The Pyramid

I am in agreement with both reviews from SnoopyStyle and Boblipton but for me I would add I was amused that part of the story revolved around the one reporter wanting to have a segment done around what his boss described as a self-masturbatory fluff piece that people would not be inclined to want to see. He was told they wanted sex, violence, nudity, or song instead. The way it is filmed I have to wonder if they are not mocking themselves or if the movie is meant to be a bit of a parody.

I do believe that judgement applies to more than the news media and would go further that it applies not just to film as well. This is not the place for communication studies and I won't bore you nor do I have the credentials to speak about the subject except from the consumer side.

I am very curious if the surprise shocking scene was not an inspiration for Network in 1976 that came out just two months later.

What inspired me to watch it was an IMDB rating of just under 8 at the time. Now I see it has quickly dropped to 6 which I would agree with. So I can't recommend watching it unless you have the time or an interest in someone involved in the making of it.

Incoherent indie film from the 70s. There's three or four different pieces to this movie, and they never come together. The protagonist is a TV news field reporter in Dallas who becomes interested in some hippy-dippy New Age theories thanks to his hippy-dippy New Age girlfriend. There is also a subplot (or is this the plot and everything else is a subplot?) about him wanting to cover real stories that really matter about real people, and he clashes with the "if it bleeds, it leads" head of the newsroom. Then there's his troubled friend. Then there are moments of violence covered by the newsroom. Then there's this group therapy that seems to involve submitted to verbal abuse. There are also country songs, performed at a bar. There is an astronaut who does experiments to prove that ESP is real. There is a guy who is upset that the city wants him to move his pig nature preserve, which he maintains as a public service for the kids (?).

It is not a *terrible* movie, esp. if you like the earthy 70s look and fashions. The most striking part of the movie is a drive through Dealey Plaza, the site of the JFK assassination. You see the grassy knoll, the book depository, etc., and there's no dialogue, or any mention that it's Dealey Plaza. The scene has no payoff -- nothing in the movie has a payoff -- but it is eerie and creates an air of foreboding, for a couple minutes.

In Dallas, there is a devastating school bus crash. A local station's news team follows various stories. Reporter L.A. Ray is shocked when he happens upon a shootout where two bank robbers are killed. His companion cameraman Michael Ashe has new age ideas which are dismissed by the producer.

The most compelling may be a throw-away scene driving through the JFK assassination location. The plot meanders around and then it has one shocking moment. This should be L.A. Ray's movie. Instead, it seems to be following two lead characters and mostly Michael's journey. I look up the filmmaker Gary Kent and he seems to be an actor and stuntman. He's a bit of Jack-of-all-trades who dabbles in indie grindhouse. There are compelling moments in this but it comes across like a stream of consciousness. The story doesn't flow. The better narrative would end with L.A.'s shocking moment. Instead, it seems to be trying to recruit me into a cult.

THE PYRAMID (not to be confused with THE PYRAMID (2014), which I also reviewed) is a movie that could either be charitably called an open-minded yet critical look at the problems of a fragmented individualist society governed by cold reason for which it offers a solution or, less charitably, as new-age propaganda.

There is a story, or rather several mini-stories, but they seem less important as fictional narratives than as devices to highlight contemporary societal problems: people prefer violence and sex to inspirational or feel-good news, individuals prefer to live pretend-lives rather than being their authentic selves, profit wins over paradise, alienation can lead to broken relationships between people who still love each other and even to suicide, and so on.

Ironically, at the time the movie was made, almost 50 years ago, the film-makers likely had no idea that many of these problems would still get much worse. As I was watching the main character bemoaning the ubiquity of violence, I received a newsflash on my phone of a third murder this year in my hometown, a city for which many a year has passed without a single homicide.

The exposition of various societal problems disguised as mini-stories takes up about the first half of the movie, but when the protagonist meets a woman who is a "focus instructor", someone who "takes people out of their dreams and into reality", the movie begins to turn into a quasi-documentary, and there is a corresponding shift of the focus from the problems to the purported solution.

At several places, we are told that everything is interconnected and a basic oneness underlies all. Even though these sort of new age ideas are usually traced back to Eastern mysticism, it turns out that the first pre-Socratic philosopher for which we have any (indirect) records, in other words a pioneer of the foundation of Western philosophy, Parmenides of Elea, already claimed 2500 years ago that "All is one". The idea is definitely not new.

Several real-life investigators of paranormal phenomena are marshaled, often documentary interview-style, through the device of the film showing a television set, including the actress-turned-parapsychologist Thelma Moss, the CIA interrogation specialist Cleve Backster, and the astronaut, ufologist and founder of the Institute of Noetic Sciences (as well as 6th man to walk the moon) Edgar Mitchell.

The overall message seems to be that our overreliance on science and ignorance of the paranormal aspects of the world has made us susceptible to the problems exposed in the first half, and that taking these phenomena seriously within a worldview that recognizes the oneness of the world can help us heal. I was unable to discern a clear role of the pyramid in this, other than as a demarcator of a boundary that establishes something akin to a safe space.

Unfortunately, the documentary part has not aged well.

Dr. Moss refers to Kirlian photography, which is an admittedly cool phenomenon but well-known to physicists yet not lay people, and the purported implication of which of an "aura" for things is rejected as pseudoscience.

So is the so-called "Backster effect", which ascribes to plants an inner life comparable to animals and even ESP. It is considered pseudoscience both because Cleve Backster carried out his experiments in a way that likely allowed his biases to influence his results (he did not follow the scientific method) and because his results could not be replicated. It is actually shocking to me that this CIA interrogation specialist and Chairman of the Research and Instrument Committee of the Academy for Scientific Interrogation seemed to care so little for making sure that his own biases do not taint his conclusions. It certainly does not bode well for the validity of "scientific interrogation".

The most credible figure by far is Edgar Mitchell (the only one acknowledged with a title card), but regrettably even he ends up in a poor light as he defends the Charlatan Uri Geller (of spoon-bending infamy) as "real enough" but making it difficult for scientists studying him because "he is a performer."

With the hindsight of nearly a half-century, the solutions this movie recommends come across as hopelessly naive and biased.

But even a contemporary viewer should have noticed that for a movie that preaches oneness and unity, this is a remarkably disjointed affair, not just in terms of the uneasy fusion between the fiction and quasi-documentary parts, but also the pointed lack of coherence between the mini-stories.

There is also a suicide scene which seems to have been inspired by the real-life on-air suicide of Christine Chubbuck and which struck me as tacky.

THE PYRAMID is probably best viewed as a time capsule of a worldview in the 1970s that no longer really exists as such. It has been largely dismantled by a better objective understanding of the world, and those parts which resisted this morphed into less benign cults such as flat earthism, various trutherisms and, most destructive of all to its believers, Qanon.

Michael Ashe is a TV news cameraman. He tries to submit a story about a man who walks on fire, but his producer is dismissive. He says people want stories about death and disaster and starlets talking about their nude scenes in movies. Ashe walks away and starts shooting footage about a man who runs a pig sanctuary, a man who breaks down in a group therapy session, a woman who is studying Kirilian photography. Everyone in the business tells him he is nuts; there is no commercial value to what he is doing.

It's a New Age spiritual journey. Writer-director Gary Kent is a bit random in his character's progression. I don't care particularly for for his vague, touchy-feely conclusions, but I like to think of myself as a rational pragmatist. Nonetheless, I found it a good movie. There are many problems with our modern, disconnected society, and any honest story that tries to deal with it is worth our attention, even though we disagree with its conclusions.