The Private Eye.

"Feeling Noirish," (Editorial) in The New York Times, February 16, 2011, at p. A24. ("Manohla Dargis Strikes Again!")

As I posted my essay responding to an article in The Atlantic Monthly, my home computer was turned off from a remote location by a hacker. I cannot say whether my computer has been permanently damaged. My security system is still inoperable. I cannot post images at these blogs. In fact, my security system is disconnected on a regular basis to maximize the frustrations and delays in rebooting my computer. I suspect that the butler did it.

I also suspect that this response from hackers is content-based, for some reason. I am being censored for the political and philosophical thoughts found in my writings. My opinions are not permissible on-line, according to some politically influential persons in Miami, Florida and Union City, New Jersey. This may be one result of being better informed on the issues than my would-be censors.

At the same time, I am often plagiarized by people who claim that my writings are "worthless" -- except when they make money from my words. Plagiarism is another word for "theft." ("What is it like to be plagiarized?" and "'Brideshead Revisited': A Movie Review.")

I am sure that Cuban-American extremist groups protected by corrupt politicians and officials -- primarily in New Jersey -- are responsible for this continuing censorship and defacements of my writings in violation of American copyright laws and the First Amendment to the federal Constitution. As they say at the Union City Cafeteria, "what the hell!" ("Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?" and "Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security!")

A number of American politicians have called for "Internet freedom." In the case of Senator Robert ("Big Bob") Menenedez, his nose seems to get longer as he makes this request for more free speech on-line. ("How Censorship Works in America" and "What is it like to be censored in America?")

An editorial in today's newspaper illustrates several criticisms expressed in previous writings about the decline in American education which probably explains the recent success of Republicans in the interim elections:

"These days we tend to think of film noir -- 'The Big Sleep' and 'Laura' top our list -- as nothing less than masterpieces. But there was no such thing as film noir in the 1940s and early 1950s when the best of them [what? films or books?] came out [of the closet?]"

Why not capitalize "Noir" since you are referring to a genre or a proper name? Too boring, perhaps. The word "Noir" is French. It is a term assigned to an aesthetic genre that is and will remain contemporary -- first by Parisian critics and then by all others -- even as the form undergoes all sorts of permutations all the time. ("'Inception': A Movie Review" then "'The American': A Movie Review" and "'Michael Clayton': A Movie Review.")

The identification of this uniquely American vocabulary of film images in our time with the post-World War II period has to do with the arrival of Existentialism in America, notably Albert Camus' trip to New York, where the great French writer was "wined and dined" -- as Manohla would say -- by literary and movie people.

More importantly, the Holocaust had a dramatic impact on the American cinematic imagination which altered the style and mood of German "Expressionism" -- by way of a number of German artists who fled the Nazis -- to reflect these new concerns with evil and collapsing structures of belief, also the rise of women into positions of power and equality in society. "Femme Fatale" is also French. The words are not italicized because they have entered the American language, like a shot in the back. Those dames really know how to hurt a guy. ("Metaphor is Mystery" and "Faust in Manhattan.")

None of this cultural history is mentioned by the editorialist whose golden prose style suggests that the author is (and can only be) "Manohla Dargis." Ms. Dargis offers this genuine insight as she "opens her legs," as it were:

"The passions are volatile, and so is the medium:" ("'The Reader': A Movie Review.")

Manohla explains that we can go on-line and help preserve old films in order to ...

" ... aid a world in which crime pays until the last reel when, like 'Hamlet,' everyone dies. [I thought Prince Hamlet was only one person?] though no one in 'Hamlet' smoked or carried a .38 Special." (emphasis added!)

Like Prince Hamlet, we all die. Perhaps Manohla will enter before the rest us into that big movie theater in the sky:

"In tragedy, none of the characters know they're going to be tragic until it is too late."

I can already tell that this editorial will be tragic.

"Just watch 'Out of the Past,' starring Robert Mitchum and Jane Greer, and you'll see."

I do not believe that any reader will deny that if we watch something, we will see it. This proposition may be true by definition. I see a great decline in The New York Times. I also can watch -- and then I will see -- the causes of this decline and how painful it is for those who love and once admired America's self-proclaimed "leading newspaper." ("Nihilists in Disneyworld.")

Round up the usual suspects.