Friday, June 27, 2014

It ROCKS! Transformers IV: Age Of Extinction

I expected it to be good.
Even though I haven't seen any of the Transformers films since the very first one, I just expected that this would be a good, solid story line that was pro-American and have some great visual effects. I was wrong. It's EPIC. Optimus Prime is the standard of what honor is. He is the embodiment of what purity and integrity is, he is the exemplar of heroism. If you have a chance to see this, please do: the special effects are truly special--see it in 3D IMAX if you can, films like this are what IMAX was invented for!--and be prepared to laugh and cry because it's an all around great film! NOTHING could have been done differently or any better, period.
Sorry it's been so long since I posted: I crashed, and that's all there is to it. I am coming out of it now, so forgive me, I am getting posts done and up again!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Cartoon From 50 Years Ago Predicts the Future In America

They knew this is exactly how it would happen; poor Detroit, they should have watched this:
It made my day to find this.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Friday, June 13, 2014

TRAILER: Penguins Of Madagascar & Left Behind

The mission of the Penguins is to save the world from a disgruntled octopus, Dr. Octavius Brine, voiced by John Malkovich. Where else have we seen octopuses lately? In the Marvel series, with Captain America the Winter Soldier, the representation of HYDRA, and even in Edge Of Tomorrow, the aliens are octopus-like.  Now, just humor me for a moment, IF IF IF the Penguins Of Madagascar is going to be pro-capitalist--and I have every reason for confidence--what would a octopus-villain be in symbolizing socialism? The villain that has an arm in everything. Regardless of what or significance, the socialists seem to have maneuvered themselves into every important position in the world, not to mention their ability to squirt ink in the face of their enemy anytime they don't want them to be aware of what is really going on "behind the scenes," like Obama's ability to also divert our attention, or throw up a bunch of smoke and mirrors. The film was originally scheduled for release March 2015, but they have moved it up; GOOD! I need something to look forward to.
This trailer, it made my day: it is funny, it's a bit smart aleck, it has some attitude, and Benedict Cumberbatch's incredible voice is included, but that's not why I am so excited about this film: it's going to be a pro-capitalist bomb November 26 that will explode all over socialist Hollywood. A film like this gives me reason to get up in the morning, not only because it has validated everything we have discussed in our decoding of films, (and that is a really big reason) but also because this will expand our political and cinematic vocabulary:
Let's start with the Dibbles.
This scene, with Skipper eating the Dibbles as Agent Classified (Cumberbatch) attempts to inform him of what the Northwind organization is, is pure brilliance. What is Skipper doing? He's "consuming." What is Agent Classified saying? The act of "consuming" also becomes a source of "noise," and that's intentional. The identity of Northwind is meant to be "covered up" by the noise of consumption: that is, because we are consumers, we have to be protected, but part of protecting us is not causing us to know that the rest of the world hates us and we need protecting. They are an elite (the best of the best, and there is competition to get into the organization) inter-species (this is not just one species of animal, they are diversified with their skills and talents) dedicated to helping animals who can't help themselves.
Why is this important?
Opening this weekend is How To Train Your Dragon 2: please do NOT go see this film. This film proves my point precisely that animated films contain dangerous materials. One of the male characters in the film admits to being gay during the course of the narrative. This is 100% indoctrination and a push--as there are so many nowadays--to get children to accept homosexuality as something "natural." Please recall that we saw a gay character in Paranorman and a cross-dressing woman in Pirates! Band Of Misfits  and the large snowman at the end of Frozen who put the tiara on his head. These are intentionally planted devices to wear-down your resistance and acclimate you to the culture the Left wants, and it's easiest to do it in kids' shows because that is when our guard is the most down.
For one thing, it means that those who can help themselves should help themselves (socialist see this as one, impossible--no one can help themselves, only the government can help people and, two, even if people were capable of helping themselves, it's heartless to make people help themselves and, thirdly, people will only help themselves at the expense of others [so, if you are helping yourself, someone else is suffering because of it]; secondly, it means that those who can help themselves should see to the helping of those who cannot. Being the very best, as Northwind obviously is, means serving others which is the traditional conservative viewpoint and why the US has always been the world's largest financial and aide donor to other countries.
Did you notice what song was playing in the background? That's right, Top Gun from 1986, the film that glorified competition (and team work) during the Cold War (again, it's one of many 1980s films being re-made because those were the films that helped us to defeat socialism then, so perhaps they can help us defeat socialism today). Top Gun was about wanting to become the very best and never settling for second place. It was also one of the films that contributed to the iconic "arrogant" American in brashness, which we see in Skipper when he insanely hits the plane button that dumps all the penguins into a free-fall. Yes, Americans--prior to 2008--have been guilty of some pretty reckless acts, however, Skipper claiming that "I make my own options" IS the way to go and they certainly use their limited resources to their advantage to provide for their safe landing. In other words, we can expect to see Penguins Of Madagascar relying upon the traditional role of America and the persona we use to have before Barack Hussein Obama ruined it. But think of it this way: when you decide to watch a crime show, for example, like NCIS, or Criminal Minds, it's because the characters are the best of the best, "The elitist of the elite," as Skipper compliments himself, and it's because (unlike socialists) we don't want to watch mediocrities, we want to see how good the very best really are and be inspired to be the very best we can be in whatever our own field is. To socialists, "elitism" is pure evil, and anyone wanting to be the best in their field is cruel because they are only going to show up how inadequate the not-so-best are, so, therefore, the way to solve that is to do away with the best. I abhor that.
"Okay boys, this is it. The mission we have been preparing for our entire lives," is a statement about fate, about destiny, about purpose, and that these concepts are intertwined into their own being. Again, this is not something socialists would or could recognize: you nor I, according to them, have free will, and we certainly don't have a soul or a destiny, what you do you do only because the state has told you to do it, and the job you do glorifies the state, not the individual who did the job. "Think American, Kowalski," Skipper tells his team mate as they fall, and that seems to do the job, because they successfully come out of the potentially-disastrous fall and safely land. Does it really make sense for them to be jumping on the blow-up feature that breaks their fall? Of course it does. Remember at the start of X-Men Days Of Future Past, everyone is dark and everyone is forced to do what they are told; even in Rise Of the Guardians, Jack Frost (Chris Pine) found his core was fun, which defeated the darkness that was coming, because having fun helps us to not be afraid. This is one of my most-looked-forward-to films now!  
On a different note,...
Well, if nothing else, Nick Cage finally has a film that will get people talking about what he's doing. Left Behind focuses on the Protestant theology (it's theology for Protestants) of The Rapture, when a select few Christians are assumed into heaven and the anti-Christ is left to rule the earth for seven years, forcing those who have been left on earth to take the "Mark of the Beast" or not be able to buy food, get medicine, etc. It's important that, as I write this, you are aware of my background on this: I was raised to believe that this is exactly what is going to happen.
After the Ascension of Jesus, and Pentecost, all those who followed Christ and were Christians were Catholic (from the Latin word meaning "universal," as in, "one faith for all of mankind). There were no denominations, there were no alternative churches, all Christians were Catholic and obedient to the Pope in Rome;there was the split with the East in 1054. Martin Luther decided to break away from the Catholic Church, start his own Church, and the Church has been splintering every since, including in methods of understanding the Bible (even what books are in the Bible). The Catholic Church has never taught that there will be anything even remotely similar to a "Rapture," the Church acknowledges there will be an anti-Christ(s), but instead of filling the flock with dread and anxiety, the Church teaches us to always be prepared for we do not know the hour when Christ shall return. In the illustration above, Jesus' prophecy that two will be in bed, one shall be taken and one shall be left, is depicted. Those believing in the Rapture like to cite this Scripture as a basis--along with Revelations--for their outlook on what will happen. Personally, I don't think this Scripture supports it: in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." Rather than God taking all the good to heaven, I believe the bad people will be taken to hell and the good people will inherit the earth and there will then be a Pentecost for all people. My basis for this is when Moses received the Ten Commandments; God won't do anything that hasn't all ready been done, so that we know it is in fact coming from Him. Moses went atop Mt. Sinai to be with God and receive the Law; when he came down, everyone thought he was dead, so there were wild parties and idols made. Moses made the people choose between their idols and God, and those who choose idols were swallowed up by the earth. Just as Moses went to the top of the mountain, so Jesus Ascended into heaven, and we, too, have gone wildly astray. Of course, I am probably wrong, however, everything Jesus did, had been done by one of the prophets before, but Jesus did it better, to show how much man can do with God, but how much more God can do Himself.  Anyway, I hope this discussion serves as a springboard for you to dialogue with yourself and loved ones about what you believe and why.
Later in life, however, I converted to Roman Catholicism which has never believed or taught "The Rapture": officially, the Church teaches that Christ will come again and judge all those living and who have ever lived (those who have died have all ready gone to their reward, either damnation or life, but this will be a public judging so we can see God's Authorial Hand at work in the history of salvation). The point is, while there have been Protestant theologians who have hinted at directly or indirectly "The Rapture," it didn't really pick up momentum in Protestant circles until Christian science-fiction writers started talking about it in the 1970s, which is when and how my parents learned about it to pass it onto me and my siblings. In that vein, along with the books Left Behind upon which this film is based, there has been something of a frenzy created by what God could do to us and whether or not you are going to be "left behind yourself."  All the Protestants I know, including those in my family, believe this is what is going to happen. I think if the quality of the film were better, it could look forward to greater success financially, however, it just doesn't look put together very well.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Monday, June 9, 2014

Symbols & Analysis: Penny Dreadful, Closer Than Sisters, Season 1 Episode 5

This was an amazing episode; oh, you're disappointed? You thought we were going to learn that Vanessa had been in a vampire harem, or that she drank Mina's blood, prostituted Mina to the devil and married the devil himself? Well, if you thought anything along these lines, don't blame yourself, because the series has truly teased that it was so monumental that our imaginations were racing with the possibilities of the profane. I assure you, however, what we learn in this episode is utter genius, especially for us Christians who need to see some positive signs regarding the direction our culture is headed.
It will probably surprise you as to why Fenton--the Reinfield like character Malcolm and the others "caught" at the London zoo and took back to Grandage Place to do experiments upon--keeps calling Vanessa "mother," and says why everyone wants her. Fenton's lurid suggestions make Vanessa indeed sound like the "devil's whore," as he calls her. Again, it's because "Vanessa" means literary invention that Fenton recognizes and calls her "mother," because she has in fact, given birth to him and even Fenton's master, "the creature." There is even more to discuss on this below. We are starting out examining Episode 5, Closer Than Sisters, because this is the vantage point from which we can analyze and explore the episodes that have come before, so the next episode we will do is the first one, Night Work.
Vanessa writes a letter. This is a perfectly intricate device, since "Vanessa" means "literary invention," so we have a literal literary invention giving birth to a literary invention as she writes a letter to a woman who, as Mina Hawker, is herself a literary invention from Bram Stoker's Dracula, and may never read even one line from the box of letters Vanessa has written to her. So, why is this important? There are many areas we could explore, such as Vanessa writing a letter is like Dorian Grey looking at portraits of other people; for the moment, let's just say that it illustrates how closely the film makers are paying attention to what they are doing, all the levels of connections and meanings that they have woven together assure us that we cannot possibly be peering into the narrative too deeply, rather, we risk not looking close enough, or for long enough.
There is a moment in the show when Vanessa's doctor has cork-screwed her brain in what appears to be a lobotomy, and he touches her head the same way that we saw Victor Frankenstein touch Proteus' head (pictured above) in Episode 1, Night Work. Why is this important? Because the film makers want to direct our attention back to this scene, that Vanessa, or we should say the definition of "Vanessa" in Victorian England, was also largely a creation of Victorian science. 
So, the first question, why does Vanessa have sex with Mina's fiance? This is a perfect example of what happens when we ask the wrong question, and we can be confident this is the wrong question because there is really nothing leading up to it, there is, however, the case of young Vanessa stealing the hair comb (or perhaps it was a file of some kind?) off of Mina's vanity while she brushed her hair. The item was long and slender, rather like a phallus; given that Vanessa always attributed such bravery and courage and strength to herself, and pinned Mina in the role of the soft, childish and helpless female, it's not surprising that Vanessa would want a phallic symbol to represent herself with, almost as if the act of theft was a kind of "raping" of Mina.
On the left is the scene of Vanessa and Mina the night before Mina's wedding, and on the left is a scene from Camilla by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu of 1872, one of many vampire stories Stoker drew upon for his own Dracula. In Camilla, it's a vampire with lesbian tendencies who must be slain.  Is lesbianism one of many of Vanessa's sins, or even just a latent, suppressed lesbianism, and that's why she has sex with Mina's future husband? Well, let's compare this scene to the closing scene with Ethan and Dorian from Episode 4, Demimonde, when Ethan kisses Dorian. Perhaps, and we will find out more later, but Ethan knows that Dorian had been with Brona and why she was so shy when they met, so, since Ethan can't sleep with Brona anymore, Ethan might calculate, he'll sleep with someone who has slept with her also and then he will somehow still have a bond with her. Since Vanessa won't have Mina all to herself anymore, 
It is, however, more accurate to say that, rather than having sex with Captain Bronson--which she did, but that wasn't really her motivation--she wanted to steal Bronson from Mina, just as she had stolen Mina's hair comb, and just as she she felt Bronson was stealing Mina from her. Remember, there was no attraction to Bronson on Vanessa's behalf, so we have to delve into the depth to discover the traces of what is there and why Vanessa did what she did.
When they first see each other in this scene, Vanessa says, "Sister." Perhaps because, in her heart, she knows that Mina is her sister in Satan (since they are from different churches, the Roman and the English, they couldn't be sisters in Christ) but it's possible that Vanessa has some knowledge because this is a vision, so there must be some power by which Mina can come to Vanessa in this vision, and Vanessa knows that the creature has given Mina that power. On a different note, the ocean plays an important role in this episode, Vanessa wanting to be there, and talking about the drowning of tormented souls who were slaves. The ocean symbolizes the soul in that the soul has a seemingly fathomless depth to its interior; like the surface of the ocean ravaged by a storm, so our lives might be ravaged, but the depths of our souls calm, just as the ocean is; on the other hand, there are those terrible, dark, hideous monsters lurking in the crevices, and that's where the devil lurks, too. In the scene above, neither Mina nor Vanessa are in the water--as in, in their souls, but on the outside of their souls, so to speak--rather, lingering away from it, perhaps because they cannot go there because of their master? Vanessa, all in black, and Mina in that cream (off-white color), almost like a Victorian wedding dress. It would be tempting to say that Mina is the one full of life, her purity and innocence, while Vanessa is dead as the black in which she is draped, but I think the exact opposite is true in this scene, especially for what we know what happens with Mina. Black is always death, but there is the good death ("death to the world" so the perfection of the soul can be achieved) and then there is "death to the soul," so one can live in the world and die to the soul, pursuing whatever pleasures they desire. Vanessa's hair is covered, which is a sign of humility, given that, it is probably appropriate to read that Vanessa is dead to the world but Mina is dead to her soul. A corpse turns white as it rots, and when we realize that Mina has "been taken" she certainly doesn't seem to be alive with virtue or faith.
Now, the next most fascinating question of the episode: why Sir Malcolm? Of all the manifestations for the devil to come to her in, why Sir Malcolm? Since her London doctor, Christopher Banning, mentions "hysteria of psycho-sexual nature," that invites the real diagnosis of Vanessa ("literary invention") as the Electra complex, from the the play Electra by Sophocles (so, like Vanessa, she's a literary invention). It's the mental stage of sexual development when a girl will compete with her mother for the attentions of her father (contrariwise, the Oedipus complex is when a boy competes with his father for the affections of his mother). Vanessa was overcome at finding Sir Malcolm and her mother having sex in the hedge maze, and--not having seen her mother with her father--formed a desire for Sir Malcolm instead (especially after he took on the father role in punishing her by closing the gate between their houses). But, there is probably another reason as well,...
One must admit, Sir Malcolm shows as much affection to little Vanessa as he does his own Mina, and certainly more to Vanessa than to Peter. Why is Peter not interested in marrying Vanessa? Because Peter suffers from the Oedipus complex, but the mother isn't Gladys, that Sir Malcolm hardly even kisses when he has returned, no, the "mother" Peter is after is the "motherland," the deep, dark, mysterious motherland of Africa, the great unknown. On the eve before his trip to Africa, Peter visits Vanessa, he goes to see the bride that won't be his, so he can hasten to "probe" the depths of Africa with his father, in competition with his father, to show Sir Malcolm that he is as capable as his father. Sir Malcolm treats every person like they are Africa: dark and deep, he has to explore them and discover what their "source" is, like the Nile. Consider when Sir Malcolm invites Victor Frankenstein to his club to dine, Sir Malcolm plays games with Victor, trying to find the right bait to offer the doctor so Victor will help him find a cure for Mina. Vanessa has an attraction for Peter because Peter is much like her father, Mr. Ives, easily dominated, and there is a part of Vanessa that likes that and desires it, but her deeper more dangerous self desires the type of man that Sir Malcolm is.
Sir Malcolm is the explorer, and the conqueror, so Vanessa wants to be explored and conquered like darkest, deepest Africa--just like her mother Clare--and that's another reason why the devil comes to her as Sir Malcolm, he knows her dark desire and what she "needs." Now, the next logical question is, why does the devil recite Keats to her?
When Mr. and Mrs. Ives have taken Vanessa to the office of Dr. Banning, her parents leave the room and she tells the tells the doctor that she has seen men drown, slaves, chained in their torment to a slave ship, then drown with their chains on into a greater torment. The events of this episode are taking place roughly around 1890, so 50 years earlier, the premiere English artists JMW Turner exhibited this painting, The Slave Ship. In 1781, the captain of a slave ship ordered that more than 130 slaves be thrown overboard to the sharks so the insurance payments could be collected. This outraged the English so much that slavery was abolished. I couldn't help but think of it when I saw Vanessa standing at the window and talking about the drowning slaves.
John Keats' Ode To a Nightingale (complete poem at this link):

Darkling I listen; and, for many a time 
  I have been half in love with easeful Death, 
Call'd him soft names in many a mus├Ęd rhyme, 
  To take into the air my quiet breath;

Recall, Frankenstein mused on the poets and death before his mother's death, and herein, we might come to a very modern problem: with all our technology, and advances in science to prolong life, how often do we really think about our death? Rarely, if at all. The Victorians, on the other hand, had made great advances, however, illnesses such as consumption (like what Brona has) were still rampant, especially in the poorer classes, and so death was still intimately tied to your individuality (like Peter's death in Africa, even though Vanessa has warned him about it, he feels he must still go because that is, ultimately, the death he wants). But, what I think this snippet of the poem really refers to, are two different types of "death."
This may seem like a ridiculous question to ask, but sometimes those are the most fruitful:P why does Mrs. Ives die after seeing Vanessa in bed, naked, gyrating, and her eyes whited out? I think that, just as Vanessa saw Sir Malcolm, so, too, did her mother, and Clare saw herself in Vanessa's place. It was seeing her own sin, rather like Lorraine Warren in The Conjuring, that made her die because Clare probably didn't really think her sin was a sin, which is a reason why sins go un-confessed. The exact opposite is sinful as well, and that's the behavior pattern we see in Vanessa: she won't forgive herself for what she did. Judas committed the same sin: it wasn't betraying Jesus that was Judas' great sin, it was believing that Jesus would not forgive him that was Judas' great sin, and that is what we see in Vanessa. This is an act of pride in that a person is strong enough to carry their sin, or even that they have committed a sin beyond forgiveness (which is what Vanessa tells Mina on the beach). Besides not being forgiven for the sin, the other harmful part is that we get used to living in a state of sin so the committing of other sins looses its sense of severity (a person doesn't really notice a piece of trash on the table if they are living in a dump). We will explore this further when we go back and analyze episode 1, Night Work, because this explains what is happening to Vanessa when we see her praying before the Crucifix and there are spiders coming out from behind it.
First, there is the ease of physical death, of committing suicide, and in a time when there were almost no pain killers, suicide or over-dosing on opium was a desirable end to one's suffering (especially a painful illness like consumption, which is what Keats had, which the devil-as-Sir-Malcolm mentions). As Christians, we know the purpose of our suffering is to refine our soul, that our physical and mental suffering on earth is meant to be united with Christ's suffering and pain is therefore redemptive, we are made stronger and wiser through it; an easy death, though, is a death devoid of redemptive suffering, saying--in essence--"no" to Christ, that you will not join Him in suffering and that you will not seek to perfect your soul the way He has dictated. In the scene wherein "Sir Malcolm" quotes Keats to Vanessa, he tempts her with this kind of a death, a death where she doesn't suffer the pain she has been through, but only experiences pleasure and ease, and this is what he's tempting her with.
There is another angle to "explore" this: why Sir Malcolm was having sex with Mrs. Ives. Seeing his physical affection with young Vanessa (pictured above) it might be that Sir Malcolm wanted Vanessa, but knowing she was too young, re-directed his attraction to her mother; he certainly isn't attracted to his wife. When, towards the end of the episode, Vanessa appears again, he keeps her under his roof--which one would not necessarily expect--especially during Victorian times: a young, unmarried woman living with a man who is not her father or other relative would have been pure scandal, so Sir Malcolm risks a great deal in having her stay (instead of just putting her up in a boarding house or something like that) and we have to ask why he's willing to take that risk.
So, even though some of the explanations of Closer Than Sisters might seem disappointing to you, I think contributing the catastrophic betrayal of Mina to having had sex with her fiance is absolutely the best thing they could have done because our culture today has such a casual approach to sex that, like Vanessa's mother, people don't realize the far-reaching damage it can do (if Sir Malcolm and Mrs. Ives had not been having an affair, perhaps none of this would have happened). All the heartache and trouble these characters are experiencing then, goes back to sex in a garden.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
Like she's been locked out of the Garden of Eden.

Sunday, June 8, 2014

Beneath the Louvre: Edge Of Tomorrow & Mimicry

Being released so close to the celebration of D-Day was surely intentional, as you watch the film and sense--actively and passively--the way the alien invasion in the film has been especially the first invasion on the beach with all the people dying The same tactics are being employed in the socialist-capitalist conflict as during the World War I Battle of Verdun which saw an enormous loss of life; the purpose of citing the WWI battle is to demonstrate how the "resetting history" and time that the mimics employ is not just in the film, but being played out on the stage of international politics today, but is also within the context of history, if we will just learn from what happened.
Once again, Tom Cruise has delivered a solid anti-socialist piece of art that clearly communicates to its audience, utilizes an intense array of cinematic vocabulary while providing a thoroughly entertaining film. Edge Of Tomorrow is, beyond a doubt, intensely invested against the socialist movement, so much so, that it doesn't even try to encode its message; what it does, however, is better than that: the "symbols" are more like conversations, commentaries on who the enemies are today and why they are doing what they are doing. Let's start with my favorite device the film employs: noise.
When the film first opens, there is static, like what you would see on television, and other channels cutting in and out; there are real-life news anchors reporting on an invasion and the state of the war, as they overlap in their reporting and keep getting interrupted; yes, this is an aesthetic, because even though it appears that the information we should be picking up on--what the news casters are saying--the real information is that the entire film is filled with noise, and we have to discern "what lies beneath" the noise, beneath the endless repetitions of scenes when Major Cage (Tom Cruise) tries convincing others that he knows what is going to happen because he has all ready been there (and this is truly a unique perspective on today's political situation). But calling the plot and narrative "so much noise" is truthful because we know there is another, real story going on beneath the film's facade, just as the omega is buried beneath the Louvre. Which leads us to asking our first, important question,...
Repetition is another device utilized in the arts to communicate. Repetition, in an of itself, doesn't communicate, yet it provides a prelude for more impactful information.  Claude E. Shannon, the father of information theory, deduced that the value of information is contained in how much of a "surprise" there is when we receive it: for example, if you look at the ten-day weather forecast for Los Angeles, and for ten days it says sunny, there is no real information in that; if, however, it's going to snow two inches on the third day, that is information because it nearly never snows in LA, so the surprise that there is going to be snow is information indeed.  Edge Of Tomorrow utilizes repetition as an aesthetic, as in Groundhog Day, so seeing Cage, as in the scene above, wake up over and over and over again, communicates that he hasn't been able to figure out the next step in the plan of winning the war; when we see something new, it is information that Cage and Rita finally figured out how to get off the beach and to a vehicle. When we suddenly see them in an open field, we know, again, they have attained to a new level.
Who are the alpha males who have the ability to re-set the day anytime one of them is killed? Simple: Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Kim Jong-un, Castro, Bill Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, or any other male leader of socialism who, when he has been politically neutralized or "taken out," his followers will "re-set" what socialism is and claim that he wasn't doing socialism, rather, "this now" is what socialism is, and you can't blame what Mao did on the socialists because that wasn't socialism.
We have had many occasion to cite films that other films are quoting or referencing; this article, counts 8 different films that Edge Of Tomorrow references, and they are all good ones (including the reference to Rita (Blunt) as the "Full Metal Bitch," and a take off the film Full Metal Jacket; one that has been missed: Steven Spielberg's War Of the Worlds, when Ray (Cruise) holds the pin of a grenade in his hand and destroys the alien (this is discussed more below). Why do films reference other films? There are a number of reasons: one is because it helps to quickly expand the film's vocabulary. When a film wants to make a point, but doesn't want to break their pace, citing another film the film makers want the audience to consider at that point in the narrative expands the film's ability to engage with the viewer. It's also a way to "reward" the viewer for watching films that the film makers also watch, which leads us to our next point: films don't exist in isolation. Film makers watch films and they have favorite parts, just like you and I do, so citing a film is a way of making an homage to the films that they like, just as when you might drop a quote from a film in your daily life. Another further reason is to demonstrate what films the current film is wanting to "dialogue with." If you have been a reader here for awhile, I hope we have successfully communicated how films initiate and continue a dialogue about various cultural and political topics, and citing films is one way of alerting viewers to the dialogue in which a film wants to participate.
Now, we can add, that the essential element for being able to "re-set" stems from Cage and Rita getting the alpha males' blood on them: if we take the alphas to be the male leaders of socialism, when one of them has been killed and their blood spills forth, it denies their "messiah" standing among the socialists, the followers are forced to see he is human after all (this is especially true of leaders such as the North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong-il, or the American socialists who view Obama as their "Messiah") and this point leads us to the issue of "Omega."
Cage has to deal with the stubbornness of many people, from Rita's (like her insisting on taking the helicopter in this scene above) to the J Squad believing that he knows what is going to happen to them on the beach the next day, to persuading the General who sent him to the front to give him the transponder technology. Why? Aren't we dealing with this same kind of stubbornness in society today, people refusing to believe that there is an international socialist revolution (or worse) taking place? In this way, Cage's steady, unrelenting persistence in convincing and persuading others that he knows what he is talking about offers an example to those who, like him, can see and understand what the is truly going on but can't seem to get anyone else to understand it. 
When a Christian hears, "Alpha and omega," what do we think of? Revelation 22:13 when Jesus says, "I am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last." I understand if you think this doesn't belong in the post, especially since there are no religious references made anywhere in the film; the problem is, there is a reference. When Rita and Cage are in the old farmhouse, and Cage has bandaged up Rita's shoulder, as he walks past the wall, there is a large (bigger than an 8x10) depiction of Jesus on the wall. Why? First of all, these references , "alpha male" and "omega" are chosen from hundreds of potential signifiers for these alien positions, why did the film makers decide on these? Because this is what will replace the Alpha and Omega that Christians know if we lose this war.  
This image depicts what the omega looks like (the hologram in blue). The omega is the brain, the conscience of the mimic aliens who are attacking the earth. Cage has a vision of where the omega is and goes to the German dam where he believes the omega is so he can destroy it and win the war; the problem is, the mimic aliens are waiting for him there and it's a trap. Likewise, Rita tells Cage that the human victory at Verdun was intentional on the mimic part so the humans would throw everything at them in Operation Downfall and the aliens could defeat the humans totally. What does this reflect? Well, we actually saw this in World War Z. In that decidedly pro-socialist film, Gerry (Brad Pitt) figures out that the zombies don't like sickness and will over-look anyone with illness: the zombies are capitalists because capitalism is about making strong companies even stronger, whereas poor and weak companies are allowed to go out of business and are "passed over" in favor of healthy companies (this is the same basis of the contestants in the Games in The Hunger Games). Gerry develops a policy of infecting humans (i.e., socialists) with disease so the zombies (capitalists) will think they are weak and won't want to eat them.  In Edge Of Tomorrow (the title referring to how close America and the world is to the total socialist take-over), the mimics are mimicking being weak so they can lead the humans into a trap and destroy them all, just like what Gerry and the United Nations do in World War Z. On a different note, why does the omega easily trick Cage into thinking that it's in a well in Germany? Because that's what we generally tend to think of socialism: big, big government funded and sponsored projects, like dams (the world's largest dam is in communist China) as we saw develop in socialist Germany leading up to World War II (projects like the Volkswagen, the "people's car," the Autobahn, the factories for rebuilding the military, etc.) and we can see those same projects in the Obama Administration with the auto industry bailout (tax payer dollars) and Obamacare. But, the real threat socialism presents is to art, why the omega is at the Louvre (and we saw this in Monuments Men) because when socialism controls art, socialism controls freedom of expression and the cultural consciousness of society; when a society cannot express its culture in art, it is truly enslaved.
Why is the Omega beneath the Louvre? For at least two reasons. From one perspective, we can see art (which is what the Louvre is, a huge art museum) hiding socialism: The Lone Ranger, RIPD, Maleficent, The Hunger Games, The Conjuring, etc., have all built themselves over the socialist brain child to hide it from the view of general audiences, which is why, at this blog, we--like Cage and Rita--have to go and hunt it down in the art. From a different perspective, art is the means of "uncovering the Omega," just like Edge Of Tomorrow and other films we have looked at, guiding us and directing us where to look for it and what to look for. It's ambiguous exactly how we are supposed to understand it, but either way is satisfactory--and, I think, reflecting both of the truths that we have witnessed occurring in films over the last couple of years--so both can exist at the same time without excluding the other possible reading.
The glass pyramid at the Louvre which forms part of Cage's vision of where and how to find the omega so it can be destroyed. There are two important symbolic elements of this endgame Cage and Rita set up: first, the omega is beneath the Louvre and, second, it's under water. Water generally has two meanings, a positive and a negative: water can be seen as a symbol of cleansing, especially as it is a sign of Christian Baptism, or it is a sign of sexual activity, not only because of the bodily fluids released during the sexual act, but also because of the physical "renewal" that comes from the sex act (so, the positive symbol is water as cleansing the soul, vs the negative symbol of water cleaning the body, because the soul is higher and greater than the body). There is a third understanding of water, however, and that is the expression, "under water" used in financial terms, such as debt or backwards mortgages; I feel most comfortable with this interpretation, that is, the pyramid as a sign of the Illuminati, and the water burying the omega the national and international debt which protects the cabal banking system, taking us to the brink of an international depression. Now, as Cage swims towards the omega, the alpha male in pursuit of him has stabbed him and Cage is dying; Cage drops the grenade belt and it sinks towards the omega, as if Cage failed to destroy it, but then he opens his hand and there are all the pins for the grenades, which go off a second later. Again, we saw this same sequence in War of the Worlds (2005), when Tom Cruise's character had been lowered into the basket to be harvested (murdered) by the aliens invading and he successfully planted a grenade in the alien which allowed them to escape. Why would film makers want to make this visual clue for viewers? To remind us what the aliens turned the world into in that film so we know how much is at stake and, like Cage, Rita and J Squad, we, too, will be willing to make the necessary sacrifice to save humanity and the world.
There is an additional element, however, and that is the glass pyramid. It would be easy to say that the omega is the writings of the Marxists, their combined ideas to form the theology of their new international state of total communism, however, we have recently seen another important pyramid: in the end credits scene for X-Men Days Of Future Past, Apocalypse (the villain in the next X-Men film) is seen manipulating the Great Pyramid in Egypt while being worshiped by a multitude of people (who all, subsequently, appear to be poor and workers because I didn't see anyone in expensive clothes or wearing a crown on their knees bowing to him). It's possible that the pyramid, an Illuminati symbol, is just that, a symbolic identification suggesting that, at the real bottom of all this, it's the Illuminati that has to be destroyed, not just socialism.
Why does Cage's eyes turn solid black when he gets looped into the omega, and then after he has been given the blood transfusion, and he can no longer get looped in? The eyes, as we know, are the windows of the soul; when eyes turn solid black like that, it suggests a form of possession or that something evil has happened to the soul; is that what we are to deduce here? I don't think we can deduce anything else (because you have to admit that the soul exists before something can "happen to it," and Cage obviously experiences the opposite effect when the ability to re-set has left him). Why does this happen? Socialists deny the existence of the soul, and God, and the Church. Being "looped into" the omega, Cage learns what that is like, to "live without a soul" but it's only after he has his soul back (so to speak) that he can destroy the omega because that is exactly what it is going to take to destroy socialism: the belief of the soul, and the gifts our our souls that those who deny the soul do not possess for themselves because they haven't cultivated them (such as perseverance, patience, love, trust, faith). This same topic was explored in the Tommy Lee Jones film Emperor and why the American soldiers were ultimately able to defeat the Japanese soldiers.
Kimmel of J Squad wears a T-shirt that says, "Mimic This": why? Mimics can only mimic our humanity: while J Squad might not seem like much, they are the ones who answer the call at the end of the film to follow "the Angel of Verdun" into battle, they are the ones to make the act of faith and the ultimate sacrifice for their country and the world; THAT is what the mimic aliens cannot mimic. "Our humanity," as Dr. Carter (the mimic-biologist) tells Cage, "is their weakness," our humanity isn't our weakness, but the socialists', because they can't mimic the courage of their heart; they are like the robotic monsters attacking because they have forsaken their humanity. Cage and Rita, when they have had the blood spilled upon them and get "logged into" the omega, do not mimic the mimics: they out-think them and are prepared for them, but they don't change who they are in order to defeat them, they just start doing what they do better, and with greater efficiency.
When Sargent Ferrel first meets Cage, they exchange where they are from, Ferrel being from Science Hill, Kentucky, and Cage from Cranberry, New Jersey. Ferrel asks if they grow a lot of cranberries there, to which Cage responds no, but the best tomatoes you will ever eat, and then asks Ferrel about the science at Science Hill. This might seem a silly conversation, but it reflects an important reality: these towns were not locked into doing anything just because of their name, they have had the freedom to do anything that they wanted (we saw this system in Man Of Steel with the citizens in Clark's home planet being pre-determined what they would do, and even to a degree in Divergent). So the conversation Cage has with Ferrel illustrates the radical freedom we have in America to be free to move and do whatever we want, and that has to be protected. The coming invasion of London with the mimics breaking through is, as we have seen in many films of the last year, the threat of England becoming a wholly socialist country aiding the international socialist revolution.
There are far more aspects of Edge Of Tomorrow which we could explore, however, this is at least a start for the issues that have been introduced by the film that it wants us to be considering. What's so hopeful is that both the Russians and the Chinese are helping to wage the war (Forbes has reported that China is home to the second highest number of billionaires, just behind the US). When they look at the maps in the film, Europe is covered in red, which is the color of socialism; it's not just World War II all over again, it's the fate of humanity all over again, but it's also the image and example of human courage and sacrifice that exemplifies all people and our hopes. Eat Your Art Out, The Fine Art Diner
P.S.--I have seen some other reviewers who suggest that Cage and Rita should have died, and I disagree with that completely. There are indeed times when a character should die because it's necessary to remind audience members that there are brave and valiant Americans who will die to defend our rights and homeland, such as Bruce Willis' character in Armageddon (or even Tom Cruise's character in Oblivion). In my post The Legend Of Hercules vs Pompeii, we compared how in Pompeii the characters could have survived, but seemed to choose death, whereas in Hercules there wasn't a chance they were going to survive and they did and prospered. That is politics, that's not a narrative, it's the difference between reminding people of the value of life, or trying to indoctrinate people into believing that life doesn't matter. Edge Of Tomorrow is a decidedly anti-socialist film, meant to inform us about what is going on and inspire us to fight against it with the end goal that things go back to how they were before our rights were molested and our Constitution spit upon. Those suggesting that Cage and Rita should have died are probably socialists, to be perfectly frank with you, and even though they wouldn't articulate what they didn't like about the film, they know it's about them and doesn't hold to their "value system" because they don't value life; at the end of the film, they have been dis-proven and they don't like that.

Friday, June 6, 2014

Socialism & Lesbianism: Maleficent & Animal Appetites

When a tale is being re-told, the new version has a choice: either uphold the lessons of the former and re-define the challenges in the new day, or subvert the old tale, change it, and turn it to your own cause; the later is known in politics and art as "propaganda," and this is the choice of Disney's new film, Maleficent, which follows with Disney's Frozen and The Lone Ranger. We have been seeing the very characteristics of socialism and socialist regimes being attributed to capitalism--which has its own problems, no doubt, but not the problems of socialism--and the very name Maleficent verifies this for us.
Maleficent is clearly a symbol of feminism--her use, and even her abuse, of power--an extreme environmentalist (her Moors at the start of the film are supposed to symbolize an "Alternative Eden," one free of the practice of virtue and the fear of punishment, where one does not strive to be worthy of God, rather, one strives to pleasure themselves and their passions) and, because there is no "ruler" nor employment in her Moors, she is a symbol of the utopian socialist (granted, the three fairies were keeping border security, but since they later help Stefan in protecting Aurora, it can be argued that they really aren't fairies to begin with, they have always belonged to the human realm, which is why they take on human form). Why does Maleficent look the way she does? Why does Maleficent have such "sharp" cheeks? Why does she have horns? Why does she have animal eyes? Why does she look like a vampire? Maleficent has horns because of her "animal" nature, as opposed to her virtuous nature (because she doesn't have one). Herein lies one of many of the contradictions of socialism (contradictions are important because they help us to detect evil in people's thinking, or lack of thinking; truth has to be consistent, however, just because something is consistent doesn't mean that it is the truth, but it's one of the symbol identity markers of what truth must be). Maleficent is the champion of nature, but she herself is "unnatural." There were many accusations against Elsa in Frozen, some of which I did not feel were justified; however, those same accusations are justified in Maleficent.  From the time she is a girl, Maleficent has bright, red lips; why? The mouth symbolizes the appetites. Even though socialists accuse capitalists of feeding the appetites, socialism has even greater appetites or the unnatural (promiscuous sexuality, perverse sexuality, perverting the natural order, denying free will, surrendering liberty and, that greatest socialist craving of all, the hunger for power). Maleficent's horns symbolize her allegiance with the devil, who is often depicted as a horned goat (in her Moor Kingdom, nature is worshiped, not the one who created the nature, God). Her cheek bones are sharp because of the saying when one is hurt to, "Turn the other cheek." Maleficent, when she doesn't receive the invitation, is so insulted that she retaliates in a hysterical manner, just like Feminists do when they feel they have been slighted for a promotion or someone doesn't value their work on the level they think it should be valued upon. So instead of "turning the other cheek," Maleficent has her cheek bones like radar, heightened and strengthened, to catch every possible insult which may come her way so she can pay it back ten fold. Her skin is deathly white because a corpse turns white as it rots, and she is a living corpse. She has the eyes of an animal because the eyes are the window of the soul: animals, while they have been created by God, were not created in the image of God as humans were, so animals do not have souls, only humans do. Maleficent does not have a soul because socialists do not believe in God nor any power that could be called "supernatural" (yes, this would seem to be a contradiction with Maleficent's powers, or the very fact that she's a fairy, however, they would cite the genre as a reason why they are not in a state of contradiction here; I would cite their tendency to glamorize and falsify everything as a reason of why they do this). In this particular image, why does she have that black "choker" around her neck? Black is always the color of death: either one is dead to the world, or one is dead to the soul, and Maleficent is dead to her soul because she actively participates in the world; the neck, or anything around the neck, illustrates what it is that "leads us" in life, like a leash. Maleficent being dead to her soul (in this case, we would probably say her love for Stefan) is what leads her and guides her to do what she does. The strange "collar" of her dress coming up around her neck resembles leaves and petals of a black, poisoned flower, suggesting she is not a flower of virtue to be admired and enjoyed, but a poisonous plant to be feared because it causes death. Now, something I would like to point out is that her clothing is obviously artificial, she isn't dressed in leaves or grass or something like that: her dress is obviously made out of a material that has been processed; why is this important? She wouldn't have that dress if it weren't for the people in the town whom she condemns and looks down upon. In other words, socialists are happy to condemn at large what they think their enemy stands for, however, in reality, they are unwilling to give up their taste for luxury because they tend to be highly vain.
Maleficent tells Aurora, "There is evil in this world," and what evil does she refer to? Not herself, certainly, even though the very name "Maleficent" means "evil," rather, she refers to King Stefan, Aurora's father, who is named after Saint King Stephen of Hungary, who took the name of the first Christian martyr as his Christian name after baptism. What the socialists have done--and this is exactly what we saw in Noah, also--is taken the profane and made it holy, and turned the holy into the profane. Noah and Maleficent (and I am sure there have been others previously, but this is far more of an assault now with this bigger budget, expanded audience films) intentionally pervert--that is, turn upside-down--the political order and the religious order; why?
"Diaval" is a mis-spelling of "diavel," which is the word meaning "devil." Since we first see the character as a black bird--raven or crow, I don't know which--that makes sense tying him to the devil because it's a bird of death (and that, after all, the film makers do know what "Maleficent" means, in tying her to the devil, however, they believe the audience too dumb to know or care; Diaval's change into a dragon towards the end of the film is the ultimate validation of this because the dragon, as the ancient, unnatural serpent, is the devil's worst expression in art). Aurora plays with the bird and calls him "Pretty bird," because she doesn't know any better that the devil hates her and wants her ruin and destruction. So, you may ask, if that is the case, why bring her food and watch over her? Well, we have seen this same scene, essentially, twice before, in the pro-capitalist films Man Of Steel (Superman's original home planet where they were harvesting people) and in Tom Cruise's Oblivion where the Tet was growing Victorias and Jacks to harvest the earth ("harvesting the earth" is what we will be seeing Eddie Redmayne's character doing in next year's Jupiter Ascending; so, again, we have a reversal of attributes, the sins of socialism--destroying the environment because, when the government owns all industry, there is no one there to enforce the government follow its own laws, and government employees get rewarded when they cut costs, just as we have seen in the last week with Obama's Veteran Administration scandal; for specific in-depth study on how socialism destroys the environment, please see Ecocide In the USSR). Maleficent, hating the child, doesn't want the child to live, however, when the child does live (the child is a drain on resources and is one more mouth to feed), the socialist state recognizes that it requires more people to work and support it, even as it discourages pregnancy and couples having children. The flower Diaval brings for Aurora to suckle is, literally, an environmental "nipple" for the child to be weaned upon, just as we saw "Nipple Confusion" in the anti-capitalist film Young Adult with Charlize Theron (please see Nipple Confusion: Young Adult & the Debate Of Art in Capitalism for more). So, Aurora is being "fed" on the environment by those who hate her (Maleficent). As for Diaval, while he probably isn't gay, he is a weak male who is completely at the will of Maleficent, who changes him according to what she wants, and this is imperative because it offers a further illustration of the "unnatural-ness" in the film and the socialist agenda overall: just as socialists believe people can change genders or sexual preferences as they want, so they believe you should be able to change any form that you want, because there is nothing special or sacred about the being you inhabit, you are just an animal, like Diaval's countless changes between man and animal. 
For the same reasons we saw in Godzilla: the feminists and homosexuals want to destroy the world created by white men (who are the dominant power holders and, thereby, property holders) and take us back to the world of no property or technological advancement (technology must advance according to the free market, so in their need to destroy capitalism--the free market being an intricate part of capitalism--they are willing to abandon what drives technological advancements and price deductions: competition); in other words, Maleficent and Diaval are the MUTOs we just saw Godzilla take out to maintain the balance of nature (please see Erasure & Time: Godzilla (2014) for more). But this is where Maleficent, and the socialists in general, make a huge mistake.
Why does Stefan cut off Maleficent's wings (as you read this, please note, I am a white female myself)? This is how Feminists see their achievements in history, that they have been victimized by dumb white males, who had to "clip women's wings" so white men weren't threatened by them, that women could have achieved far more had men not put restrictions on their social and professional progress. Just as it's Aurora who releases Maleficent's wings and "restores" them to her, so socialists argue that the younger generation of females must see how they themselves are oppressed so that women can unite and destroy their male oppressors. 
Dichotomies are not good for Marxists to play with. "Good and bad," "strong and weak," present and absent," "male and female" or "rich and poor" are examples of dichotomies, polar opposites. In the 1960s, Marxists and those who would be Marxists employed Jacques Derrida's philosophy of Deconstruction to reveal power structures embedded in the American political system (and around the world). The Marxists wanted to demonstrate that the way Western Civilization thinks--in terms of these hierarchical dichotomies, with one being good, and its opposite being bad--is determined to "lock out" those who are the white man's "other," the woman, the black man, those who don't hold property, those who don't think like white men in anyway, and this was used as a rallying cry to unite all "minorities" (those who weren't white men) to overthrow--not only the white man--but his whole system of thinking that kept him in power. This is why socialists should not employ dichotomies: they are utilizing the very thought and value system they claim keeps them out of power and they promise to overthrow. Non-white men would replace dichotomies with narratives and means of discourse that oppositions and dichotomies would not be capable of understanding, like those we are seeing in Maleficent,...
It's important to establish that there is no moral code is this Moor Kingdom over which Maleficent rules: everyone lives by their appetites. That's why there are trolls (again, we saw them in Frozen and, as I predicted, they are being "re-defined" by the Left so as to assist in making the perverse holy. Trolls are evil, ugly creatures, but the Left wants to make the audience embrace them, so they make them personable; however, the "mud-slinging" in which they engage still betrays their essence, because trolls will always deal in that which is foul and filthy, regardless of what an animator makes them look like. When Aurora gets into the mud fight with them, she soon tells Maleficent she wants to live in the Moors and that's a sign of the growing lesbianism to which Aurora is being exposed [the mud being a good way of symbolizing lesbianism because it, like homosexuality in general, has been part of the perversions of American society until somewhat recently, depending upon how you view history]). Aurora is an obvious appeal to the Millennials to embrace the socialist utopia--seeing as, like Aurora, they own nothing so have nothing to lose with a socialist revolution of wealth redistribution--but also the agenda of the environment and the "castration," politically and financially, of white males and, what they address as "white privilege" (more on this below). 
When the narrative first opens, we are told that there were two kingdoms (a dichotomy) and one was a kingdom with no king or queen, and it was a fairy land that was nothing but peace and happiness for all who lived there: we see the "inhabitants" of this utopia--for it is intentionally designed as a political utopia, where there is no one to rule it--and they are strangely animal, even the "girl" who lives there because she has these horns. Now, all we have to do is ask: what political system has no monarch (supposedly), claims to be a utopia, the inhabitants are all animals (as opposed to being considered human) and there is no technology (symbolized by the iron that burns fairies)? A socialist state, trying to tempt women into buying into it by showing it "ruled" by a woman.
Need more proof?
Prince Philip is useless and pointless--he can't even find his way to a castle, or awaken the sleeping damsel--so the white male power establishment is all ready being rendered "powerless" in the powerless, weak and pointless character of Prince Philip, who before, in the original Disney Sleeping Beauty, had such a important, powerful and imperative role to the balance of society and the restoration. Philip is nothing more than a prop, and that's exactly what Feminists want to happen: men must now take up the lower, undesirable position that women have been confined to for centuries, a prop, and women will get to take power and lead.  Women are now doing to men what we saw Mrs. Banks do in Mary Poppins, when the "Votes For Women!" campaigner sings, "Though we adore men individually, we agree that as a group they are rather stupid," but now it has moved to the individual level because, in the final scene, Aurora is physically and powerfully closer to Maleficent than to Philip who will be forever on the outside of their intimate relationship, so, for socialists, perfection has been achieved: women are in power, weak, effeminate men are in power, and white men are now regulated to the "margins" of society. 
Why does iron burn fairies?
Iron, even though it occurs naturally in the earth, was the element man (not woman, but man) learned to use to begin the Iron Age which set in motion what Western Civilization has become today; again, we saw this very same thing in Noah with "the sons of Cain" learning to smelt metals and build, and they were the cursed race; Maleficent clearly echoes this condemnation and uses it as a rallying cry to destroy the world that, as they see it, was created by their oppressors, white men. Is this simplistic? Of course it is, but that's because that's how socialists think: "Get an enemy and unite against them and destroy them at whatever the cost!" and this is how they always do it.
Does anyone else wonder why Aurora received only two gifts instead of the traditional three gifts? Well, don't, because that is socialism for you: you can't have anyone that is too excellent. In the original story and the original Disney version, Aurora was given the gift of beauty and song, then she was cursed, and so the third gift was that she would only fall asleep instead of dying. In Maleficent, Maleficent makes the curse a death-like sleep, but still no third gift is awarded. Aurora was given beauty and that she would never be blue, all who met her would like her, and that was it; why not give her intelligence? Because socialism doesn't want people who are intelligent and it especially doesn't want anyone who is so good at exemplifying something that they become a standard, so Elle Fanning is cute, but she's not gorgeous, because gorgeous people don't belong in a socialist state, you are trying to be better than everyone else and that's competition and that is wrong and evil, according to them; it's far better to be mediocre.
The last idea I want to discuss is the opening statement by the narrator, that we are going to learn "the true story" of what happened; this assertion of "truth" also passively claims that the other story--including the story which came to us through the Brothers Grimm, are lies. Why would the film makers of Maleficent want us to believe that Disney's original Sleeping Beauty and the Brothers Grimm stories are lies?
This is so typical of Feminists and THEIR war on women they are waging: curse the infant who can't protect themselves, just like abortion. But this scene at Aurora's bedside echoes the later scene of Maleficent at her bedside because both times, a curse comes form Maleficent's mouth: in this scene, it's the curse, in the latter scene, it's a suggestion of lesbianism when Maleficent replaces the prince as the one who bestows "Love's first kiss," and yes, the film intends for us to understand it romantically because of what happened between Stefan and Maleficent on her sixteenth birthday.  This is a strong suggestion that "true love" can only exist between two women because both Stefan and Maleficent say that true love doesn't exist, therefore, Aurora is bound to stay asleep forever (except that Maleficent's kiss awakens her, and "awaken" is a sexual metaphor in this case, meaning, that Aurora's sexuality has been awakened by Maleficent). Additionally, at the end, when Aurora is supposedly being crowned, the arrangement is more like a marriage between Aurora and Maleficent than a coronation, which we should not be surprised over, because it's typical for "two kingdoms to be joined" at a royal marriage, and the joining of the kingdoms is exactly what happens. Again, Philip in the background is merely a prop, to show how unimportant he is.
Because they can't "sell us" a different version of the story if we are holding up the originals as the standard, the model of reality, and that's exactly what socialists don't want: they want people to believe they have been lied to about history, and they then present a revisionist history--just like what we saw with the story of Noah, that everyone in all three world-wide monotheistic religions are familiar with--and what was evil in the original tales, really isn't evil at all. Again, these are threads of socialist propaganda we see in both Frozen and Noah.
Until the end of the film, we don't know who the narrator is except that it is a female voice (although, in today's world, that could be a trans-gendered female). As we started out this post, the all tales which are the "revised version," of which  Maleficent is, has a choice in either supporting the original narrative or subverting it. In making a character who is labeled "evil" the heroine--because she overcomes her enemy, King Stefan, she successfully wins the battle--the film makers want us to follow down the same evil path as Aurora does in rejecting her father, so we are supposed to reject our fathers (the Founding Fathers, who settled this land out of "greed and ambition," the film would argue, and are therefore the enemy of humanity) and embrace the kingdom full of animals--those living by their animal appetites and passions, as opposed to the law of the land or the moral codes of religion.
We can, sadly, expect even more films like this, including another Angelina Jolie film, her portrayal of Cleopatra, and an animated film Medusa.  Medusa, like Maleficent, is a character created to warn women not to become for their own well-being and happiness (please see The Medusa Within: Clash Of the Titans (1981) for more on the historical significance of the Medusa in art and literature). I don't expect Kenneth Branaugh's upcoming Cinderella to be revisionist (I could be wrong) however, I confident that the first "teaser trailer" focusing on the glass slipper, a material object of great value and supernatural origin (the fairy god mother) would be the front and center introduction if he were going to present us with socialist philosophy that denies personal property and the existence of anything not tangible. As always, each film we see aides us in being able to understand the expanding vocabulary and the dialogue taking place so that we, too, can, take place instead of passively being indoctrinated.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

TRAILER: Hercules, Transformers & News

UPDATE: It has just been confirmed today that Penny Dreadful has been renewed for a second, even longer season. Instead of just 8 episodes, Showtime has ordered 10 episodes to air during 2015.
So some friends went out of town for the week and it just so happens they have Showtime On Demand and guess who got caught up on all the episodes of Penny Dreadful? I won't be able to see all the episodes, which concludes at the end of June, however, I will post on the episodes I have seen; Showtime wrote me and said that after the episodes all air, they will be available for download, so we will finish up the season then. It does appear that the film makers want us to start thinking of Ethan Chandler (Josh Hartnett) as a werewolf; that doesn't mean that is what his secret is, but I am confident that is how film makers are planting the evidence. Permit me to make a definite, yet subtle demarcation in the homosexuality debate.
What exactly sparked the rumors to catch fire across the internet that this character is a werewolf? In Episode 3, Resurrection, Sir Malcolm's group has gone to the London Zoo in search of Mina and they encounter a pack of wolves who are not in cages (it's unclear if, as some as suggested, the wolves are vampires in dog form, or are werewolves in a pack). Ethan holds out his hand and one wolf puts Ethan's hand in his mouth, then the pack leaves. Seeing Ethan at the site of the murder of the mother and daughter which opened the series, could have been a coincidence, like Ethan and Brona meeting Frankenstein and Proteus on the street, or Vanessa at the theater; however, we glimpse an important flashback in Ethan's mind of a prostitute sitting on a bench in the London fog, taking a green apple from a newspaper, and then she's mysteriously attacked and her arm is severed from the body. Ethan was nowhere in that scene to be capable of having that flashback, unless he was in that scene and we just didn't see him because he was the attacker. He wakes up on the shoreline the next morning and goes to have a drink. Ethan takes Brona to the theater and we see a werewolf on the stage to insure we are thinking about werewolves and then, Dorian Grey takes Ethan to a dog-killing-rats spectacle and Ethan becomes sick. The film makers cut a bar brawl with clips of the dog killing rats, so, in the audience's mind, we correlate Ethan and the dog (there is also the way Brona pronounces Ethan's name outside of the theater as "eat-tin," like "eating" rather than Ethan; yes, she does have a thick accent, but Ethan points it out, not to Brona, but to the audience, so we won't think it's just her accent, we will know she actually calls him "eating," or, even, as in "Eton," because she senses that he is of a higher class than she is). Another curious event involving Ethan is the blood transfusion and Victor's request for Ethan to role up his sleeve and Ethan's denial of such a simple request. He's been sleeping with Brona, so anything there to see on Ethan's arm, she has seen but it hasn't been mentioned. It was probably the idea of the stress of the needle, and possibly him turning into his "other self," which caused him to so resolutely refuse to participate in the transfusion, rather than a tattoo or branding on his arm.
I was very upset this weekend with the lesbian overtones of Maleficent, but I am not with Penny Dreadful or SALEM; why? In Maleficent, like the TV show Modern Family, homosexuality is being promoted as "normal" or desirable because of the characters and the audience's sympathy for them; in Penny Dreadful and SALEM, the characters being shown in acts of homosexuality are evil and we therefore correlate the sexuality with witches or demons, vampires or werewolves. Both TV series mention "sins," a word we rarely hear nowadays, and its clear to me that it wants us to know exactly what those sins are and why they lead to damnation.
I think that Brona will become Victor's choice for Caliban's "bride." Either she is a very shallow, unnecessary character for the series, or she is very complex and one more deep realm to be explored. For example, if she were to become Caliban's bride, because she is all ready dying, we can not over look that she is Irish and poor, that she has been "screwed over" many times and that Caliban sees himself as the "modern man" representative of the Industrial Age, all matters playing heavily into the history of Ireland. If this happens, Brona's innocent meeting of Proteus offering her chestnuts, might be a wishful thing of the past if she has to marry the more brutal Caliban--like the man she had been engaged to but left--rather than Proteus who was kind and gentle. Even though she is dying, Brona is listed with the "main cast" of the show, rather than the supporting cast, so we will be seeing much more of her, the question is, in what role?
Likewise, I am caught up on all the episodes of SALEM (I have to tell you, those last two were pretty intense!). SALEM has been renewed for a second season, so we will go through that. While I am perfectly confident that the show seeks to expose liberalism for the satanism that it truly is because of all the vices it embraces, we are going to focus more on the literary devices because we can use those in all our encounters with art and employing them makes for a much richer artistic experience.
Now, onto the trailers,...
It has also just been announced that Cody Walker will be a permanent fixture in future Fast and Furious films. Cody is stepping in for his late brother, Paul Walker, who died before the filming was finished for F & F 7 (a detail that has caused the film to run $50 million over budget). Cody is both standing in for additional scenes of Paul that needed to be filmed, as well as coming on board as his own character, the younger brother of Brian, who will join in the adventures.
I hate to admit this, but I had completely forgotten all about Dwayne Johnson's Hercules coming out (July 25); the second trailer for the action-adventure film has been released today, as well as a
Without a doubt whatsoever, we can say that, as usual, Hercules, a middle-aged man, symbolizes the economy; his desire to just be a good husband and father is noble, however, as we saw in The Cold Light Of Day with Will (Henry Cavill) that's not enough, more is expected out of America and when there is a void left by America's absence, it will be filled by evil. Something I would like to point out--which we have been doing, but not particularly from this angle--is that art generally reflects the politics of the time during which it is created.
This film looks absolutely horrible. Jupiter Ascending, directed by the males once known as the Wachowski Brothers, who brought us The Matrix, they are now the Wachowski siblings because one of them has had a sex change. Yes, there is no way I am looking forward to this film at all, but I have been given a break because--even though the film was slated to open in seven weeks--they have moved that to February 2015 due to extensive special effects that were not going to be ready in time for this summer. I think it hasn't received any real activity and they are hoping they can generate more interest in it by then. Anyway, that's one bad film I don't have to watch this year.
We know, because I am constantly beating this drum, that films have been holding debates about socialism and capitalism, however, since 2008, we have also been seeing a far greater number of films discussing the end of the world (it can be argued that someone is always threatening to destroy the world, however, films--and TV shows--have been making a far more dire, "age of extinction" and the "curse to end mankind" kind of end-of-the-world scenario than previously seen). Here is the international trailer which has some additional footage:
I know this might be difficult to watch, but--speaking of "the age of extinction"--here is the Russian trailer for Transformers IV, which I am very much looking forward to! The scene with Stanley Tucci demonstrates that you don't always need words to understand what's going on:
Also, if you are a Sleepy Hollow fan, the new series will premiere September 22! I am forcing myself to get the Maleficent post up before I start on Penny Dreadful, so that should be up soon because I want to be done with it, but also because there are some important things going on that I know we will, regrettably, be seeing again. Eat Your Art Out, The Fine Art Diner