FKATwigs,Kristen Stewart,Rob Pattinson - What Do You See?

What Do You See?

Just look at the image.Rob is walking ahead of FKAtwigs in the same way he used to walk ahead of Kristen. There is a difference though.

Twigs is carefully made up and elegantly dressed.She is not wearing a designer dress. A scarf yes, but a way of dressing and combining that is uniquely her style.

She does not intend to get tweetstormed online for being a dark monkey.

She is dressed for cameras.Twigs is dressed to be seen.

Kristen never was unless it was a PR event.

What is significant to me is that Rob is walking WITH her exactly the way he walked with Kristen when the papz were around.Pissed.Walking ahead of her.Look at twigs.She is not upset particularly.

She has dressed for herself, for Rob and for Papz. Rob is dressed or rather not dressed as if he were with Kristen. He walks ahead of FKA the way he did with Kristen.

Twigs fiddles with her phone rather than hide her face,put on sunglasses,stick her finger up to ruin the price of the image. She is indifferent to them. Like Joli is. Rob is still stuck in Twilight mode. Twilight mode with Kristen.

Rob has not made the transition. And this is where I am disturbed.

In the late 1980's I went to a psychoanalytic seminar.I heard Howard Covitz speak there on the dreams of Joseph. He analyzed them.

Joseph tells his brothers he has dreamed that they all had sheaves of wheat. Their sheaves bowed down to his sheaf of wheat.

Covitz's analysis was that Joseph saw his brothers with = signs between them. That is, his brothers were not individuals, singular,unique, but perceived as "clones" of each other (my word not Covitz).

Was it any wonder they disliked Joseph and sold him into Egyptian slavery? Joseph also dressed femme in his clothes and makeup/hair. Another sign that made him different, disliked?

At that point in the talk something connected with me.

I had seen Bunuel's  That Obscure Object of Desire

about 10 years before. Once with a man I had been with for 10 years or so, was not in love with, but in a sort of partnership,friend way.

In that movie Rey has two lovers who are both Spanish, dark hair, dark eyes, but definitely two actresses. Two different actresses.

I saw it again the same week with a new lover with whom I was not in love but felt serious about.

Both these men in my life thought the two women were the same woman. I even tried to correct them to no avail as they saw ONE women, not two.

I stopped arguing and thought about this. Thinking about Freud's Dora whom I always thought Freud did not understand well. Not the way Breuer understood Anna O anyway.

And listening to Covitz that day the lightbulb went on.

Neither of these men in my life that were now gone, saw me as unique.Neither of them saw any woman as unique. There was an equal sign between us all. And this is Joseph's narcissism.He didn't either.

WHAT IS LOVE?

The second way of finding a meaning in life is....by experiencing another human being in his very uniqueness - by loving him.

Love is the only way to grasp another human being to the innermost core of his personality. No one can become fully aware of the very essence of another human being unless he loves him. By his love he is enabled to see the essential traits and features in the beloved person; and even more, he sees that which is potential in him, which is not yet actualized but yet ought to be actualized. Furthermore, by his love, the loving person enables the beloved person to actualize these potentialities. By making him aware of what he can be and of what he should become, he makes these potentialities come true.

Man's Search for Meaning pp 111-112

We can probably safely say that Rob's audition for Edward was close to this.

In choosing his costar for Remember Me he said he tried the same thing but it didn't work (laughs)

Kristen chose Rob. On Oprah she said she just saw something in him. She just knew.
Can we say she saw his potential, what he could become in the role of Edward?

Isn't this love?
Is it required to say out loud, "I love him!"

Kristen gazes at us through the camera with love as someone has written about her, comparing her gaze with Lilian Gish, and other silent stars of yesterday.

And doesn't Rupert Sanders LOVE Kristen? Hasn't he seen her potential and doesn't he want her to actualize it.

One of the few times Kristen has been eloquent in answering questions

And didn't Rob actualize Kristen's potential for being beautiful, sexy, seductive?Didn't Kristen "shame" herself by announcing her "shame" to the world and saying "I love him" to protect him for his upcoming PR for Cosmopolis?

Does Rob perceive an = sign between FKAtwigs and Kristen?
That is my question. I hate that I see this but I can't unsee it.

An Open Letter To Rob Pattinson

Love and Humiliation

are words that do not belong in the same sentence.

Unless you are denying Love

Blindly, that is the only elegant way to love. What reproach could there be for someone who discreetly and totally devotes himself to another; what reproach could there be for someone who is the object of such devotion? Blind destination: that is the direction dreams go, in ideas and love. (Baudrillard - Cool Memories 1980-85 p. 105)

So far as existence is concerned, as Ajar (Romain Gary's alter ego) would say, it needs to be taken in charge by someone. No one can be expected to bear the responsibility for their own life. This Christian and modern idea is a vain and arrogant proposition.  Moreover, it is a groundless utopian notion....It is so much more human to put one's fate, one's desire, one's will into the hands of another. Circulation of responsibilities, declension of wills, perpetual transfer of forms. Apart from this subtle path, which is attested to by a great many cultures, there is only the totalitarian path of a collective assumption. (Baudrillard - Cool Memories 1980-85 p. 119)

BTW This is what Eric Packer does whenever he leaves the limo. He is letting the "world will him". Too bad Cronenberg didn't know that in his misreading of DeLillo's novel.

Since it is impossible to own someone, it is impossible for that someone to "cheat" on you. 

Someone can cheat you in a transaction which occurs in the Order of Production.

They cannot "cheat" on you sexually in the Symbolic Order of Seduction since you do not and cannot own them.

CHEAT is a word now almost universally used that is a sound-bite, a ready-made that deprives you of the ability to think, the language necessary to think in, about this situation, and as long as you have not torn it out of your mind, you are trapped, your freedom has been stolen from you by the use of this stupid word. CHEAT is creating your reality for you via an illusion.

You can enter an institutional marriage contract, that as Kant said, "is a legal contract giving each person the ownership of the other's sexual organs."

Someone can be a slave but slaves retain their own individual freedom. Only a slave can be liberated, but only an individual can give up, deny, disregard, be unaware of, ignore, exert, choose to practice their own freedom to any extent they choose. They may be dominated, but they are still free. 

Working, performing, living under an authoritarian system, the individual may be dominated, ruled, whatever, but the individual is still free. 

Take Cronenberg directing Cosmopolis. An authoritarian director he masks his authoritarianism with - in this case - a requirement that the lines spoken by the actor must be exactly as written. No changes. The actor is still free in the sense that the face, the body, the movement the eyes, the voice, are still the actor's own. The actor is free to express.

Take Rupert Sanders, the permissive parent model. His actors are encouraged to express their own opinions about the performance of the scene. To freely express their perceptions and interpretations on how to play it. The director inputs, discusses, persuades, encourages, strengthens, weakens, whatever, and in doing this exerts the aura of his dominance. 

When the camera roles the director directs the scene. 

This all seems very democratic eh. Very respectful of the actors.

What the director has done is to take the thoughts, feelings, perceptions, interpretations of the actors and usurped them under his direction of the scene. Yes the actor still retains his/her own freedom, but that has been compromised in this situation. It has been stolen in homeopathic doses so the actor is not even aware that it no longer belongs to him, but to the director who is calling the shots on the scene. 

The director controls and dominates on a meta level. An invisible level.

This is a subtle difference. Do you see it?  The Jesuits have known this subtle way of "spinning" someone's mind for centuries. They are masters at it. Eric Maddox learned to be a master at it, which is why he got Saddam against all odds.  A Jesuit education will give you this because it will have been done to you, giving you the opportunity to "identify with the aggressor" as Freud would say it.

Kristen Stewart has been carefully aided in a performance of Snow White by a subtle director. Her first physical role as an "action hero". Her fears have been alleviated, she has mastered riding (always a sexual challenge with females) and has assumed an active rather than a passive Snow White persona. Her director has helped her as a therapist might, but used his dominance to enter into a seductive relationship with her. 

Not with Charlize who would know exactly how to handle this situation. No, with the young very inexperienced Stewart, her vulnerability an erotic attraction for him, and in the past for you BTW.

Stewart has been subtly dominated by Sanders, without her awareness, on the shooting set of Snow White. This has led to her insecurity as to how to handle his advances on THAT AFTERNOON! She has handed a certain quality/amount of her freedom of action to him on the set without knowing that she has done so. She didn't know, so she couldn't take it back. This is why there are acting coaches BTW.

This is something two people in a relationship discuss, argue about, confront, threaten, weep over, endlessly because this situation is interfaced in the minds of individuals just as surely as the screens in Eric Packer's life are interfaced with his mind, his perceptions, his thinking and reasoning abilities, his emotions, and tearing it out during the OMITTED naked bodies scene in the novel is excruciatingly painful to him; to deliver himself from its total influence. 

But how can you deliver yourself from this kind of influence if you don't know it exists?

An object does not exist until and unless it is observed. - William Burroughs

Stewart has been thrown to the lions and wolves, meat for the tabloids, entertainment for empty lives, vulnerable primarily for her unknowing. 

Unprotected and Abandoned 

Reading The Longing of Edward Cullen Through Marguerite Duras

‘Am I in love? –Yes, since I’m waiting.’ The other never waits. Sometimes I want to play the part of the one who doesn’t wait; I try to busy myself elsewhere, to arrive late; but I always lose at this game: whatever I do, I find myself there, with nothing to do, punctual, even ahead of time. The lover’s fatal identity is precisely: I am the one who waits.


Sasha and the Silverfish on Owning Roland Barthes - This post is very very beautiful. You may even weep.

Robert Pattinson as Edward Cullen in Twilight

Robert Pattinson as Edward Cullen in Twilight

I'm sorry Tanya....  I just haven't found what I'm looking for yet. (MS)

In the last hundred years or so,... I never imagined anything like this. I didn't believe I would ever find someone I wanted to be with...(T 300)

For almost ninety years I've walked among my kind, and yours... all the time thinking I was complete in myself, not realizing what I was seeking. And not finding anything, because you weren't alive yet....(T 304)

You see, Bella, I was always that boy. In my world I was already a man. I wasn't looking for love....___but if I had found .....He paused......I was going to say if I had found someone, but that won't do. If I had found you , there isn't a doubt in my mind how I would have proceeded. I was that boy, who would have ___as soon as I discovered that you were what I was looking for ___gotten down on one knee and endeavored to secure your hand. I would have wanted you for eternity, even when the word didn't have quite the same connotations.(E 276-277)

Jacob: You have more patience than I do.
Edward: I should. I've had a hundred years to
gain it. A hundred years of waiting for her.(E 497)





I wanted to tell you what I think, which is that
one always ought to keep oneself a ...place, yes, that's the word, a private place, where one can be alone and love. To love one knows not what, nor whom, nor how, nor for how long. To love... now all the words are suddenly coming back... To set aside a place inside oneself to wait, you never know, to wait for a love, perhaps for a love without a person attached to it yet, but for that and only that. For love.  I wanted to tell you you were what I had waited for. You alone became the outer surface of my life, the side I never see, and you will be that, the unknown part of me, until I die...(Emily L. 98-99)

Emily L. by Marguerite Duras (Amazon $0.01)

Other books by the French writer Marguerite Duras and film:Hiroshima Mon Amour

Film by Alain Resnais

Hiroshima Mon Amour by Marguerite Duras

.....And we cry sometimes, because we are lonely. And we cry sometimes because the other is asleep and you want to wake him up and read him two pages, three. And we cry sometimes because it is not fair to love the way we do; it is not fair for Barthes to show us how raw we are when we love. And how right he is. And how beautiful the words are and how they make us cry and how they make us love and how they make us want to hate......

sasha and the Silverfysh