LA PREMIERE FOR BREAKING DAWN 2: Rob Pattinson SUMMIT'S/SCUMMIT'S CASH COW, A GREEN MACHINE In GREEN GUCCI

$

SUMMIT'S/SCUMMIT'S GREEN MACHINE IN GREEN GUCCI
GIANT CASH COW

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

What a deliciously malicious, maliciously delicious FUCK YOU!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"We should think of the skill that is united with the worker as, 

in a way, 

the side through which the worker is a machine, but a machine understood in the positive sense, since it is a machine 

that produces an earnings stream.”

Foucault:

The Birth of Biopolitics

p.224-230

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"Up to a point, you treat people like machines. 

But it’s only up to a point. And why? 

Because one of the basic principles—[turning to a student] you took the course in human capital, so you know—one of the basic distinctions we make in the literature is that we say yes, human capital is capital, 

but it’s a very different form of capital. 

For example, you take a machine, 

you don’t care if the machine is working in a swamp or not, but people do care whether they’re working in swamps or not, because their human capital they have is part of them. 

So you have to develop the theory of human capital as partly related to the theory of machinery, 

but in a very major part 

very different from the theory of 

machinery

“BECKER ON EWALD ON FOUCAULT ON BECKER”

AMERICAN NEOLIBERALISM AND MICHEL FOUCAULT’S 1979

BIRTH OF BIOPOLITICS LECTURES

A conversation with Gary Becker, François Ewald, and Bernard Harcourt

Gary S. Becker, Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education (University of Chicago Press 1964).

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Now for Kristen's "DRESS"

HERE

Breaking Dawn:Reading Bella's Change Through Nietzsche And The Ecstasy Of St. Teresa

You must be ready to burn yourself in your own flame: how else could you become new, if you had not first become ashes? - Thus Spake Zarathustra

Stephenie Meyer wrote Bella's change scene in thrilling, frighteningly seductive, seductively frightening language. Following Baudrillard  she is not the authorial subject describing it to the reader. No, the reader is the object where all the power, interpretation, resonances and emotions lie. Meyer has thrown the challenge to the reader, the literate reader, who seems non-existent, reading the Twilight books.

For the first time, with the dimming shadows and limiting weakness 

of humanity taken off my eyes, I saw his face.

I gasped and then struggled with my vocabulary, 

unable to find the right words.

I needed better words.

Bella Cullen, Breaking Dawn

Bernini's Ecstasy of St. Teresa
The wiki link describes the sexually erotic aspect of St. Teresa's Ecstasy

All mystics, and Saint Teresa as much as any of them, complain of a want of new words (nuevas palabras) with which to praise the works of god as they experience these in spirit. (LITWW p. 161)


To die of not being able to die - Saint Teresa 

The screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg, the director Bill Condon, and the Scummit suits are completely unaware of any resonances in the novel or in any of the scenes. Just nope nope nope from the 3 dopes. Bella's internal change is shown through blood red CGI of venom slooshing through her veins and Bella is shown lying on a slab lab table, like an insect with a pin through it, wearing an ugly short blue dress, with her legs parted like the proper specimen, her arms at her sides, shot from above for a bird's eye view. Very very clinical and informative, eh?

How did producer Stephenie Meyer permit this? Does she have no integrity concerning her work? Maybe it's the green stuff - $$$$$$$$$? Is she unconscious about the real power of her work? Mebbe.


Meyer has been clear all along in her writing that Bella is a mystic. All reviews, discussions, arguing, defending, criticizing her have been in the clinical psychological camp. That is not where she belongs. Bella is in the Order of Seduction, not the Order of Production and this is where all the difficulty begins. The films are primarily in the Order of Production and Bella swaying down the aisle in her $30,000 wedding dress designed for provocative back interest with its curved cut out, is for the audience of males who have come with their wives, daughters, girl friends, sisters, mothers, etc. to watch Kristen Stewart undulate down the aisle.  


I'm not even gonna go there to discuss the birth scene, the wolves and the rest of the mess.


This is the dirty, nasty, cynical secret of the movie. It is also very boring.

Reading Twilight Through Foucauldian CUTS: Campbell Soup Cans and Andy Warhol - WTF!!!???

Yeh. Far out, eh.

Warhol's Campbell Soup cans on a screen and reproduced - endlessly. Signed of course for limited "original" editions. 


Campbell soup is known for making the Dorrance family very rich, for all the union problems in Camden New Jersey near where Walt Whitman lived at one time. But it is Andy Warhol who made those cans more than a household name.

Was the Campbell Soup Can a beautiful image? Was it a beautiful painting? Uh-uh.



It was a Foucauldian "cut" into the world of art history, which before had been a linear, progressive, historical field of study as artists winked at their ancestors, threw the gauntlet to the up and coming ones and enabled art historians to critique, discuss, favor, interpret psychologically, psychoanalytically, within and without the formalist frame and so on and so on. 

Warhol stopped it all dead and ushered in the era of pop art. More like a hammer and chisel than a cut.

I used to tape John McCoubrey's lectures on the History of Modern Art. Every so often he would stop dead before a painting he knew very well, and just look at it freshly, differently from the way he had previously seen it. One evening he stopped still before Warhol's Campbell Soup can. When he resumed speaking it was to say that he was seeing it differently and more importantly than he had ever seen it before but he wasn't sure why. 

Then he went on to the next image projected on the screen.

This memory kicked in for me when Baudrilard writes about Warhol's major importance to  the simulated reality we are all mostly embracing.

Baudrillard writes or talks about Rothko's complete change in his work, but says it was Warhol who completely changed art history from a linear, continuous progression to a discontinuous, abrupt, "cut" in its world.

And what has this to do with Twilight? 

Twilight is a Foucauldian "cut" in the power/knowledge matrix of sexuality when the tool (no pun intended) of genealogy is brought to bear (still no pun intended) on that field of human behavior. 

Foucault's three volume History of Sexuality spends many pages on boy love in ancient Greece, but not many pages at all on Courtly Love or Cortezia as it is often known. But never mind, Denis de Rougemont spent an entire book on Courtly Love in the Western World, where it is unique. The problem is that the History of Love in the Western World made its debut in 1940 - never out of print since then -  when Foucault was but a lad. Denis de Rougemont spends many pages rationalizing, justifying his thesis because Foucault has not yet brought genealogy into the mainstream of intellectual understanding of human behavior. Precession allows us to look back to see it clearly. 


Courtly Love was a 12th century "cut" into the grid of sexuality as it is enmeshed in the power/knowledge matrix. 

And a very deep cut it was lasting almost 800 years until the 1960's Foucauldian "cut" that we know as the "pill" came to our friendly pharmacy, adding serious "capital" to the power/knowledge matrix. Porno comes a little later and ahem again.


Twilight "cuts" once again into the fold of Courtly Love that had crusted over, formed a scab, been buried into the deep trench so that it had become invisible. Sort of. 

Stephenie Meyer has said fuck it and taken the can opener to open the "cut" up again, so that it is bleeding all over the globe like tomato soup via a beautiful vampire named Edward Cullen/Rob Pattinson. And women are feeling sexual longing,  passion,  heightened erotic feelings. It is working all the way to the bank as Scummit can attest along with Meyer.


Is Twilight a beautiful literary masterpiece? Not anymore than an image of Campbell Soup. 

But it is a fucking "cut" into the sexual matrix of power/knowledge/capital.

A "cut" changes the Dominating Discourse of an era. And it often happens with lightening speed.