Landmark and Fight Club
Posted by:
Dopamine Link
()
Date: November 24, 2012 08:22PM
If you Google ‘Landmark + Fight Club’ the first search result will be a link to:
[www.landmarkeducationnews.com]
Here you will find an article by Landmark Education, proudly proclaiming
“Fight Club Author Discusses Creative Process; Credits Landmark Education”
This LE article refers to an article by Matt Thorne, published in the UK newspaper, The Independent, on Sunday 13 July 2008.
[www.independent.co.uk]
This fifteen hundred word article makes reference to Landmark Education (LE) with just the following thirty two words:
“Palahniuk began his career after attending a self-help course called Landmark, and he tells me that although he hasn't attended a course in several years, it still informs his attitude to life.”
Since just two percent of the article makes reference to LE, and since a large portion of the article discusses the writing groups and other means by which his writing career took off, it seems a little much for LE to lay claim to the creativity of one of their graduates.
LGATs rely on half-truths and the manipulation of language to convert participants – the 2003 documentary on LE is a great example of this. A woman complains that she is being harassed by constant phone calls from LE employees (volunteers). The trainer tells her that she is wrong – that she is not being harassed, but supported. If LGATs can twist the truth or use ambiguity to their advantage they will do it without batting an eye. As I will show you, Fight Club is anything but complimentary towards Landmark Education or to the LGAT industry as a whole. The author, Chuck Palahniuk has used Fight Club to satirize the LGAT industry, commenting on how recklessly it goes about providing enlightenment, sweeping casualties casually under the rug.
I realize that this may be an odd claim and that it might be strange that it’s taken so long for the secrets of this movie (and book) to be exposed, but there were very specific reasons that I was able to do this. The first is that I’ve spent the last few years studying everything I can on LGATs and the second – as those of you familiar with my post on LGATs and dopamine might remember – is that I’m bipolar. For all of its drawbacks bipolar disorder is an illness that provides brief periods of heightened creativity and creativity is really just the ability to think in metaphor – to link seemingly unrelated ideas. While in one of these states I watched Fight Club for the first time in years and, if you know certain crucial facts about the history of LGATs and the major players in the industry, it becomes abundantly clear that the author was not in support of this industry at all.
For the purposes of this post I will assume that you have some understanding of what takes place in an LGAT and that you have seen the movie Fight Club.
So let’s begin. Edward Norton plays a ‘nameless’ character who cannot sleep. He tries the traditional medical route, but is turned away by a doctor who suggests he check out ‘real pain’ – by visiting the testicular cancer support group. Norton goes to these groups, which involve putting on a name tag, sharing, and – quite frequently – crying (purging emotions). Some of these groups use guided meditation (Norton is told to ‘go to his cave and find his power animal’ for example). Norton does not understand why but these groups provide him with relief. He comments “Every night I died… and every night I was born again… resurrected.” They allow him to sleep so he does not question how they work.
I believe that Norton represents a typical person who gets sucked into LGAT courses, in all likelihood Norton represents Palahniuk himself. LGATs require name tags, they encourage sharing, there is frequently crying, purging of emotions and LGATs also use guided meditation. Norton’s enjoyment of these groups comes to a halt when Marla Singer arrives. Norton narrates as Singer wanders into the group “… until SHE… RUINED… EVERYTHING”. Marla ruins the experience for Norton because he knows that she’s faking which reminds him that he’s faking. Ultimately Singer is a reality check for Norton – preventing him from simply enjoying the group without thinking about what is really going on around him. Clearly Marla Singer represents Margaret Singer Ph.D. – the biggest enemy of LGATs and the author of Cults in Our Midst. (Chapter 8 of Cults in Our Midst is dedicated entirely to LGATs and the numerous psychological injuries they have caused over the years.) Margaret Singer’s full name is Margaret Thaler Singer – Marler Singer. This allegory is not particularly well hidden by Palahniuk. I suspect that he did gain some value from the initial LE seminars – that he had a peak experience or two and that he wanted to believe that his experiences were uncorrupted – but that he came upon the work of Singer which made him reconsider whether he could support LE in good conscience.
Finally we get to Tyler Durden, played by Brad Pitt. Tyler is utimately a figment of Norton’s imagination, but he represents a more impulsive, risk-seeking, confident version of Norton. Tyler represents the person that Norton wants to be, the person he aspires to be. In short Tyler represents an LGAT trainer or, more specifically, he represents Werner Erhard. At the end of the movie Tyler explains to Norton “You were looking for a way to change your life. You could not do this on your own. All the ways you wish you were – that’s me. I look like you want to look, I fuck like you want to fuck, I am smart, I am capable and I am free in all of the ways that you are not.”
Tyler Durden is a charismatic, alpha male sociopath. He represents freedom from all of the rules and he represents a new and exciting way of looking at the world. When you consider the three professions that Tyler has, the metaphor begins to gain clarity. Norton explains early on in the film that “Tyler works as a waiter at the luxurious PRESSMAN Hotel”. Steven Pressman was the journalist who wrote the damning biography on Werner Erhard entitled “Outrageous Betrayal – The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile”. Later on in the film Norton comments “Tyler was now involved in a class action lawsuit with the PRESSMAN Hotel over the urine content of their soup.” In 1998 Landmark Education sued Steven Pressman and attempted to force him to reveal all of his sources (presumably so that they could be duly harassed). Tyler’s second job is as a projectionist. He takes this job, we are told, because it affords him the opportunity to splice single frames of pornography into family films. “Nobody knows that they saw it, but they have…” Norton explains. LGATs have been accused continuously over the forty years they’ve been around of saying one thing and meaning another. An interesting YouTube video looks at one specific example where Landmark uses the word “enroll” obsessively in trying to get graduates to associate their own success with enrolling others. [www.youtube.com]
The final job that Tyler does is he makes soap. “In order to make soap,” Tyler tells Norton, “we need fat and the best fat for making soap comes from humans.” Consider what LGATs do. As well as a bunch of visualisation exercises and fortune cookie lectures, they get you to reveal your deepest, darkest secrets – the problems, the concerns and the things which are troubling you. What they then do is they take what you say and they twist it around (so that you can take “responsibility”) and they give it back to you. For this they charge hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. Fat represents the bad parts of people that are repackaged and returned to participants. Norton comments while Tyler sells the soap “It was beautiful - we were selling rich women their own fat asses back to them.”
The greatest conflict during the movie is between Tyler, who represents hedonism and doing things without thinking, and Marla (who represents information, logic and reason). Norton at one point comments “Other than when they were fucking Tyler and Marla were never in the same room together.” Before Norton tries to send Marla away on a bus he exclaims “They think you’re some kind of threat – I can’t explain it right now.” Tyler at one point earlier in the film says “You’re not into her are you?” Norton immediately says he’s not. Tyler continues “That’s good, because she’s a predator posing as a house pet. Stay away from her.” He later sits down next to Norton and says “Now I can’t have you talking to her about me. You say anything about me and about what goes on in this house and we’re over…” He then makes Norton promise three times that he would not talk to Marla about him. (This type of promising is quite reminiscent of LGAT agreements to never talk about what happens in them) My view is that this represents the way that trainers ask participants to disengage from reason during the trainings. This extract from Werner Erhard’s biography, Outrageous Betrayal – The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile, sums up this attitude of LGATs quite nicely:
“…For the first several hours of the training, Erhard and his other trainers kept up a non-stop barrage of verbal insults, taunting the participants in the straight-backed chairs, insisting they were all worthless human beings who clung to beliefs about themselves and their own lives that were rooted in ridiculous notions about reason, logic, and understanding.”
So there are three main characters in the film, all of whom may represent players in the LGAT industry:
• Norton – representing a typical LGAT participant, or Palahniuk himself
• Marla Singer – representing Margaret Singer
• Tyler Durden – representing an LGAT trainer, or Erhard himself
I believe that Norton actually represents a few players, based upon interactions he has during the film. I referred earlier to the fact that Tyler is a more free and “re-invented” version of Norton. If Tyler represents Werner Erhard and he is the re-invention of Norton then who would Norton also be? Werner Erhard was, of course, born as Jack Rosenburg but Rosenburg left his wife and four kids, moved to a new city, changed his name and started a new family. You have one guess as to what Norton’s nameless character was called on the set while making Fight Club (YouTube it). Norton’s character was referred to as ‘Jack’. You may also remember from the movie that Norton finds a strange book in Tyler’s house.
Tyler (on a little bike): Hey man. What are you reading?
Norton: Listen to this. It’s an article written by an organ in the first person. I am Jack’s medulla oblongata. Without me Jack could not regulate his heat-rate, blood pressure, or breathing. There’s a whole series of these… I am Jack’s colon…
Tyler: Yeah… I get cancer. I kill Jack.
Throughout the movie there are more “I am Jack’s…” comments such as:
• I am Jack’s raging bile duct
• I am Jack’s cold sweat
• I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise
• I am Jack’s wasted life
• I am Jack’s inflamed sense of rejection
• I am Jack’s broken heart
• I am Jack’s smirking revenge
And during one scene, where Jack sits on the floor and Tyler sits in the bath, Jack says:
“I don’t know my dad… I mean I know him but he left when I was like six years old… married this other woman, had some other kids… He did this every few years – he goes to a new city and starts a new family.” (This is a fairly direct reference to Werner Erhard).
Norton’s profession also hints at the biggest criticism against LGATs. He works as a “recall coordinator” and his job is “to apply the formula”.
Norton (Voiceover): I'm a recall coordinator. My job was to apply the formula. It's simple arithmetic. It's a story problem. A new car built by my company leaves Boston traveling at 60 miles per hour. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: do we
initiate a recall? You take the number of vehicles in the field (A) and multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
(Norton is explaining this to a lady next to him on a plane)
LADY: Does this sort of accident happen often?
NORTON: You wouldn’t believe…
LADY: ... Which ... car company do you work for?
NORTON: A major one. (This clearly hints at Landmark)
What Palahniuk is hinting at here is the fact that LGATs are well aware that a small proportion of their participants suffer enormously as a result of their trainings, but they aren’t willing to stop running the courses because their revenues from satisfied participants exceed their costs of out of court settlements. Chapter eight of Margaret Singer’s book Cults in Our Midst speaks of the numerous out of court settlements paid out by LGATs over the years. Like this car company, LGATs prefer to pay people off in the event of disaster, rather than warning people of the real risks because from a business perspective this is a more profitable route to take.
I imagine that there are still some sceptics doubting that Palahniuk was using the movie as a metaphor, so here are a couple of other “coincidences”. Werner Erhard’s mansion in San Francisco was located on Franklin Street. In Outrageous Betrayal Steven Pressman frequently refers to it and chapter eleven of Erhard’s biography is entitled “Nightmare on Franklin Street”. The final showdown in Fight Club – the building in which Norton and Marla eventually watch the other buildings collapsing from is in Franklin Street. This name comes up twice in the movie – firstly when Norton checks a number that he called while “asleep” he is told that the address is 1888 Franklin Street and later, after he escapes from the cops who are in on the plot (after running in his boxers down the road) he reaches a road with a bus shelter on it. He briefly looks up to the name on the bus shelter and it says Franklin Street.
Just prior to all of this is the scene where Norton tries to turn himself in. He approaches the counter in the police station and confesses to be responsible for “multiple acts of vandalism…” Just before the movie moves on to the discussion with the policemen there is a brief changeover where a couple of things flash on the screen. One of the things which flash is a green sign which says “Emery Street”. Anyone who has read Outrageous Betrayal, or is familiar with the origins of LGATs, knows that Stewart Emery played a significant role in the movement. An Australian, Emery worked closely with Erhard at est for a number of years before breaking away to form his own LGAT, Actualizations. These things seem too specific to just be coincidence.
Onto more general comparisons. Fight club is effectively about brutal interactions – two people at a time – during which participants achieve some sort of insight into life from taking part. Fight club is incredibly rule oriented. There is a major focus on the rules during the film and the first and second rule about Fight Club is “YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB”. LGATs, of course, do exactly the same thing, enforcing strict rules – the most crucial and emphasized of which is that you do not reveal any detail about what goes on in the LGAT. (Because it will “ruin the experience.”)
There are other references to enlightenment which appear to link with LGATs. Norton makes statements like:
“Every night I died. Every night I was born again.”
“Afterwards we all felt saved.”
“I am enlightened.”
“After a fight you could deal with anything”
“We all started seeing things differently”
“I became the calm, little centre of the world. I was the Zen master”
The following two statements, the first by Norton and the second by Tyler reflect the idea that it is only when we realise that it’s all empty and meaningless that we can begin to create.
“When the fight was over nothing was solved, but nothing mattered.”
“First, you have to know that someday, you are going to die. Until you know that, you will be useless.”
“It’s only when we have lost everything that we are free to do anything”
All LGATs have some form of an exercise which forces participants to accept that they have nothing, want nothing and are nothing. In the movie this takes the form of Tyler pouring chemicals on Norton’s hand and forcing him to accept this.
Commenting on the way that isolation is one of the most crucial parts of thought reform, Tyler and Norton live completely alone, in a dilapidated old house, and Norton remarks “At night we were alone for half a mile in every direction” (while they’re hitting golf balls). According to Dr. Robert Jay Lifton – the author of Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism – Milieu Control (Environment Control) is the first and most crucial aspect of thought reform. If you isolate a person from any perspective but the one you are trying to indoctrinate them with, then you can convince a person of virtually anything. Norton also comments on how even the most bizarre conditions normalise after a while. While wading through ankle deep water to switch on the electricity, he says “… by the end of the first month I didn’t miss TV”
The first post I wrote on this site referred to the way in which LGATs manufacture a transient dopamine high in participants. Very briefly summarised: applying extraordinary stress for a sustained period (which causes the brain to produce excess dopamine) and then suddenly removing the stress causes this high. Because participants’ brains will temporarily be in a state of psychological hypervigilance there will be a period of a few days to a few weeks during which there will be a dopamine excess (much like one would experience taking cocaine). A scene from Fight Club provides a clear example of this. This scene is the “human sacrifice” scene. Tyler pulls Raymond K Hessel out from a convenience store, puts him on his knees and tells him “You are going to die” (while pointing a gun at the back of his head. Raymond is beside himself with fear, shaking, begging and crying as Tyler taunts him about his sad life and how he needs to sort it out. Eventually Tyler lets Raymond go and he sprints into the darkness, having just been “given back his life”. Norton is frustrated with Tyler for doing this and says, “What was the point of that?!!... I feel sick…” to which Tyler responds, “Imagine how he feels. Tomorrow will be the most beautiful day of Raymond K Hessel’s life. His breakfast will taste better than any meal you or I have ever tasted…” (Major stress sustained for a period then suddenly removed = euphoria) This is effectively how LGATs generate their experiences.
Palahniuk’s commentary on the recklessness, and the inevitable loss of lives coming from, LGATs is seen when Bob is killed during Project Mayhem. The space monkeys bring his dead body back to the house and believe that because he was killed serving Project Mayhem they should just bury “him in the garden”. One of the space monkeys says “Those mother fuckers!” - referring to the police who shot him. Norton immediately fires back “You’re running around in ski masks trying to blow things up – what did you think was going to happen?” It is clear that these space monkeys (representing LGAT supporters) have lost perspective of right and wrong. They have dissociated themselves from the human – Bob – and claim that “in Project Mayhem we have no names…” Norton cannot believe the zombie-like attitude of the space monkeys and stops anyone from touching Bob. “This is a person. His name is Robert Polsen… and you’re not going to bury him in the fucking garden.”
Right near the end of the movie this attitude of LGATs is referred to once more. Norton has arrived in the parking lot at Franklin Street and has found the bomb, placed in the van by Tyler. Tyler stands outside the van while Norton attempts to disarm the bomb.
Tyler: We’re not killing anyone. We’re setting them free!”
Norton: Bob is dead! They shot him in the head!
Tyler (shrugging): You want to make an omelette you gotta break some eggs…
This comment to me summarises the attitude of LGATs to those hurt. It also summarise the attitudes of people who support LGATs, knowing the damage they cause. Like Chuck Palahniuk I have looked into this and found out just how much misery is caused by these heartless organisations. If you currently believe that your group does no harm I would ask you to look into the history of these organisations and take seriously the stories of psychological damage caused.
[www.landmarkeducationnews.com]
Here you will find an article by Landmark Education, proudly proclaiming
“Fight Club Author Discusses Creative Process; Credits Landmark Education”
This LE article refers to an article by Matt Thorne, published in the UK newspaper, The Independent, on Sunday 13 July 2008.
[www.independent.co.uk]
This fifteen hundred word article makes reference to Landmark Education (LE) with just the following thirty two words:
“Palahniuk began his career after attending a self-help course called Landmark, and he tells me that although he hasn't attended a course in several years, it still informs his attitude to life.”
Since just two percent of the article makes reference to LE, and since a large portion of the article discusses the writing groups and other means by which his writing career took off, it seems a little much for LE to lay claim to the creativity of one of their graduates.
LGATs rely on half-truths and the manipulation of language to convert participants – the 2003 documentary on LE is a great example of this. A woman complains that she is being harassed by constant phone calls from LE employees (volunteers). The trainer tells her that she is wrong – that she is not being harassed, but supported. If LGATs can twist the truth or use ambiguity to their advantage they will do it without batting an eye. As I will show you, Fight Club is anything but complimentary towards Landmark Education or to the LGAT industry as a whole. The author, Chuck Palahniuk has used Fight Club to satirize the LGAT industry, commenting on how recklessly it goes about providing enlightenment, sweeping casualties casually under the rug.
I realize that this may be an odd claim and that it might be strange that it’s taken so long for the secrets of this movie (and book) to be exposed, but there were very specific reasons that I was able to do this. The first is that I’ve spent the last few years studying everything I can on LGATs and the second – as those of you familiar with my post on LGATs and dopamine might remember – is that I’m bipolar. For all of its drawbacks bipolar disorder is an illness that provides brief periods of heightened creativity and creativity is really just the ability to think in metaphor – to link seemingly unrelated ideas. While in one of these states I watched Fight Club for the first time in years and, if you know certain crucial facts about the history of LGATs and the major players in the industry, it becomes abundantly clear that the author was not in support of this industry at all.
For the purposes of this post I will assume that you have some understanding of what takes place in an LGAT and that you have seen the movie Fight Club.
So let’s begin. Edward Norton plays a ‘nameless’ character who cannot sleep. He tries the traditional medical route, but is turned away by a doctor who suggests he check out ‘real pain’ – by visiting the testicular cancer support group. Norton goes to these groups, which involve putting on a name tag, sharing, and – quite frequently – crying (purging emotions). Some of these groups use guided meditation (Norton is told to ‘go to his cave and find his power animal’ for example). Norton does not understand why but these groups provide him with relief. He comments “Every night I died… and every night I was born again… resurrected.” They allow him to sleep so he does not question how they work.
I believe that Norton represents a typical person who gets sucked into LGAT courses, in all likelihood Norton represents Palahniuk himself. LGATs require name tags, they encourage sharing, there is frequently crying, purging of emotions and LGATs also use guided meditation. Norton’s enjoyment of these groups comes to a halt when Marla Singer arrives. Norton narrates as Singer wanders into the group “… until SHE… RUINED… EVERYTHING”. Marla ruins the experience for Norton because he knows that she’s faking which reminds him that he’s faking. Ultimately Singer is a reality check for Norton – preventing him from simply enjoying the group without thinking about what is really going on around him. Clearly Marla Singer represents Margaret Singer Ph.D. – the biggest enemy of LGATs and the author of Cults in Our Midst. (Chapter 8 of Cults in Our Midst is dedicated entirely to LGATs and the numerous psychological injuries they have caused over the years.) Margaret Singer’s full name is Margaret Thaler Singer – Marler Singer. This allegory is not particularly well hidden by Palahniuk. I suspect that he did gain some value from the initial LE seminars – that he had a peak experience or two and that he wanted to believe that his experiences were uncorrupted – but that he came upon the work of Singer which made him reconsider whether he could support LE in good conscience.
Finally we get to Tyler Durden, played by Brad Pitt. Tyler is utimately a figment of Norton’s imagination, but he represents a more impulsive, risk-seeking, confident version of Norton. Tyler represents the person that Norton wants to be, the person he aspires to be. In short Tyler represents an LGAT trainer or, more specifically, he represents Werner Erhard. At the end of the movie Tyler explains to Norton “You were looking for a way to change your life. You could not do this on your own. All the ways you wish you were – that’s me. I look like you want to look, I fuck like you want to fuck, I am smart, I am capable and I am free in all of the ways that you are not.”
Tyler Durden is a charismatic, alpha male sociopath. He represents freedom from all of the rules and he represents a new and exciting way of looking at the world. When you consider the three professions that Tyler has, the metaphor begins to gain clarity. Norton explains early on in the film that “Tyler works as a waiter at the luxurious PRESSMAN Hotel”. Steven Pressman was the journalist who wrote the damning biography on Werner Erhard entitled “Outrageous Betrayal – The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile”. Later on in the film Norton comments “Tyler was now involved in a class action lawsuit with the PRESSMAN Hotel over the urine content of their soup.” In 1998 Landmark Education sued Steven Pressman and attempted to force him to reveal all of his sources (presumably so that they could be duly harassed). Tyler’s second job is as a projectionist. He takes this job, we are told, because it affords him the opportunity to splice single frames of pornography into family films. “Nobody knows that they saw it, but they have…” Norton explains. LGATs have been accused continuously over the forty years they’ve been around of saying one thing and meaning another. An interesting YouTube video looks at one specific example where Landmark uses the word “enroll” obsessively in trying to get graduates to associate their own success with enrolling others. [www.youtube.com]
The final job that Tyler does is he makes soap. “In order to make soap,” Tyler tells Norton, “we need fat and the best fat for making soap comes from humans.” Consider what LGATs do. As well as a bunch of visualisation exercises and fortune cookie lectures, they get you to reveal your deepest, darkest secrets – the problems, the concerns and the things which are troubling you. What they then do is they take what you say and they twist it around (so that you can take “responsibility”) and they give it back to you. For this they charge hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. Fat represents the bad parts of people that are repackaged and returned to participants. Norton comments while Tyler sells the soap “It was beautiful - we were selling rich women their own fat asses back to them.”
The greatest conflict during the movie is between Tyler, who represents hedonism and doing things without thinking, and Marla (who represents information, logic and reason). Norton at one point comments “Other than when they were fucking Tyler and Marla were never in the same room together.” Before Norton tries to send Marla away on a bus he exclaims “They think you’re some kind of threat – I can’t explain it right now.” Tyler at one point earlier in the film says “You’re not into her are you?” Norton immediately says he’s not. Tyler continues “That’s good, because she’s a predator posing as a house pet. Stay away from her.” He later sits down next to Norton and says “Now I can’t have you talking to her about me. You say anything about me and about what goes on in this house and we’re over…” He then makes Norton promise three times that he would not talk to Marla about him. (This type of promising is quite reminiscent of LGAT agreements to never talk about what happens in them) My view is that this represents the way that trainers ask participants to disengage from reason during the trainings. This extract from Werner Erhard’s biography, Outrageous Betrayal – The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile, sums up this attitude of LGATs quite nicely:
“…For the first several hours of the training, Erhard and his other trainers kept up a non-stop barrage of verbal insults, taunting the participants in the straight-backed chairs, insisting they were all worthless human beings who clung to beliefs about themselves and their own lives that were rooted in ridiculous notions about reason, logic, and understanding.”
So there are three main characters in the film, all of whom may represent players in the LGAT industry:
• Norton – representing a typical LGAT participant, or Palahniuk himself
• Marla Singer – representing Margaret Singer
• Tyler Durden – representing an LGAT trainer, or Erhard himself
I believe that Norton actually represents a few players, based upon interactions he has during the film. I referred earlier to the fact that Tyler is a more free and “re-invented” version of Norton. If Tyler represents Werner Erhard and he is the re-invention of Norton then who would Norton also be? Werner Erhard was, of course, born as Jack Rosenburg but Rosenburg left his wife and four kids, moved to a new city, changed his name and started a new family. You have one guess as to what Norton’s nameless character was called on the set while making Fight Club (YouTube it). Norton’s character was referred to as ‘Jack’. You may also remember from the movie that Norton finds a strange book in Tyler’s house.
Tyler (on a little bike): Hey man. What are you reading?
Norton: Listen to this. It’s an article written by an organ in the first person. I am Jack’s medulla oblongata. Without me Jack could not regulate his heat-rate, blood pressure, or breathing. There’s a whole series of these… I am Jack’s colon…
Tyler: Yeah… I get cancer. I kill Jack.
Throughout the movie there are more “I am Jack’s…” comments such as:
• I am Jack’s raging bile duct
• I am Jack’s cold sweat
• I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise
• I am Jack’s wasted life
• I am Jack’s inflamed sense of rejection
• I am Jack’s broken heart
• I am Jack’s smirking revenge
And during one scene, where Jack sits on the floor and Tyler sits in the bath, Jack says:
“I don’t know my dad… I mean I know him but he left when I was like six years old… married this other woman, had some other kids… He did this every few years – he goes to a new city and starts a new family.” (This is a fairly direct reference to Werner Erhard).
Norton’s profession also hints at the biggest criticism against LGATs. He works as a “recall coordinator” and his job is “to apply the formula”.
Norton (Voiceover): I'm a recall coordinator. My job was to apply the formula. It's simple arithmetic. It's a story problem. A new car built by my company leaves Boston traveling at 60 miles per hour. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: do we
initiate a recall? You take the number of vehicles in the field (A) and multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
(Norton is explaining this to a lady next to him on a plane)
LADY: Does this sort of accident happen often?
NORTON: You wouldn’t believe…
LADY: ... Which ... car company do you work for?
NORTON: A major one. (This clearly hints at Landmark)
What Palahniuk is hinting at here is the fact that LGATs are well aware that a small proportion of their participants suffer enormously as a result of their trainings, but they aren’t willing to stop running the courses because their revenues from satisfied participants exceed their costs of out of court settlements. Chapter eight of Margaret Singer’s book Cults in Our Midst speaks of the numerous out of court settlements paid out by LGATs over the years. Like this car company, LGATs prefer to pay people off in the event of disaster, rather than warning people of the real risks because from a business perspective this is a more profitable route to take.
I imagine that there are still some sceptics doubting that Palahniuk was using the movie as a metaphor, so here are a couple of other “coincidences”. Werner Erhard’s mansion in San Francisco was located on Franklin Street. In Outrageous Betrayal Steven Pressman frequently refers to it and chapter eleven of Erhard’s biography is entitled “Nightmare on Franklin Street”. The final showdown in Fight Club – the building in which Norton and Marla eventually watch the other buildings collapsing from is in Franklin Street. This name comes up twice in the movie – firstly when Norton checks a number that he called while “asleep” he is told that the address is 1888 Franklin Street and later, after he escapes from the cops who are in on the plot (after running in his boxers down the road) he reaches a road with a bus shelter on it. He briefly looks up to the name on the bus shelter and it says Franklin Street.
Just prior to all of this is the scene where Norton tries to turn himself in. He approaches the counter in the police station and confesses to be responsible for “multiple acts of vandalism…” Just before the movie moves on to the discussion with the policemen there is a brief changeover where a couple of things flash on the screen. One of the things which flash is a green sign which says “Emery Street”. Anyone who has read Outrageous Betrayal, or is familiar with the origins of LGATs, knows that Stewart Emery played a significant role in the movement. An Australian, Emery worked closely with Erhard at est for a number of years before breaking away to form his own LGAT, Actualizations. These things seem too specific to just be coincidence.
Onto more general comparisons. Fight club is effectively about brutal interactions – two people at a time – during which participants achieve some sort of insight into life from taking part. Fight club is incredibly rule oriented. There is a major focus on the rules during the film and the first and second rule about Fight Club is “YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB”. LGATs, of course, do exactly the same thing, enforcing strict rules – the most crucial and emphasized of which is that you do not reveal any detail about what goes on in the LGAT. (Because it will “ruin the experience.”)
There are other references to enlightenment which appear to link with LGATs. Norton makes statements like:
“Every night I died. Every night I was born again.”
“Afterwards we all felt saved.”
“I am enlightened.”
“After a fight you could deal with anything”
“We all started seeing things differently”
“I became the calm, little centre of the world. I was the Zen master”
The following two statements, the first by Norton and the second by Tyler reflect the idea that it is only when we realise that it’s all empty and meaningless that we can begin to create.
“When the fight was over nothing was solved, but nothing mattered.”
“First, you have to know that someday, you are going to die. Until you know that, you will be useless.”
“It’s only when we have lost everything that we are free to do anything”
All LGATs have some form of an exercise which forces participants to accept that they have nothing, want nothing and are nothing. In the movie this takes the form of Tyler pouring chemicals on Norton’s hand and forcing him to accept this.
Commenting on the way that isolation is one of the most crucial parts of thought reform, Tyler and Norton live completely alone, in a dilapidated old house, and Norton remarks “At night we were alone for half a mile in every direction” (while they’re hitting golf balls). According to Dr. Robert Jay Lifton – the author of Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism – Milieu Control (Environment Control) is the first and most crucial aspect of thought reform. If you isolate a person from any perspective but the one you are trying to indoctrinate them with, then you can convince a person of virtually anything. Norton also comments on how even the most bizarre conditions normalise after a while. While wading through ankle deep water to switch on the electricity, he says “… by the end of the first month I didn’t miss TV”
The first post I wrote on this site referred to the way in which LGATs manufacture a transient dopamine high in participants. Very briefly summarised: applying extraordinary stress for a sustained period (which causes the brain to produce excess dopamine) and then suddenly removing the stress causes this high. Because participants’ brains will temporarily be in a state of psychological hypervigilance there will be a period of a few days to a few weeks during which there will be a dopamine excess (much like one would experience taking cocaine). A scene from Fight Club provides a clear example of this. This scene is the “human sacrifice” scene. Tyler pulls Raymond K Hessel out from a convenience store, puts him on his knees and tells him “You are going to die” (while pointing a gun at the back of his head. Raymond is beside himself with fear, shaking, begging and crying as Tyler taunts him about his sad life and how he needs to sort it out. Eventually Tyler lets Raymond go and he sprints into the darkness, having just been “given back his life”. Norton is frustrated with Tyler for doing this and says, “What was the point of that?!!... I feel sick…” to which Tyler responds, “Imagine how he feels. Tomorrow will be the most beautiful day of Raymond K Hessel’s life. His breakfast will taste better than any meal you or I have ever tasted…” (Major stress sustained for a period then suddenly removed = euphoria) This is effectively how LGATs generate their experiences.
Palahniuk’s commentary on the recklessness, and the inevitable loss of lives coming from, LGATs is seen when Bob is killed during Project Mayhem. The space monkeys bring his dead body back to the house and believe that because he was killed serving Project Mayhem they should just bury “him in the garden”. One of the space monkeys says “Those mother fuckers!” - referring to the police who shot him. Norton immediately fires back “You’re running around in ski masks trying to blow things up – what did you think was going to happen?” It is clear that these space monkeys (representing LGAT supporters) have lost perspective of right and wrong. They have dissociated themselves from the human – Bob – and claim that “in Project Mayhem we have no names…” Norton cannot believe the zombie-like attitude of the space monkeys and stops anyone from touching Bob. “This is a person. His name is Robert Polsen… and you’re not going to bury him in the fucking garden.”
Right near the end of the movie this attitude of LGATs is referred to once more. Norton has arrived in the parking lot at Franklin Street and has found the bomb, placed in the van by Tyler. Tyler stands outside the van while Norton attempts to disarm the bomb.
Tyler: We’re not killing anyone. We’re setting them free!”
Norton: Bob is dead! They shot him in the head!
Tyler (shrugging): You want to make an omelette you gotta break some eggs…
This comment to me summarises the attitude of LGATs to those hurt. It also summarise the attitudes of people who support LGATs, knowing the damage they cause. Like Chuck Palahniuk I have looked into this and found out just how much misery is caused by these heartless organisations. If you currently believe that your group does no harm I would ask you to look into the history of these organisations and take seriously the stories of psychological damage caused.
Re: Landmark and Fight Club
Posted by:
Dopamine Link
()
Date: November 25, 2012 02:05AM
One crucial bit that I left out is the way that the space monkeys infiltrate the dinner where a high ranking official is promising to catch the "underground group responsible for the various acts of vandalism." When this high-ranking official takes a bathroom break he opens the door to find Tyler, who grabs him, throws him to the ground and punches him. The space monkeys then all gather around this terrified man, they place tape over his mouth and they pull his pants to his knees. Tyler then menacingly tells this high ranking offical:
"Hi. You're going to call off your rigorous investigation... you're going to publicly state that there is no underground group... or... these guys are going to take your balls" (one of the space monkeys flashes a knife at the frightened man.) Tyler then leans in right close to the man and says "Do not fuck with us!"
Landmark have a history and reputation of threatening lawsuits against anyone who doesn't say that they are the best thing ever and completely harmless. Rick Ross has been subject to one of these lawsuits (which he won) but Margaret Singer was less fortunate. Under duress from Landmark Education she had to remove Landmark Education from her book and state that Landmark Education was not a cult. (Sound familiar) Later she made the following statement:
"“I do not endorse them [Landmark Education] - never have. The SOBs have already sued me once. I'm afraid to tell you what I really think about them because I'm not covered by any lawyers like I was when I wrote my book.”
"Hi. You're going to call off your rigorous investigation... you're going to publicly state that there is no underground group... or... these guys are going to take your balls" (one of the space monkeys flashes a knife at the frightened man.) Tyler then leans in right close to the man and says "Do not fuck with us!"
Landmark have a history and reputation of threatening lawsuits against anyone who doesn't say that they are the best thing ever and completely harmless. Rick Ross has been subject to one of these lawsuits (which he won) but Margaret Singer was less fortunate. Under duress from Landmark Education she had to remove Landmark Education from her book and state that Landmark Education was not a cult. (Sound familiar) Later she made the following statement:
"“I do not endorse them [Landmark Education] - never have. The SOBs have already sued me once. I'm afraid to tell you what I really think about them because I'm not covered by any lawyers like I was when I wrote my book.”
Re: Landmark and Fight Club
Posted by:
ajinajan
()
Date: November 26, 2012 12:15AM
Quote
Dopamine Link
One crucial bit that I left out is the way that the space monkeys infiltrate the dinner where a high ranking official is promising to catch the "underground group responsible for the various acts of vandalism." When this high-ranking official takes a bathroom break he opens the door to find Tyler, who grabs him, throws him to the ground and punches him. The space monkeys then all gather around this terrified man, they place tape over his mouth and they pull his pants to his knees. Tyler then menacingly tells this high ranking offical:
"Hi. You're going to call off your rigorous investigation... you're going to publicly state that there is no underground group... or... these guys are going to take your balls" (one of the space monkeys flashes a knife at the frightened man.) Tyler then leans in right close to the man and says "Do not fuck with us!"
Landmark have a history and reputation of threatening lawsuits against anyone who doesn't say that they are the best thing ever and completely harmless. Rick Ross has been subject to one of these lawsuits (which he won) but Margaret Singer was less fortunate. Under duress from Landmark Education she had to remove Landmark Education from her book and state that Landmark Education was not a cult. (Sound familiar) Later she made the following statement:
"“I do not endorse them [Landmark Education] - never have. The SOBs have already sued me once. I'm afraid to tell you what I really think about them because I'm not covered by any lawyers like I was when I wrote my book.”
Yes it's very telling this quote by Margaret Singer about what she would like to say and what she was afraid of saying.
Re: Landmark and Fight Club
Posted by:
Dopamine Link
()
Date: November 27, 2012 02:09PM
The first rule of LGATs is “YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT LGATS” which has allowed them to fly under the radar for the forty years they’ve been in existence. For so long these courses have managed to evade the public eye because they have not been relevant to anyone other than those directly impacted by them.
The great thing about Fight Club is that it has an enormous fan base (ironically enough, it is said to have a CULT following). This is a movie that is discussed in English classrooms and psychology lecture venues, but most importantly it is a movie discussed by millions of ordinary people. This movie comments on a number of issues, but none more so than LGATs and the damage that they cause. By getting these ordinary people to start discussing the real meanings of the film – those single frames of pornography that Palaniuk splices so deftly into Fight Club – the truth about LGATs can reach a far greater audience. This seems, to me, to be a much needed opportunity to get people looking critically at this industry and, like Palaniuk, questioning whether they are willing to support it.
I don’t know what more I can do from this point. All I can ask is that you get a discussion going - that you involve your friends and colleagues and you try to decide for yourself whether my interpretation holds any merit. Let’s break the first rule of LGATs. Let’s get everyone talking about them.
DL
The great thing about Fight Club is that it has an enormous fan base (ironically enough, it is said to have a CULT following). This is a movie that is discussed in English classrooms and psychology lecture venues, but most importantly it is a movie discussed by millions of ordinary people. This movie comments on a number of issues, but none more so than LGATs and the damage that they cause. By getting these ordinary people to start discussing the real meanings of the film – those single frames of pornography that Palaniuk splices so deftly into Fight Club – the truth about LGATs can reach a far greater audience. This seems, to me, to be a much needed opportunity to get people looking critically at this industry and, like Palaniuk, questioning whether they are willing to support it.
I don’t know what more I can do from this point. All I can ask is that you get a discussion going - that you involve your friends and colleagues and you try to decide for yourself whether my interpretation holds any merit. Let’s break the first rule of LGATs. Let’s get everyone talking about them.
DL
Re: Landmark and Fight Club
Posted by:
Dopamine Link
()
Date: November 30, 2012 09:55PM
I apologise for adding these observations on one by one but there are a few more parallels between LGATs and Fight Club that are worth mentioning.
1. Est was spread throughout the USA by Erhard, but very soon – because the courses were highly scripted – former est trainers began starting up their own LGATs under various different names.
After Norton realises that he is Tyler he checks Tyler’s plane tickets and starts to visit all of the places ‘Tyler’ had been. He soon realises that at each place ‘Tyler’ had been a fight club had been established…
NORTON: Tyler had been busy… setting up franchises all over the country… (much like Erhard had been busy setting up est franchises all over the country)
Earlier on (before Norton had turned against Project Mayhem) him and Tyler are setting the alarms off all of the cars on the road. While doing this they discuss all of the new fight clubs being established…
NORTON: Did you know that there’s a Fight Club up in Delaware City?
TYLER: Yeah, I heard…
NORTON: There’s one in Penns Grove too. Bob’s even found one up in Newcastle…
TYLER: Yeah, did you start that one?
NORTON: No, I thought you did…
TYLER: No…
The two then pause and smash a VW Beetle with their bats. (This indicates the way that copycat LGATs started to pop up all over the place. These were LGATs heavily influenced by est – and Lifespring – but not official descendants of est or Lifespring).
2. LGATs (Landmark included) rely heavily on homework to minimise sleep and to maximise the amount of time that you are effectively in the LGAT environment. The more you are thinking about the doctrine they are trying to implant in you, the less time you have for sleep, reflection and influence from the outside world. Likewise in Fight Club, homework becomes a key part of the process…
After Lou comes down to the basement in his bar (and beats the hell out of Tyler) Tyler hands out homework assignments to all of the fight club participants…
TYLER: Each one of you has a homework assignment…
One of the homework assignments was to start a fight with a complete stranger… and lose.
NORTON: Tyler dreamed up new homework assignments. He handed them out in sealed envelopes…
If I remember anything else I’ll be sure to let you know and if anyone reading has noticed anything else that should have been mentioned then please post.
DL
1. Est was spread throughout the USA by Erhard, but very soon – because the courses were highly scripted – former est trainers began starting up their own LGATs under various different names.
After Norton realises that he is Tyler he checks Tyler’s plane tickets and starts to visit all of the places ‘Tyler’ had been. He soon realises that at each place ‘Tyler’ had been a fight club had been established…
NORTON: Tyler had been busy… setting up franchises all over the country… (much like Erhard had been busy setting up est franchises all over the country)
Earlier on (before Norton had turned against Project Mayhem) him and Tyler are setting the alarms off all of the cars on the road. While doing this they discuss all of the new fight clubs being established…
NORTON: Did you know that there’s a Fight Club up in Delaware City?
TYLER: Yeah, I heard…
NORTON: There’s one in Penns Grove too. Bob’s even found one up in Newcastle…
TYLER: Yeah, did you start that one?
NORTON: No, I thought you did…
TYLER: No…
The two then pause and smash a VW Beetle with their bats. (This indicates the way that copycat LGATs started to pop up all over the place. These were LGATs heavily influenced by est – and Lifespring – but not official descendants of est or Lifespring).
2. LGATs (Landmark included) rely heavily on homework to minimise sleep and to maximise the amount of time that you are effectively in the LGAT environment. The more you are thinking about the doctrine they are trying to implant in you, the less time you have for sleep, reflection and influence from the outside world. Likewise in Fight Club, homework becomes a key part of the process…
After Lou comes down to the basement in his bar (and beats the hell out of Tyler) Tyler hands out homework assignments to all of the fight club participants…
TYLER: Each one of you has a homework assignment…
One of the homework assignments was to start a fight with a complete stranger… and lose.
NORTON: Tyler dreamed up new homework assignments. He handed them out in sealed envelopes…
If I remember anything else I’ll be sure to let you know and if anyone reading has noticed anything else that should have been mentioned then please post.
DL
Re: Landmark and Fight Club
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: December 04, 2012 11:21PM
[www.culteducation.com]
Years back, Fight Club came up in this message board's discussions of LE
[forum.culteducation.com]
[forum.culteducation.com]
[forum.culteducation.com]
Years back, Fight Club came up in this message board's discussions of LE
[forum.culteducation.com]
[forum.culteducation.com]
[forum.culteducation.com]
Re: Landmark and Fight Club
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: December 04, 2012 11:31PM
Quote
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IWL1IdfzhkcJ:[en.wikipedia.org]Quote
This is Google's cache of [en.wikipedia.org]. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Nov 27, 2012 13:15:39 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.
Full versionThese search terms are highlighted: palahniuk erhard
est and The Forum in popular culture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Leonard Maltin praised Burt Reynolds's charm in the est parody film, Semi-Tough.
Werner Erhard and his self-improvement courses have been referenced in popular culture in various forms of fictional media including literature, film, television and theatre. These courses, known as est, were delivered by the company Erhard Seminars Training. Under the name The Forum, they were delivered by Werner Erhard and Associates. Also, the Landmark Forum, a program created by Erhard's former employees after purchasing his intellectual property, has had an influence on popular culture. Some of these works have taken a comedic tack, parodying Erhard and satirizing the methodology used in these courses.
Other works have taken a more direct approach, and analyzed and questioned Erhard's early life and controversy through fictionalized accounts. Erhard read the science fiction book est: The Steersman Handbook, Charts of the Coming Decade of Conflict, by L. Clark Stevens before developing est: note the convention of printing est in all lower-case stems from the title of this work. Erhard and his techniques are also referenced in the 2001 novel Pressure Points by Larry Brooks, and in Gregg Hurwitz's 2004 novel The Program.
Both est and The Forum have been depicted more often in film and television than in literary works. The 1977 film Semi-Tough satirized Erhard and the est Training, through the fictional "Bismark Earthwalk Action Training." Bert Convy portrayed the Erhard parody character, and his performance was positively received. est students Diana Ross and Joel Schumacher incorporated Werner Erhard's teachings into the 1978 musical film, The Wiz. The 1990 film The Spirit of '76 also parodied est, where Rob Reiner portrayed an abusive trainer for the est-like "Be, Inc. Seminars." Movie critics have also drawn parallels to est and Werner Erhard, in reviews of the films Fight Club and Magnolia. Concepts from the Landmark Forum were utilized by the Wachowski brothers in their film The Matrix Revolutions. Werner Erhard's training programs have been parodied in television. The 1979 episode of Mork & Mindy, "Mork Goes Erk", and the 2002 episode of Six Feet Under, "The Plan", are the most notable. In the Mork & Mindy episode, the Erhard parody character was played by David Letterman.
Madison, Wisconsin's Broom Street Theatre produced a play about Werner Erhard and The Forum in 1995, called Devil In Paradise, The Fall and Rise of Werner Erhard. This piece dealt with a fictionalized version of controversial issues surrounding Erhard, including his early life before success with the est Training and allegations of familial abuse. The play received a positive review in the local paper, The Capital Times. Representatives of Erhard later contacted The Capital Times, and the paper issued a correction which highlighted points directly addressed by Erhard's people.
Contents
1 Background
2 Fiction
2.1 Fictional inspiration for est
2.2 est and successors in literature
3 Film
3.1 1970s
3.2 1990s
3.3 2000–present
4 Music
5 Television
5.1 Mork & Mindy
5.2 Six Feet Under
6 Theatre
7 See also
8 References
9 External links
[edit] Background
Werner Erhard (born John Paul Rosenberg), a California-based former salesman, training manager and executive in the encyclopedia business,[1][2] created the Erhard Seminars Training (est) course in 1971.[3] est was a form of Large Group Awareness Training,[4][5] and was part of the Human Potential Movement.[6] est was a four-day, 60-hour self-help program given to groups of 250 people at a time.[7] The program was very intensive: each day would contain 15–20 hours of instruction.[6] During the training, est personnel utilized jargon to convey key concepts, and participants had to agree to certain rules which remained in effect for the duration of the course.[8] Participants were taught that they were responsible for their life outcomes, and were promised a dramatic change in their self-perception.[6]
est was controversial: critics characterized the training methods as brainwashing,[9][10][11][12] and suggested that the program had fascistic and narcissistic tendencies.[6]
Proponents asserted that it had a profoundly positive impact on people's lives.[6] By 1977 over 100,000 people completed the est training, including public figures and mental health professionals.[6]
In 1985, Werner Erhard and Associates repackaged the course as "The Forum", a seminar focused on "goal-oriented breakthroughs".[3] By 1988, approximately one million people had taken some form of the trainings.[3] In the early 1990s Erhard faced family problems, as well as tax problems that were eventually resolved in his favor.[3][13][14] A group of his associates formed the company Landmark Education in 1991, purchasing The Forum's course "technology" from Erhard.[3]
[edit] Fiction
[edit] Fictional inspiration for est
Werner Erhard drew on non-fiction sources when he developed Erhard Seminars Training, including the self-help course Mind Dynamics, cybernetics, the book Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill, Scientology courses and the writings of its founder L. Ron Hubbard.[2][15][16]
However, Erhard's self-awareness courses were also influenced by a science fiction book he read shortly before forming est, called: est: The Steersman Handbook, Charts of the Coming Decade of Conflict, by L. Clark Stevens.[2][15][16][17]
Though est is also an abbreviation for Erhard Seminars Training, usage of the term in all-lowercase lettering was borrowed from est: The Steersman Handbook.[2][15][16][17]
Shortly after reading the book and becoming very familiar with its contents, Erhard had an epiphany while driving across the Golden Gate Bridge, and he later cited this inspirational moment as the beginning of his development of the est coursework.[18] The book later became required reading for associates on Erhard's Mind Dynamics sales team.[2]
R. Buckminster Fuller, mentioned in the book by L. Clark Stevens as one of the "est people" that would bring about social transformation integral to Earth's survival, later helped Werner Erhard found The Hunger Project.[18][19]
[edit] est and successors in literature
Depictions of est and The Forum in literature have dealt with direct references to these trainings, and have provided educational background on the larger term encompassing these trainings, known as "Large Group Awareness Training."
Erhard and est are parodied in the March 1980 issue of the Marvel Comics Howard the Duck series, titled: "The Dreadcliff Cuckoos".[20] In "The Dreadcliff Cuckoos", the character "Werner Blowhard" heads the organization "Bozoes Eagerly Serving Tyrants", abbreviated B.E.S.T.[20]
In his first appearance in the comic, Blowhard states "I've got It, Have you got It?".[[/i]20]
The "Werner Blowhard" character was later referenced in D. Keith Mano's 1998 novel, Take Five.[21]
In Pressure Points, a 2001 novel by Larry Brooks, one of the book's protagonists asserts that the programs developed by Werner Erhard, William Penn Patrick, and Alexander Everett all came from the same source.[22]
The Program, a 2004 novel by Hurwitz, described a fictional large group awareness training called "The Program", and characters also used the term "LGAT" to refer to the course.[23] In the novel, the seminar leader had "married two cult models," which one of the protagonists described as a blend of the "psychotherapeutic cult," and the "self-improvement cult."[23]
The character then tells his friend that "The Program", is similar to a combination of the Sullivanians and Lifespring.[23] Werner Erhard is quoted, prior to the opening of the prologue.[23]
[edit] Film
[edit] 1970s
est advocate Valerie Harper contacted Bert Convy on behalf of Werner Erhard during the filming of Semi-Tough.[24]
Werner Erhard and his est Training programs and later The Forum have been parodied in films, both directly and through more subtle references. Still in other films that did not directly intend to parody the subject matter, other reviewers have found elements of the est movement as applied to the genre of fictional self-help films.
The 1977 movie Semi-Tough, starring Burt Reynolds, parodied the est training.[25] Bert Convy played "Frederick Bismark," a caricature of Werner Erhard. Bismark's organization and its training went by the name "B.E.A.T.", which stands for: "Bismark Earthwalk Action Training." A form of Rolfing was also parodied in the film, and Lotte Lenya's character "Clara Pelf" was described as: "a Rolf like masseuse."[24] The press caught on to this satire of Erhard in the film, and gave these sections of the film positive reviews. The Wall Street Journal did not give an overall positive review, but did appreciate the portions where Werner Erhard was parodied: "The movie isn't much - an erratic ramble - But it has some pleasant moments, and a delicious send-up of The self-improvement guru Werner Erhard."[26]
The Charlotte Observer praised Bert Convy's portrayal of the self-help guru Frederick Bismark, writing: "Bert Convy is a hilariously smug consciousness-raiser with a more than passing resemblance to EST's Werner Erhard."[[/i]27] After the film's release, Bert Convy appeared on The Tonight Show and discussed his experiences when he attended an est training seminar in preparation for his role as Frederick Bismark.
During actual filming on Semi-Tough, Convy received a late-night phone call from actress Valerie Harper, known in Hollywood as a devoted student of Werner Erhard. She related to Convy that Erhard was "pleased" with the role, and she wished him success in the film. However, Convy suspected that her real reason for calling was to subtly pressure him to go easy on his parody of Erhard in the film.[24]
est student Diana Ross worked some of Werner Erhard's teachings into the film version of The Wiz.[24]
The Grove Book of Hollywood wrote that the 1978 film, The Wiz was influenced by Werner Erhard's teachings and est because actress Diana Ross and writer Joel Schumacher were "very enamored of Werner Erhard."[24] The film's producer Rob Cohen noted that: "before I knew it, the movie was becoming an est-ian fable full of est buzzwords about knowing who you are and sharing and all that. I hated the script a lot. But it was hard to argue with Diana because she was recognizing in this script all of this stuff that she had worked out in est seminars."[[/i]24]
Schumacher spoke positively of the results of the est training, saying: "I will be eternally grateful for learning that I was responsible for my life," however he also complained that: "Everybody stayed exactly the way they were and went around spouting all this bullshit."[24]
Re: Landmark and Fight Club
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: December 04, 2012 11:43PM
The rest of the Wiki article
Quote
Of est and Erhard references in the film itself, The Grove Book of Hollywood notes that the speech delivered by the Good Witch, played by actress Lena Horne, at the end of the film was "a litany of est-like platitudes," and the book also makes est comparisons to the song "Believe in Yourself."[24]
[edit] 1990s
Rob Reiner portrayed "Dr. Cash", a parody of Werner Erhard, in the 1990 film The Spirit of '76.[28]
In the 1990 film The Spirit of '76, Rob Reiner plays "Dr. Hedley Cash" (only referred to as "Dr. Cash" in the film), an abusive trainer for the est-like "Be, Inc. Seminars" who traps time-traveler Heinz-57 (played by Geoff Hoyle) in one of his seminars and continually refers to him as "Heinz Asshole."[29] In the DVD commentary for the 2003 release of the film, director Lucas Reiner stated that the "Absentee, oblivious, self-involved parents who don't notice their kids have a spaceship" was a reference to the self-involved nature of adults during the 1970s and their propensity for self-improvement.[28] Lucas Reiner stated that these scenes were meant to symbolize the "'70s hunger for self-improvement," and the extreme ends that people would go to in order to improve themselves. Lucas Reiner had never personally attended one of Werner Erhard's seminars, but had heard that attendants were not allowed to leave, often peed in their pants, and were called "assholes" and insulted publicly.
Reiner noted that once his brother Carl put on the "Dr. Cash" costume, he played his character perfectly.[28]
Heavyweights is a 1995 comedy film about a fat camp for kids that is taken over by fitness guru Tony Perkis, played by Ben Stiller. In a review of the film in The Washington Post, Hal Hinson described Stiller's portrayal of the Perkis character to Erhard, and called him "the Werner Erhard of slide aerobics".[30]
Fight Club author Chuck Palahniuk's work was influenced by his experiences in the Landmark Forum.[31]
Fight Club author Chuck Palahniuk was a graduate of The Landmark Forum, or "The Forum", for short, and this later influenced his work.[31][32][33] In his review of the 1999 film adaptation of the book, Roger Ebert likened the character Tyler Durden to Werner Erhard.[34] Ebert wrote that Tyler Durden was: ".a bully--Werner Erhard plus S & M, a leather club operator without the decor."[34]
Fight Club film producer Ross Grayson Bell believes that his "creative synchronicity" with writer Palahniuk was due to their shared experience of attending The Forum.[31]
In the 1999 film Magnolia, Tom Cruise played a motivational guru named Frank T.J. Mackey, who was the author of a self-help book called Seduce and Destroy. This work was meant to teach men how to get women to sleep with them. The Frank T.J. Mackey character in the film has been likened to: "a sort of pop-TV blend of Werner Erhard and Bob Guccione, strutting around a stage with cocksure arrogance, indoctrinating his acolytes in the arts of machismo and seduction."[35]
The Frank T.J. Mackey character has also been compared to another motivational trainer influenced by Erhard, in Details Magazine.[36] In an ironic twist, Tom Cruise has later been referred to as "the new Werner Erhard."[37]
[edit] 2000–present
The Wachowskis drew on their experiences in the Landmark Forum seminar series when they wrote The Matrix Revolutions.[38][39]
In her 2004 book Life Long Learning: Transforming, Learning Discovering Through Living Life in Unlimitless Possibilities, Patti Diamond writes that filmmakers The Wachowskis got the inspiration for the screenplay to The Matrix Revolutions while participating in a Landmark Forum "seminar series."[38] Diamond also analyzes The Matrix Revolutions and the messages imparted in the film, in the context of her own personal experiences in the Landmark Forum. She describes a tautologous exchange between Agent Smith and Neo in the film, where Neo is asked by Smith: "Why do you continue to do this, Mr. Anderson?" and Neo responds: "Because I choose to." Diamond uses this example to explain the Landmark Forum's discussion of "choice and decision."[38] Diamond provides further analysis of other Landmark Forum concepts utilized in The Matrix Revolutions in her book Stepping Into Spiritual Oneness: Spiritual Rememberings of the Soul Through Life Experience, including the concept that: "we all choose to BE who we are being in each and every moment of our experience."[[/i]39]
[edit] Music
Alameda, California musician and Elvis impersonator "eXtreme Elvis" (EE) attributes the origin of his show to an experience he had at the Landmark Forum. eXtreme Elvis told Glen Silverstone of East Bay Express: "Before I went to Forum I didn't have the confidence to put myself out there. I couldn't have gotten naked and felt okay with being fat, with just being myself naked in front of people."[40]
He also compared his performance with the Landmark Forum: "I see a lot of parallels between my show and Landmark. Both have been accused of being abusive and being cults. But Landmark and my show are transforming, revolutionary experiences. People cannot possibly leave without having their lives changed."[40] After completing the Landmark Forum, EE became a graduate instructor for Landmark Education.[40]
[edit] Television[edit]
Mork & Mindy
David Letterman portrayed a parody of Werner Erhard in an episode of Mork & Mindy called "Mork Goes Erk."[41]
Parody and satire of est and The Forum in television has taken a more direct approach than in literature and film. Characters have been shown attending seminars, and having negative outcomes as a result. Mork & Mindy dealt with this in a lighter fashion, dealing with a small introduction of individuals to the training in a home environment, in season one, episode seventeen: "Mork Goes Erk."[42] In the episode, David Letterman portrayed an Erhard-like character by the name of "Ellsworth" offering ERK or Ellsworth Revitalization Konditioning.[41]
In a 1982 article in the journal Theory & Society, Lewis & Clark College sociology professor Robert Goldman compared and contrasted Letterman's "Ellsworth" character and his training program to that of Werner Erhard. Goldman noted that the episode spent time: "lampooning Werner Erhard and est-like commercial pop psychologies." However, Goldman went on to note that the inherent problem with "Ellsworth Revitalization Konditioning" was not the training - but Ellsworth himself. Ellsworth is seen not just as a parody of Werner Erhard, but also of consumerism:
"As the self-help entrepreneur, Ellsworth is portrayed as a walking collection of lifestyle-status points and sign-values ("I've got my Rolls-Royce!"). Conspicuous consumption and commodity fetishism define his personality."
Goldman explained that the Mork and Mindy episode succeeded in distinguishing between criticism of the Ellsworth training, and criticism of Ellsworth, citing Ellsworth's character traits of: "tyranny, selfishness, open greed, and flaunting of the accoutrements of his vulgar money-making." In the end of the segment of the episode parodying est, Mork wins out over the Ellsworth philosophy by instead calling to mind universal humanistic moral values.[41] David Letterman received positive praise for his portrayal of "Ellsworth" in the episode.[43][44][45]
[edit] Six Feet Under
Alice Krige portrayed a seminar leader of "The Plan" (a parody on "The Forum") in the 2002 Six Feet Under episode, "The Plan".[46]
Six Feet Under Episode 16, of Season 2, "The Plan", featured a seminar-delivery organization called "The Plan", which the character Claire Fisher immediately compared to est. Actress Alice Krige portrays "Alma" the seminar leader of "The Plan" - who uses jargon related to the "blueprint" for building a house in order to convey concepts about self-improvement. She singles out the character Ruth and berates her for "tiptoeing around her own house like she's afraid of waking someone up." Ruth begins to use jargon from the course in her conversations with family, and complains to her daughter that she cannot yet go to sleep after coming home from her seminar because she must first do "homework" from the course. This homework includes writing a letter to her dead mother forgiving her for "all the terrible things she did to me", and writing a letter to herself, describing how she will "renovate" her life. During the following day of "The Plan", the seminar leader gives the group a new assignment: to go outside to ready banks of phones, and call their family members to inform them of specifically how they wish to "renovate their homes" together.
In the seminar, the leader asks everyone to close their eyes and imagine that everyone else is laughing at them for being stupid, and then asks the participants if they get the joke. Everyone does, except Ruth, who rants at the course instructor. After her rant, the leader congratulates her for "knocking down her old house", and proceeds to tell her that now she can rebuild a new house.[47]
Analysis in secondary sources and books on Six Feet Under have compared the training in "The Plan" to the current incarnation of Erhard's trainings, Landmark Education.[48]
Reading Six Feet Under: TV to Die For by Akass et al. have compared "The Plan" to est and The Forum.[46] Akass cites the episode while analyzing the phenomenon of self-improvement, and notes that: "Repairing her shingles often leaves Ruth in shackles."[46] She writes that: ".the series performs the logic of self-help, both its silly and seductive sides."[[/i]46] However, she also points out that Ruth's rant at the end of her seminar is cathartic for Ruth, and she ends her analysis of the episode by asking: "So, what do we make of our times when all this supposed nonsense actually works?"[[/i]46]
[edit] Theatre
In February 1995, the Broom Street Theatre in Madison, Wisconsin produced a play entitled: Devil In Paradise, The Fall and Rise of Werner Erhard.[49] The play was written and directed by Joel Gersmann, and performed with a cast of seven actors.[49] The play was described as "a fascinating character study of the man who founded the wildly successful "human potential movement," as well as the many people who bought into it."[50] The work was a satire of Erhard, which educated the audience about a (fictionalized) rendition of his early life, but the piece was also criticized for its lack of structure. Short scenes and blackouts were described as confusing, and yet Gersmann's script itself was seen as a success.[50]
The production was reviewed in The Capital Times in March 1995, and the staff of The Capital Times was later contacted by representatives of Werner Erhard, and asked to issue a correction regarding statements made in the review.[50]
The paper later issued a correction, which emphasized that the play was indeed a fictionalized account, and stated that: "Erhard never admitted abusing his children, and his daughter retracted in July 1992 her earlier allegation of sexual abuse by her father."[50] The correction also noted that Erhard did not leave the United States to avoid any Internal Revenue Service investigation, but rather was contesting certain business deductions and had not been charged with tax evasion. The statement sent by Erhard's representatives concluded by noting: "Erhard denies that the programs he created, est and the Forum, were or are pyramid selling schemes, self-help programs or mind therapy movement."[50]
In 2008, Climate Theater in San Francisco, California showed a play called The Group, written by Robert Quillen Camp and performed by Ryan Eggensperger.[51] Climate Theater described the play as "Inspired by the largely American tradition of packaging and selling self-empowerment, from EST and the Landmark Forum to Norman Vincent Peale and The Secret".[51] The play's performance ensemble cite "EST and the Landmark Forum" among inspirations for the parody.[52] The play is an immersive performance piece, and Robert Quillen Camp explained: "Our aim is to create a fun but ultimate unsettling experience reflecting simultaneous attraction to and repulsion from organizations that promise a better and happier life."[53] Audience members sit in a circle and wear audio headsets, through which they listen to the charismatic leader's voice and sound effects.[54] The production ran from May 29, 2008 to June 14, 2008.[51]
Robert Avila of the San Francisco Bay Guardian called The Group: "in-your-face comedy in a droll send-up of EST-like self-actualization programs," and a spoof of "recent incarnations" including The Secret and Landmark Forum.[55]
Avila gave the play a positive review, noting its "inspired writing, sharp humor, and simple yet slick production".[55] In a review of the play for the San Jose Mercury News, Karen D'Souza wrote: From est to 'The Secret,' this is a playful lampoon of 'healing philosophies'".[56]
D'Souza also reviewed the play positively, writing: " Writer-director Robert Quillen Camp slyly pokes fun at reducing the human experience to one-size-fits-all platitudes and besmirching belief systems with "cash-only" workshops."[56]
Pat Craig wrote in Contra Costa Times: "Quote
After a lifetime of enduring various human potential programs, from the chanted mantras of transcendental meditation to the institutionalized loathing of est, 'The Group' seems a bit tame for satire to a veteran of the high-profit mind games."[[/quote]57]
In a review for the San Francisco Examiner, Leslie Katz described The Group as "one of those parodies that's so good, you almost don't know it's a fake," and commented: "In the end, the show provides excellent therapy. As those who aren't swayed by expensive self-help seminars know, laughter is indeed the best medicine."[58]
[edit] See also
Portal icon Film portal
Portal icon Psychology portal
Portal icon Television portal
Human Potential Movement
Large Group Awareness Training
Parody religion
Popular culture
Religious satire
Self-help
[edit] References
^ Bartley, William Warren (1978). Werner Erhard The Transformation of a Man: The Founding of EST. Clarkson Potter. pp. 84, 90. ISBN 0-517-53502-5.
^ a b c d e Pressman, Steven (1993). Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 5–7. ISBN 0-312-09296-2. OCLC 27897209.
^ a b c d e Hukill, Tracy (July 9, 1998). "The est of Friends: Werner Erhard's protégés and siblings carry the torch for a '90s incarnation of the '70s 'training' that some of us just didn't get". Metro Silicon Valley (Metro Newspapers). Archived from the original on 2009-10-21. [web.archive.org]. Retrieved 2008-04-11.
^ Fisher, Jeffrey D.; Cohen Silver, Roxane; Chinsky, Jack M.; Goff, Barry; Klar, Yechiel (1990). Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training. New York: Springer-Verlag. p. 142. ISBN 0-387-97320-6
^ Denison, Charles Wayne (June 1995). "The children of EST: A study of the experience and perceived effects of a large group awareness training". Dissertation Abstracts International (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms International) 55 (12–B): 5564.
^ a b c d e f McGurk, William S. (June 1977). "Was Ist est?". Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books 22 (6): pp. 459–460.
^ Berzins, Zane (February 6, 1977). "Getting It". The New York Times Book Review (The New York Times Company) 82: 25.
^ Bader, Barbara (Editor) (July 15, 1976). "Getting It". Kirkus Reviews 44 (Part II, Section No. 14): p. 821.
^ Brewer, Mark (August 1975). "We're Gonna Tear You Down and Put You Back Together". Psychology Today.
^ Lande, Nathaniel (October 1976). Mindstyles, Lifestyles: A Comprehensive Overview of Today's Life-changing Philosophies. Price/Stern/Sloan. p. 135. ISBN 0-8431-0414-7.
^ Koocher, Gerald P.; Patricia Keith-Spiegel (1998). Ethics in Psychology: Professional Standards and Cases. Oxford University Press. p. 111. ISBN 0-19-509201-5.
^ Bardini, Thierry (2000). Bootstrapping: Douglas Engelbart, Coevolution, and the Origins of Personal Computing. Stanford University Press. p. 205. ISBN 0-8047-3871-8.
^ Faltermayer, Charlotte (2001-06-24). "The Best Of Est?". Time. [www.time.com]. Retrieved 2007-09-28.
^ "Leader of est movement wins $200,000 from IRS". Daily News of Los Angeles (Los Angeles, California). September 12, 1996. [www.thefreelibrary.com].
^ a b c Conway, Flo; Jim Siegelman (1995). Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change. Stillpoint Press. p. Page 6. ISBN 0-9647650-0-4.
^ a b c Larson, Bob (2004). Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.. p. 176. ISBN 0-8423-6417-X.
^ a b Occhiogrosso, Peter (September 4, 1997). The Joy of Sects. Image. p. 543. ISBN 978-0-385-42565-0.
^ a b Navarro, Espy M.; Robert Navarro (2002). Self Realization: The Est and Forum Phenomena in American Society. Xlibris Corporation. pp. 22, 67. ISBN 1-4010-4220-1.
^ Jackson, Kenneth T.; Arnie Markoe (2002). The Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives. Simon and Schuster. p. 150. ISBN 0-684-80663-0.
^ a b c Mantlo, Bill; John Buscema, Klaus Janson (March 1980). "The Dreadcliff Cuckoos: The best things in life are free, right? Especially if by "best" you mean skulduggery, kidnapping, mind-manipulation, torture and murder, all through the graces of B.E.S.T". Stan Lee presents: Howard the Duck (New York City, New York: Marvel Comics Group, Office of Publication) 1 (4): 38–63.
^ Mano, D. Keith (1998). Take Five. Dalkey Archive Press. p. 180. ISBN 1-56478-193-3.
^ Brooks, Larry (November 29, 2001). Pressure Points. Onyx. p. Page 77. ISBN 0-451-41001-7 , ISBN 978-0-451-41001-6.
^ a b c d Hurwitz, Gregg Andrew (2004). The Program. HarperCollins. p. 176. ISBN 0-06-053040-5.
^ a b c d e f g h Silvester, Christopher; Steven Bach (2002). The Grove Book of Hollywood. Grove Press. pp. Pages 555–560. ISBN 0-8021-3878-0.
^ Mulligan, Pat (2006). The Life and Times of a Hollywood Bad Boy. AuthorHouse. p. 94. ISBN 1-4259-5008-6.
^ Staff (2005-05-27). "Our Reynolds Rap -- Burt Is Inert;". The Wall Street Journal (Dow Jones & Company).
^ Staff (1987-01-25). "Videos Bring Back Grit, Grime, Romance of Football Movies". The Charlotte Observer (The McClatchy Company).
^ a b c Reiner, Lucas (2003). DVD commentary for The Spirit of '76, 2003 edition (DVD). Castle Rock Entertainment, Warner Home Video.
^ Staff. (2003). DVD Verdict Review. 2003 Bill Gibron. pp. The Spirit Of '76. [www.dvdverdict.com].
^ Hinson, Hal (February 17, 1995). "‘Heavyweights’". The Washington Post (The Washington Post Company). [www.washingtonpost.com]. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
^ a b c Snider, Suzanne (May 2003). "EST, Werner Erhard, And The Corporatization of Self-Help". The Believer (2003-2007 The Believer). [www.believermag.com].
^ Grigoriadis, Vanessa (July 9, 2001). "Pay Money, Be Happy: For thousands of new yorkers, happiness is a $375, three-day self-help Seminar. Welcome to EST: The Next Generation". New York Magazine. [www.culteducation.com].
^ Staff (2006-06-25). "Why you will find yourself at the Forum". Daily Telegraph (News Limited Australia).
^ a b Ebert, Roger (October 15, 1999). "Review, Fight Club (film)". Chicago Sun-Times. [rogerebert.suntimes.com].
^ Wilmington, Michael (2000-01-06). "Magnolia". Zap2it.com (Tribune Media Services, Inc.).
^ Burleigh, Nina (October 2000). "Death of a Salesman". Details Magazine.
^ Gregutt, Paul (2006-11-12). "A Toast To Prosser: With tours, tasting rooms and B&Bs, a prospering burg beckons". The Seattle Times (The Seattle Times Company). [seattletimes.nwsource.com];. Retrieved 2004-10-24.
^ a b c Diamond, Patti (2004). Life Long Learning - Transforming, Learning Discovering Through Living Life in Unlimitless Possibilities. Morrisville, North Carolina: Lulu. p. Page 33. ISBN 1-4116-2492-0.
^ a b Diamond, Patti (2006). Stepping Into Spiritual Oneness: Spiritual Rememberings of the Soul Through Life Experience. Morrisville, North Carolina: Lulu. p. Page 169. ISBN 1-4116-5156-1.
^ a b c Silverstone, Glen (August 15, 2001). "Disgraceland: (Extreme) Elvis is not the first person to eat his shit onstage, and he won't be the last". East Bay Express. [www.eastbayexpress.com]. Retrieved 2008-04-20.
^ a b c Goldman, Robert (May 1982). "Hegemony and Managed Critique in Prime-Time Television: A Critical Reading of "Mork and Mindy"". Theory & Society (Hosted, Lewis & Clark College) 11: 363–388, Part 4.. [www.lclark.edu]. Retrieved 2007-10-29.
^ Staff (Original Air Date: 8 February 1979). ""Mork & Mindy" Mork Goes Erk (1979)". Internet Movie Database (Amazon.com). [www.imdb.com]. Retrieved 2007-10-29.
^ Tobey, Matthew. "Mork & Mindy: Mork Goes Erk". Allmovie (All Media Guide, LLC.). [www.allmovie.com]. Retrieved 2007-10-29.
^ Liebenson, Donald (2004). "Mork & Mindy - The Complete First Season (1978): Amazon.com essential video". Amazon.com (Amazon.com, Inc.): pp. Editorial Reviews. [www.amazon.com]. Retrieved 2007-10-29.
^ Staff (November 5, 2004). "Mork & Mindy". Dallas Morning News.
^ a b c d e Akass, Kim; Janet McCabe, Mark Lawson (2005). Reading Six Feet Under: TV to Die For. I.B.Tauris. pp. 96–97. ISBN 1-85043-809-9.
^ Staff; Television Without Pity (March 24, 2002). "Six Feet Under, The Plan, Recap". Yahoo! TV (Yahoo! Inc.): pp. 1–11. [tv.yahoo.com]. Retrieved 2007-10-28.
^ Venkatasubban, Sharmila (January 1, 2003). "Article of Faith". Pittsburgh City Paper.
^ a b Gersmann, Joel. "Devil In Paradise, The Fall and Rise of Werner Erhard". Broom Street Theatre. www.broomstreet.org. [www.broomstreet.org]. Retrieved 2007-10-24.[dead link]
^ a b c d e Chase, Michael (March 7, 1995). "'Devil' A Fascinating Portrait". The Capital Times (Capital Newspapers). [www.broomstreet.org]. Retrieved 2007-10-24.[dead link]
^ a b c "The Group". Climate Theater. www.climatetheater.com. [www.climatetheater.com]. Retrieved 2008-06-09.
^ "THE GROUP May 29 - June 14, 2008". Dodeska Performance Ensemble. www.dodeska.com. May 2008. Archived from the original on June 05, 2008. [web.archive.org]. Retrieved 2008-06-09.
^ Buzzin' Lee Hartgrave (May 30, 2008). "Have a Little est - Have a Little Norman Vincent Peale or Learn The Secret". BeyondChron: San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily News. www.beyondchron.org. [www.beyondchron.org]. Retrieved 2008-06-09.
^ Dodds, Richard (May 29, 2008). "Summer stage attractions". Bay Area Reporter. www.ebar.com. [www.ebar.com]. Retrieved 2008-06-09.
^ a b Avila, Robert (June 4, 2008). "Stage listings". San Francisco Bay Guardian. www.sfbg.com. [www.sfbg.com]. Retrieved 2008-06-09.
^ a b D'Souza, Karen (May 30, 2008). "'The Group,' a witty parody of self-help therapy Ryan Eggensperger is cheesily charismatic as leader in memorable world premiere from Robert Quillen Camp". San Jose Mercury News. origin.mercurynews.com. [origin.mercurynews.com]. Retrieved 2008-06-09.
^ Craig, Pat (June 3, 2008). "Sly 'Group' creeps up on you". Contra Costa Times. www.contracostatimes.com. [www.contracostatimes.com]. Retrieved 2008-06-09.
^ Katz, Leslie (May 30, 2008). "Review: When positive thinking goes awry". San Francisco Examiner. www.examiner.com.
[edit] External links
Find more about Werner Erhard on Wikipedia's sister projects:
Images and media from Commons
Quotations from Wikiquote
Source texts from Wikisource
Werner Erhard, Web site of "Friends of Werner Erhard"
Parodies
"Six Feet Under" The Plan (2002) at the Internet Movie Database
The Spirit of '76 (1990) at the Internet Movie Database
"Mork & Mindy" Mork Goes Erk (1979) at the Internet Movie Database
Semi-Tough (1977) at the Internet Movie Database
v
t
e
est and The Forum in popular culture
Fiction est: The Steersman Handbook
The Program
The Serial: A Year in the Life of Marin County
Film Semi-Tough
The Spirit of '76
The Wiz
Music "Looking for Space"
Television "Mork Goes Erk"
"The Plan"
Documentary Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous
Werner Erhard
Erhard Seminars Training
Werner Erhard and Associates
Landmark Forum
v
t
e
Religion and philosophy in popular culture
Religion portal
Philosophy portal
Main articles Parody religion
Philosophy of religion
Pseudoreligion
Pseudophilosophy
Popular culture
Religious satire
List of fictional religions
Religions and philosophies Bahá'í Faith in fiction
Humor about Catholicism
Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture
est and The Forum in popular culture
Hare Krishna in popular culture
Hell in popular culture
Cultural depictions of Jesus
Latter Day Saints in popular culture
Portrayals of God in popular media
Reincarnation in popular western culture
Satan in popular culture
Seventh-day Adventism in popular culture
Scientology in popular culture
Spiritualism in fiction
This is a good article. Click here for more information.
Retrieved from "[en.wikipedia.org];
Categories:
Human Potential Movement
Creative works in popular culture
Hidden categories:
All articles with dead external links
Articles with dead external links from April 2012
Good articles
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
Actions
Search
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
This page was last modified on 16 October 2012 at 20:41.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Contact us
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
Re: Landmark and Fight Club
Posted by:
Dopamine Link
()
Date: December 23, 2012 10:28PM
Hi everyone
I've noticed that the post has been viewed a bit but no comments? I'm officially a bit crazy so it would be great to get feedback from some sane people.
DL
I've noticed that the post has been viewed a bit but no comments? I'm officially a bit crazy so it would be great to get feedback from some sane people.
DL
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.