS OF GLORY.
"PATHS OF GLORY" was released in the 50's. Few years after WWII the American military began to support a specific kind of militarization in Peru. "THE SHINING" was released in May the 23rd, 1980; the same year and month the Shining Path "began" its terrorist activity in the Peruvian territory in May the 17th. Six days after that the movie would begin to popularize half of its name in the English language. That part of the name would be related to a specific kind of emotion: horror. Coincidence or a carefully calculated propaganda campaign designed to support an entity that would become an "omnipotent" and "powerful terrorist organization"?
Title: STANLEY KUBRICK AND THE SHINING PATH. A serious investigation. Author: JORGE VILLACORTA.
Inesperado y misterioso corte de electricidad el Martes 4 de Febrero de 2014. ¿Error o demostración de poder? Se verifica lo sencillo que es afectar la vida de millones de personas cuando se mantiene una posición de ventaja en la generación y distribución de electricidad. ¿Por qué no se incentiva las producción casera de electrícidad? ¿El poder político se escurriría de algunas manos si los hogares pudiesen satisfacer sus necesidades eléctricas de modo independiente y ultraeconómico? ¡Por supuesto que sí!
What movie was directed by Stanley Kubrick following "THE SHINING" (1980)? It was "FULL METAL JACKET", released June the 26th, 1987. Almost one year before, between June the 18th and 19th, 1986 (the golden ratio?) around 300 (tau?) prisoners acussed of being terrorists (the same as saying that they belonged to the "SHINING PATH") were massacred. They had taken coordinated control of three different prisons and, in order to submit them, kind Peruvian military personnel was deployed. Well, "FULL METAL JACKET" teaches the spectator how the American soldiers are trained and how they fight in conditions of URBAN WARFARE, killing the enemy, that is the Viet Cong. The film critic Michael Ciment states that this movie reminds him of "PATHS OF GLORY" and STANLEY KUBRICK pretended that the book in which the film is based deals with "the way things are." Also, Mr. KUBRICK wanted a documentary look for this movie. So, "FULL METAL JACKET" (1987) in the context that has been described works as a justification to the current interaction between the Peruvian military and "THE SHINING PATH" in Peru at the time. If we think that "THE SHINING" (1980) appeared almost at the same time that "THE SHINING PATH" developed its first "official" "act of war", then it is not a surprise that there was a military coup d'état in Peru, supported by the elected President and the Peruvian right wing in 1992, only five years after the released of "FULL METAL JACKET" (1987) and six years after that massacre of alleged members of "THE SHINING PATH" that "saved" us from their actions. A long-term psyschological operation (military information support operation) works like that: coordinating ideas an actions that support a pre-elected result. It is not a surprise then, that the coup d'état happened in April the 5th, 1992 and that the same year 1992, in September the 12th, the "leader of the terrorist group" was "captured." Also, between 1992 and 1999, 228 strategic companies that belonged to Peru and were managed by the government were sold to private companies at extremely low prices. Probably a positive output for some forces plotting and working behind the curtains... :-) [Who bought those companies?]
One of the rejected posters designed for "THE SHINING" (1980). It was designed by Raul Bass. Why would Mr. Bass depict a stylized "eye" as the theme? Is it an indication of the "gang" behind the name of the movie? Source:
The end of "THE SHINING" shows this picture. "July 4th", "1921". It is easy to notice that "July the 4th" is a reference to the "Independence Day" in America, so the text is about that date. Since 1921 is not related to the American "Independence Day" it has to be related to any other " independence day". All "independent" countries celebrate their independence day once per year since their independence. So, 1921 must be a number very important in relation to "independence day." Which country became independent in 1921? I do not know. Stanley Kubrick would not allow the writing of the actual year of independence because it would have been too obvious. Anyway, it had to be noticeable for whoever was looking at it. OK. Think again: we are talking about "THE SHINING" and its potential relation to the Shining Path. Where is the Shining Path from? Allegedly, it is from Peru. When the Peruvian "independence" happened? It happened in July the 28th, 1821. So, Mr. Kubrick is telling us that the crazy guy from "The Shining" is related to Peru. The picture we see is an old one. Thus, we are watching an "old picture." What picture is that? It is "PATHS OF GLORY." We see "THE SHINING" but we must relate it to a former (motion) picture, a (motion) picture from the past. This way we understand what he means: "THE SHINING" - PERU. The old (motion) picture with the character that has the same age as now is the other part of the name: "PATHS OF GLORY." The whole name: "THE SHINING", "PATHS OF GLORY" is a reference to THE SHINING PATH FROM PERU. The actor resembles Baphomet, thus, all that is a subtle curse, jinx, hex or execration against the Peruvian population and the Peruvian destiny because of the theme of each movie: war and horror.
"OVERLOOK" means "to fail to see or notice something", "to pay no attention to something." Then, the name "OVERLOOK HOTEL" or "overlook" is an order to the spectators: this way they will see the reference without understanding its meaning but the people behind this plot will say that they "warned" us! Plausible deniability is everything in this kind of operation, isn't it?
Why the 100 years difference between 1821 and 1921? It would have been easy to write 1821 and show an image that matched the image. Well, there we find a reference to another movie directed by Stanley Kubrick that is a PSYOP: 2001. Also, 19 has the same digits as 911. If we remember the golden ratio (1.618), the digits 18-19 do not look so strange. And, 00 is well known as "license to kill" due to the James Bond franchise [James Bond is the agent 007]. As a consequence, 1821 plus 100 years is equivalent to giving permission to destroy the Peruvian political independence.
JOHN ALCOTT, BSC and STANLEY KUBRICK
The typical "satanic human sacrifice" that is found in every British-American psychological operation (a subject linked to the so called "mysteries") can be found in relation to the promotion of the international image of the mythical SHINING PATH. In this case the human sacrifice would be JOHN ALCOTT. John Alcott was the cinematographer of "2001: A SPACE ODDYSEY" (196 ) [this was the very first mainstream movie he worked for], "BARRY LYNDON" (19 ), "A CLOCKWORK ORANGE" (197 ) and, of course, THE SHINING.(1980). Mr. Alcott officially passed away on July the 28th, 1986. Between June the 18th and 19th, 1986 (the golden ratio?) around 300 (tau?) prisoners acussed of being terrorists (the same as saying that they belonged to the "SHINING PATH") were massacred. July the 28th is the day when the Peruvians celebrate their "independence." Was the look of the mythical leader of the also mythical SHINING PATH designed after the appearance of STANLEY KUBRICK? Is the man that is called by the Peruvian and international press ABIMAEL GUZMÁN REYNOSO a look alike of STANLEY KUBRICK? The clues are there: Q-BRICK / QABALAH-BRICK : (KUBRICK); G-MAN / UZ-MAN / OZ-MAN (GUZMÁN). (I)S-t-A-nley Q-BRICK [IS A QABALAH-BRICK] / ab-I'M-A-el G-UZ-Man [I AM A G / OZ / MAN]. These clues suggest that we are dealing with synthetic personalities created to fulfill specific social roles. When was Mr. KUBRICK born? He was born July the 26th, 1928. July / 28/ 6 / 2. Can this be a coincidence? We should remember that the Peruvian "independence" (July the 28th, 1821) was a synthetic event created under the auspices of the British Empire that has been "at war" with the Spanish Empire for centuries now.
Source: http://www.larepublica.pe/12-09-2012/falta-combatir-sendero-luminoso-en-el-terreno-politico-ideologico
Source: http://peru21.pe/politica/osman-morote-reivindica-sendero-luminoso-blog-y-redes-sociales-2146104
Allegedly, the second in command inside the SHINING PATH was OSMÁN MOROTE. OSMÁN is not a common name in the Spanish speaking world. Should we think that it is possible that in this case we are facing another MAN FROM OZ? OS-MÁN / OZ - MAN. He was arrested by the Peruvian National Police on June the eleventh (June the 11th, 1988), 6 / 11 / 88. In the Spanish speaking world the date is written: 11 de Junio de 1988 (11 / 6 / 88). Does 6/11 resemble 9/11? "Curiously," it does! Mr. MOROTE's father was supposedly born on July the 8th, 1921.
(source: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efra%C3%ADn_Morote_Best )
Does the reader remember that the so called Peruvian "independence" happened on July the 28th, 1821?
Should we begin to think about more synthetic personalities again? Apparently this method of reasoning goes against what we understand as "history" but, isn´t history another name for a specific kind of propaganda? In fact, believing that "history" works the way we are taught... wouldn´t be the ideal tool to control the minds of the populations of the world? Manufacturing "History" in advance generates a great advantage for those who control the resources.
AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER. March 1987. Cover.
AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER. March 1987. Page 60 (pay attention to the title of the article):
"NO WAY OUT: a Last Challenge
_____________________________________
Produced by Laura Ziskin and Robert Garland
Directed by Roger Donaldson
John Alcott, director of photography
_____________________________________
by Ron Magid
(Editor´s Note: John Alcott, BSC, was vacationing in the south of France with his wife, Sue when he suffered a massive heart attack and died on July 28, 1986.)
John Alcott was an extremely natural cinematographer who was able to adapt his remarkable talents to whatever style his directors demanded, from the computerlike precision of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, his first film, to the documentary realism of Roger Donaldson's No Way Out, his last, Alcott had finished shooting No Way Out only weeks before embarking on his fateful trip."
AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER. March 1987. Page 65:
"The future Mrs. Alcott met her husband right after Stanley Kubrick had promoted him to director of photography on 2001: A Space Odyssey following the departure of Geoffrey Unsworth. Alcott had been his first assistant. "I met John in the June of 1966. He'd only been working as the cinematographer for about three months, and that was the John Alcott I met, fell in love with and loved till the end of his days.
"It was Stanley, of course, who thought that John had a great talent and could carry on where Geoffrey had left off. 2001 was the most incredible experience for John. I'm sure he became because of that film. I can't take that away from Stanley. The experience of working with that man and his constant repeating to get it right stood John in such good stead. He was proud to be shooting the movie, and he worked incredibly hard. The hours were horrendous and Stanley was such a hard taskmaster, he drove everybody into the ground on this and again on his other pictures." "
AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER. March 1987. Page 66:
"If there is any continuing theme to be found in Alcott's diverse body of work, it is that every five or so years he would do another picture with Kubrick, whose incredible demands were both exciting and aggravating for the cinematographer of A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon and The Shining. Alcott did not film Kubrick's upcoming Vietnam war epic, Full Metal Jacket, ironically because he wanted a break from the demanding schedules of Kubrick's films.
In spite of these demands - or perhaps because of them - Alcott remained grateful to Kubrick throughout his career. "He was davastatedly loyal to him," Sue Alcot laughs, "as much as he drove John mad! I think he felt such a deep loyalty to Stanley because he gave John his break. Still he used to come home at night after working on one of Stanley's films, sit down with a glass of wine and say, 'God, there's another day gone!' But it was a labor of love for John because he knew he was learning so much. God knows how many cinematographers would love to have been in John's shoes, to have gone through the experiences he went through with Stanley. I think it was the highlight of his life to work with him, and one of the virtues Stanley saw in John was his insurmontable patience to want to get it right."
After the glory of 2001, however, Alcott found himself unable to find work in England for several months, which nearly wiped out the finances of his struggling family. "The industry in England completely collapsed and the only person working was Geoffrey Unsworth," Sue Alcott recalls. "I'll never forget it: we were down to our last two hundred pounds in the bank; John had been out of work for six months. Then, all of a sudden, he got a call from Stanley Donen to do tests for The Little Prince. And then, of course, there was A Clockwork Orange, and after that, he was flying."
A Clockwork Orange gave Alcott his first taste of success: he was nominated for the SFTA Best Cinematography Award and for the British Society Of Cinematographers Award. Then after shooting Stuart Cooper's first feature film, Little Malcolm, which gained the director both the 1974 Berlin Film Festival Silver Bear Award and the Gold Medal for Best Foreign Film from the Atlanta Film Festival, Alcott himself received his most valued prize: the Oscar for Best Cinematography for Kubrick's Barry Lyndon. "That movie was entirely lit with triple-wick candles!" Sue Alcott exclaims. "He was so honored. Neither of us, when we were first planning our lives together, anticipated in our wildest dreams that he would end up winning an Oscar in 1976!"
After winning the Oscar, Alcott decided he wanted to work in Hollywood. Finally, in 1983, he and his family arrived in the United States. "I could never get over the fact that he wanted to make this incredible transition from England to California at such a late stage in his life, because he was terribly set in his ways," his wife marvels. "Having done a couple of movies on location here (Vice Squad, Beastmaster), he learned to love it so much, although I could never believe that he wanted to do it! But, he was always a man that needed a great challenge and this was another step in his life that he wanted to rake. So, in 1983 we landed here, and he was terribly nervous at that point in his life because naturally he wanted to do pictures in the studios and for that he needed into the union. We'd sold everything in England, we'd moved here and we were in the throes of escrow buying our house, so this really did mean so much to us - we'd put all our eggs in one basket, to coin a phrase!
The two people responsible for getting John in the union were Roger Spottiswood and Jonathan Taplan, the director and producer, respectively, of Under Fire. He'd just got his green card when he left to do Under Fire in Mexico."
After finishing Donaldson's No Way Out, Alcott was presented what he felt would be the pinnacle of his career: David Lean's films of Joseph Conrad's Nostromo. "He was so thrilled," Sue Alcott recalls, "Maggie Unsworth, Geoffrey's widow, who works with David on all of his pictures, called and asked to speak to John. After the conversation finished, he said, 'David Lean's asked me to shoot his next movie,' Well, I just shrieked! I was like a silly little girl while calma John took it all in his stride, but I could tell that the emotion was all there inside. So when we went back to England in July, before we left our fateful holiday in France, John went to have lunch with David. He'd met him before a number of times socially, but had never sat down with him to discuss a future project that they were going to go together. John left our little apartment at midday and didn't come back until five o'clock that afternoon. He came back so amazed at having spent five hours with the great David Lean - John was totally in awe. They got on extraordinarily well together and about an hour after he got back, Maggie called John and said, 'David was absolutely thrilled with your meeting today and is totally thrilled that you're going to do the movie.' And, of course, two weeks later, John was dead.""
MEJORES ESTRENOS 2014 (BEST MOVIES 2014 IN PERU).
