by Travis Mateer
Sometimes it feels like my research into the occult is more a process of deprogramming myself than it is a process of discovery, especially as it relates to the movies and tv shows I consumed as a kid. Watching old media with new eyes can be a jarring experience because the depths of manipulation we’ve experienced through our shared culture can appear endless.
I have the Psyop Cinema guys to thank for re-contextualizing a movie that helped form my impression of the “alien contact” narrative as I was growing up and, more importantly, providing a fascinating nugget of intrigue about the leading actor’s family’s role in history. Here’s a screenshot from this link to get us started:
Before getting to the movie Close Encounters, this Dreyfuss connection to the assassination of Alexander II is synchronistic for me considering I picked up this book recently:
With my interest in narrative control, this theory that Nicolas and his family did NOT meet the violent fate history has ascribed is fascinating to me. I’ve added this theory to the list of possible things we’ve been lied to about. It’s a long list.
Another synchronicity with Richard Dreyfuss is the Rolling Stone issue I special ordered because it features an article about the Shroud of Turin, which involves the father of Sean Stevenson, Dr. Kenneth Stevenson.
To help put all this in the larger context of the forces I think are at play, I suggest reading both of last Friday’s posts surrounding Jack Parsons (first post; second post) because Jack will be making another appearance near the fringy end of this one.
The movie Close Encounters is not just a set of cinematic images put into my brain by Hollywood when I was a kid, it’s also a book I came across a few years ago and cut up some excerpts for my culture-archive journal. Here’s one of the pages:
I didn’t realize how synchronistic this excerpt would be until I took this pic for the post. Not only do we have Frankenstein, written by Shelley, who was referenced in the Crow777 podcast I linked to in post 1 about Parsons, but we ALSO have a rocket ship! And a tank, so we can apply youthful imagination to eventual pursuits of war!
There is also a distinctly creepy vibe being created by details like the Frankenstein monster “blushing” when its pants fall down. Huh?
This Spielberg movie is made even more curious, as it relates to Richard Dreyfuss, when the Psyop Cinema guys explain how the selfish actions of the “protagonist”–when he absconds from his family with the New Age chick–was an element of the movie that Dreyfuss himself argued to keep in the script, despite alleged misgivings by Spielberg. Interesting.
As I poked around for Dreyfuss info I found this Washington Post article from 1982. Here’s how some more Dreyfuss family color was described four decades ago (emphasis mine):
“My great-uncle Dick, whom I was named for, worked as a broken-arm broken-leg man for Waxey Gordon. My grandfather says to this day, ‘Mister G was the finest man I ever knew: He waited for his butter and eggs in line like everyone else.’ “
Waxey Gordon, of course, was an enforcer for the Mob.
Later in the article we get a careful depiction of Dreyfuss’ temperament, along with a description of deep disappointment that a film he made about the porn industry didn’t pan out so well (emphasis mine):
Richard Dreyfuss and the press have had their bad days. His sheer intensity, his quickness, his explosive reactions seem to have upset some interviewers. And critics have squatted on some of his favorite pictures. “Inserts,” an offbeat story about a Hollywood director reduced to shooting porn films, never recovered from the X rating it got when United Artists absentmindedly let it be prescreened.
“A wonderful movie. So intelligent. Almost the only movie that really said something about the business. The greatest set I’ve ever been on — it was shot on a London soundstage, but when I walked in I thought I was back in Beverly Hills. I knew mansions like that. This is my home; I’ve been here.”
I’ll wrap this post up with drugs and a cute movie. First, the cute movie, and I think you’ll see why it’s included in this post pretty quickly (emphasis, below, is mine):
ASTRONAUT stars Richard Dreyfuss as Angus, a retired civil engineer who’s always dreamed of going into outer space. One night, he sees a promotion for a competition where the public will pick one person to ride on the first commercial spacefraft into space. Right before applying, Angus suffers a heart attack, and his daughter takes him to a nursing home. In the home, Angus befriends a sickly man who pushes him to apply. Angus applies with one minute left in the competition and is chosen to be interviewed in front of the public. Will Angus do well enough to get the public’s vote?
ASTRONAUT is a cute movie with many positive themes. Richard Dreyfuss is the main reason to see ASTRONAUT.
Ah, how nice! I LOVE cute movies about the first commercial space flight for an elderly civil engineer! How touching!
Now, from that previous article, the drugs. Which is totally in Dreyfuss’ past (emphasis mine):
Fame and money seem to have taken the edge off his self-destructive anxieties, and the drinking and drugging have stopped, though he has a never-ending battle with the scales, and last year there was that $2.5-million breach of promise suit by a Hollywood beauty. He is full of projects. His constant drive for the new, the challenging, the harder, the greater roles has taken him back to the stage. He did a Cassius in Brooklyn and an Iago to Paul Winfield’s Othello. He wants to do a Hamlet, “and maybe Malvolio,” he adds, noting that villains and supporting parts have more fun than the heroes.
I’m sure Richard Dreyfuss has had plenty of fun “playing” villains in Hollywood, but in many people’s hearts he’ll always be that dorky scientist who helped kill a big, bad shark.
Now that I’ve finished the post, I’m going to go jump into some water myself, but nothing exotic with danger lurking beneath the surface. At least I hope not!
Thanks for reading!