On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 12:31:29 -0700 (PDT), Michael OConnor
<
mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:
>
I think the closest Hollywood came to really pulling this off (a male
and female spy team franchise) would have been if they had franchised
the movie "True Lies". That is one film that seemed like it was set
up to start a franchise, as it made a ton of money and was a great
action film, but James Cameron went on to do "Titanic" and Ahnold went
on to become the Governator and "True Lies" turned out to be a
one-shot deal.
-
Ian Fleming was a spy or associate of British government with some
direct involvement with spy services;- he was later to become a
disillusioned alcoholic writer. The British at that particular time,
perhaps moreso then, are uniquely very much of a spy-centric
persuasion, with fashionable instances dating to futuristic tells by
world-traveller Joseph Conrad or prisoner Jene Genett. Once I could
read Ian, but now I can't. Four in a series of vastly more
contemporary Bourne concessions are a mere shadow nevertheless to hold
to a former heroic paradigm when Bond, James, initially captured
entire nations worldwide.
Spy, given some thought, is admittedly illusive. Possibly our spy is
not unlike an uberhero of comicbooks, in that he is the displacement
of irresolvable forces in tension to an unrealized modus vivendi.
Maybe as a team the press might also share that status: The press spy
assignment, should the spy reporter choose to accept it, is to uncover
secrets, if they qualify for nastiest dirty little ones possible to
sell the most money. They're in fact so dirty, some writers become a
votive of truth, to transcend money even at forfeiture of their life.
Mel and Sigourney from The Year of Living Dangerously, perhaps that
one would dangerously be to approach aspirants for that category.
It's all so very complicated;- that much we all can obviously see.
Perhaps the spy is here to stay because, no differently than most
dissidents, we just can't seem get along with tyrants, now, with a
thumb over us, at least half a dozen with all the money, maybe a few
more, squeezing blood for everything they're worth. This wasn't
always so. Tyrants were sometimes, politically, a military necessity
to survival. What ancient tyrants did -- once matters then settled
and the dissenters began, once again, with dissenters incessant
bitching and moaning -- was to simply gather them up, in sum, and ship
them off or deport them;- A political ploy often enacted as early by
archaic Assyrians, the Ten Tribes of Jewdom, modern Russian and
Chinese, the Trail of Tears, moving vast hordes of cultural thorns
hither and thither, off their established balance, to more simple and
direct population centres through an ontological device of
colonization. What they characterise in similarity is an undesirable
underbelly of elements, such as of Europe, whom had struck out, to be
destined for Australia or the United States of America. It's as
commonplace, actually, acceptably as slavery is to piracy for
indentured forms of an underlying civilized institutions.
The thing and rub comes here, though: like a virus, we've outgrown and
overpopulated a world fit for the scum of humanity on earth. And, so
it would appear, at least for the meantime, we'll just have to make do
with such transfer mechanisms as spies.