Skip to main content

99.386 percent of the population wouldn’t believe this conversation, and the rest are working for us.

Thirty-Minute Theatre: 
The News-Benders
(1968)

(SPOILERS) I’m late to the party for this one – 54 years, to be precise – as it’s had something of a rediscovery, riding on the crest of the plandemic wave. The News-Benders’ insights into the manufacture – the penning of the preordained script – of the news are all there in its densely packed 28 minutes. The only question arising would be whether it represents a quite shockingly blatant disclosure of method – as many understandably assume, given how accurately it reflects the current state of the conspirasphere – or simply trenchant satire. Such is the nature of these things, I’d suggest either is plausible; I certainly don’t think anything in it – even though it would, admittedly, make its creator(s) remarkably insightful – is beyond the realm of a keen and incisive writer, particularly since its cues are very visibly taken from Orwell. Or that, in terms of its innocuous mode of presentation, the BBC would necessarily think twice at letting it out there.

JG: We only plan in detail for the year ahead.

I’m suggesting such a possibility more as a corollary to, for example, the Clues Forum discussion, whereby it’s assumed The News-Benders couldn’t possibly be anything else, than intent to come down on one side or the other; for what it’s worth, it’s repeatedly and consistently so sharp and incisive in its points, one would expect anyone responsible destined for authorial greatness, all things being equal. In contrast to Desmond Lowden, who hasn’t really. Which makes it eminently reasonable to class him as a made-up person à la JK Rowling or Chris Carter. Lowden’s career doesn’t particularly suggest anomalous credits, any more than any other jobbing writer/author. But yes, of course the content could have been suggested to him, and he could have been used as a surrogate or otherwise instigated (like Rowling and Carter, I’m assuming there is a nominal Lowden out there, as he’s apparently interviewed on the Bellman and True Blu-ray).

On that satire front, seeing The News-Benders as extrapolating from Orwell’s 1984 (with a more zeitgeist-y spin), it’s notable that Donald Pleasance (JG) had appeared in both the 1954 BBC 1984 – like this, Rudolph Cartier-directed; 1984 was Nigel Kneale-scripted, Cartier now being best known for helming Kneale’s ’50s tremendously influential Quatermass productions – and the 1956 Hollywood production.

Debates about authenticity aside, what of the content? Robert Larkin (Nigel Davenport, readily familiar from such genre fare as No Blade of Grass and Phase IV) is summoned by JG, wo gives him less a career proposition than a demand. Larkin achieved some renown making hard-hitting documentaries half a decade before, but he has since gravitated into the equivalent of “soufflés” and the arms of the establishment, forsaking his socialist credentials in recognition of a country that will never allow real socialism. He seems aware of JG’s office – CWNS, Classified World News Service – which sits midway between the government and television companies; certain subjects with security classification (ones covering wars, weapons, political leaks and the like) – including, presumably, this Thirty-Minute Theatre – require the office’s approval in order to be released.

JG: We want people with low power quotients. We want them to work for us.

Larkin appeals to CWNS because he exhibits the appropriate “ratio of responsibility as against aggression”; his necessary usefulness (low power) quotient makes him ripe to join “the power elite”. CWNS, he is told, plans the news, years in advance, and consists of “a very few of the top people in communications in every major country in the world” (including China? See below): a “sixth of the world controlled from this building”. JG isn’t at the very top, however; there are two offices above him and a giant computer system. JG insists this is just a machine, into which data is fed and from which the resultant decisions are relayed, but the scenario is effectively one of an AI-controlled edifice (this would be rather like the Telephone Company in The President’s Analyst).

JG: Near the top of the hierarchy there are the top economists, top civil servants, the top brass in the military, those men who are supposed to view the nuclear tests and so on, and above them, CWNS.
Larkin: Right at the top.

Larkin is told the incentives in cooperating are twofold; “They know they are guaranteeing the lives of their grandchildren” through manufacturing false threats that maintain the delicate balance of world affairs via super-power complicity. Should the appeal to principles fail to persuade them – per Larkin – there is a more rudimentary method: the small matter of a surgical transmitter implanted upon his person during a routine surgery, one with an explosive component (“You start on Monday”).

Of course, there’s no actual proof a transmitter was implanted; given CWNS’s resources, the conversation with his then girlfriend – blackmail being fundamental leverage in ensuring obedience; Larkin is married with a family – could simply have been recorded through standard surveillance, with sound effects added after the fact. Neither is there any evidence of an all-powerful AI upstairs: “It’s Doctor Who”. Which would be rather the point of the exercise (in the same regard, The News-Benders was evidently no isolated BBC incident in the conversation of accepted paradigms, as Patrick Moore’s conversation with a Flat-Earther, and his appeal to individual thought, illustrates). When JG asks rhetorically “How many have actually seen a missile or a satellite? They’re just told they exist”, he sums up our endless capacity for learning by rote and believing exactly what we are told about the world.

Larkin: I just want to make sure the sunlight’s real.

News, JG tells Larkin, is “the most highly developed form of fiction”. To prove his point, JG informs him “We’ve already roughed out the news for 1973” and offers some evidence. This includes a joint US/Russian Moon landing (grainy model footage shot in a studio is shown on a low-resolution TV); it will be decreed of “no strategic value… a comforting note for us stay-at-homes” and “a comforting note for us to stay at home”. Obviously, in reality this would be brought forward by four years, with just a US landing on the Moon (for which grainy model footage shot in a studio was shown on a low-resolution TV).

Space rockets are a fiction: “They have a fireworks party at Cape Kennedy almost every other day”. To underline the point, JG asks if Larkin really believes they send astronauts up there on trips “crossing their legs for eight days”. It’s an exercise in credulity. Also on the itinerary are “the ultimate weapon” Codename Icarus, a satellite-mounted weapons platform (anticipating Reagan’s Star Wars defence system) and an ICBM nicknamed Boy Wonder, both designed to instil appropriate concern and fear of their application.

JG: For the past ten years, people have been looking at our fake newsreels, and listening to our fake commentaries.
Larkin: And they accept it for the truth? And you can do it.

A new phase of global warfare is in the pipeline too, in the form of a China-India conflict via the detonation of two five-megaton hydrogen bombs. These will not actually be detonated, because there are no hydrogen bombs. It will be easy to get away with the psyop, as it will take place in a very remote village on the Indochinese border, one with extremely mountainous terrain; there will be no survivors and no rescue work, as the radiation scare will keep people away. That’s subsequent decades’ terrorism handbook right there.

The context as presented is of manipulation post-Hiroshima (so for the purposes of this play, those nukes were real, whereas the hydrogen bomb didn’t work). There is due cooperation from Russia (“Nowadays, we like to work very closely together”); stories about spies going off to Russia (Kim Philby) are “Just good copy for the Sunday papers”. As for the Chinese? “We recorded their phony explosions” and are really hoping they come along to “complete the pattern”. Nobody, aside from the few who do, is in a position to know the weapons don’t really work, and nobody presses the button because “We control all the crises” (contextually, it’s unclear why, if the atomic bomb isn’t real, another nation couldn’t develop it and use it as a threat – the idea that the H-bomb is much bigger and so a disincentive is only relatively off-putting – but we’ll let that go for now).

Larkin: You mean you scare us so that we’ll buy more, so that so that money moves., quicker production moves up?

Vietnam is no real concern, merely a localised conflict; there is no danger of world war. As for communism or capitalism, “Strawberry or vanilla”, these are no more than Hegelian distinctions. The why is that there must be some kind of control, and thus an imprimatur to ‘keep the empty bellies under control”, since one quarter of the world is starving: “One of them is this fictitious hydrogen bomb we’ve talked about, and the other one is money”. And for the wealthy West, fear also makes for a capitalist incentive, with an additional spur here and there to put the populace on edge (“Overcrowd them a little with bad planning, sell them too many motorcars, anything to keep them a little bit removed from reality”).

Further to this characterisation of “reality”, JG informs Larkin “Nowadays people don’t work for money. They work for the idea of money… They love for the Idea of love. They only hate for the idea of hate” (this doesn’t sound so very far from the Debordian Spectacle). JG obligingly throws in a few additional pointers to the engineering of modern society. Although, rather than suggesting the entire youth movement was Tavistock induced, he singles out the proliferation of LSD (“Some of these protest movements were getting a little bit too close to the mark”).

JG: You really didn’t believe there were all these things whizzing about up there, did you? Sputniks and rockets? Astronauts crossing their legs for eight days.

We later saw an inkling of such advance coordination in The X-FilesMusings of a Cigarette Smoking Man, where such events as the Oscars are decided upon, while The Simpsons appears to be a veritable Bible Code for any given event of the past three decades, but it’s The News-Benders’ extrapolated canvas that really impresses. Sure, there are all the things it doesn’t cover/fails to address – not least who controls the controllers, and slightly fudging the degree of global co-ordination, along with the disingenuous claim that, historically, “there wasn’t the right sort of control then” – but the impressing upon us of an artificial lens, through which we have no option but to view the world, speaks volumes.



Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.