THE FINE ART DINER

Now You See Me Magic Fight Scene, Riddick, Hercules, Behind the Candelabra, Elysium Citizenship Intiative Test

2013-05-15T21:06:00.001-05:00

If you are of the estimation that Now You See Me isn't going to be good, I would like to know why. This fight scene between Agent Hobbs (Ruffalo) and Jack (Dave Franco) appears to take place in the magicians' studio:

We have seen a fight taking place in a magician's studio all ready this year with Dave Franco's big brother James in in Oz the Great and Powerful when the strong man of the carnival breaks in Oscar's (Franco) wagon/trailer but Oscar manages to escape to the fateful hot air balloon. There's a lot to this scene, but I am STILL trying to get Iron Man done so let's just say that an interesting dimension of play takes place with using a "new trick" of the cards as weapons; since the cards-as-weapons hit Hobbs on the face, such a masterful display of quick thinking on Jack's part "defaces" Hobbs, enough so that Jack manages to escape, at least by the end of the clip. From what we saw yesterday, however, it's his resolution and perseverance Hobbs values in himself and that he's betting on will outlast the magicians (when he was talking to Atlas before Hobbs gets cuffed). "Jack" has been a common name in the last year: Jack the Giant Slayer, Jack Reacher, Jack McLaine in A Good Day to Die Hard. That's something we will need to keep in mind as his character is developed, how, if at all, his character "intersects" with other Jacks we have seen.
I am actually impressed with this:

So, what do men symbolize?
What do you think it means when he says, "We play for blood," what film does that remind you of? Riddick has been left in a barren desert with nothing but monsters and bounty hunters trying to kill him; what do you think this means? This is just the first trailer, so I think we can expect a lot more, soon.

Kellan Lutz who is slated to star in Hercules 3D.

I could very well be wrong about this, however, the general synopsis for Hercules 3D, starring Kellan Lutz (Twilight) is about Hercules' love for the mortal princess of Crete who is all ready betrothed to the older brother of Hercules,... What do you think this means? Remember, when there are two related characters--in this case, brothers--it directs our attention to two related systems, or models; men generally signify the active principle of the economy, so we would have two competing economic models. Women, on the other hand, usually symbolize the passive principle of the motherland because the motherland gives birth to the people who live there,... well, let's not even bother going into it more in depth. It reportedly has a $70 million budget and is going to be done in the style of Gladiator; scheduled to being filming in Bulgaria this month, film makers are racing to get it out ahead of Hercules starring Dwayne Johnson scheduled for release in August 2014.
On the extreme other side of Herculean masculinity,....

Michael Douglas portrays Liberace and Matt Damon portrays his lover. Without a doubt we are supposed to realize that effeminate men are just as manly as straight men. Such a show directly attacks, once more, the white male we have discussed previously in Skyfall (James Bond as a police shooting target during the opening credits), Oz the Great and Powerful (being bombarded with projectiles while in the basket of the hot air balloon), The Croods (Grug being mocked and undermined throughout the whole film), Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters (Hansel is continuously attacked by witches, ie, feminists) and Mama (a film definitely about women because men aren't important; it's possible October's release of Carrie will follow the same path). Why are white, heterosexual men being attacked by Hollywood? It's part of the dismantling of capitalism. Socialism has to discredit the group holding the greatest power in a country when it has decided to move in; in America, that would be white, heterosexual males. By demonizing white males, you also demonize the form of government "giving" them power (capitalism) so minorities--ethnic groups, gays and women--will want to sponsor a new form of government that will sponsor them, and a way to dismantle and destroy that traditional power base is using the enemy against himself. By drowning white, straight men in the guilt of racism, homophobia, sexism and bigotry, socialists hope white straight men will gladly escort themselves to the guillotine because they don't deserve to have any power because they are such terrible people. That's how socialism thinks. That's why a show like this--among other terrible harms it's committing--is such a political and social platform for anti-American behavior.

Steven Soderbergh's new HBO biography of the life of Liberace called Behind the Candelabra stars Michael Douglas as the famed musician and Matt Damon playing his gay lover. Yes, it is homosexually explicit with them kissing and having sex. Why? For one reason, definitely, and possibly for a second. First, because we (all of society) must be indoctrinated to accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle choice, and even a desirable choice if you want to be the successful artist Liberace was. The more we see homosexuality, the more our resistance to it wears down and the more likely we are to not put up a fight when legislation is passed promoting it or giving it the same rights as traditional marriage. It's a way of making us "get used to it."

I am not really surprised that director Soderbergh is doing this film. I was doing some research on World War Z (book) the other day, because it really seemed supporting Agenda 21 and I thought, surely I am just being paranoid about this; if I am, there are a lot of others paranoid about it, too. Another writer detailed how they noticed the "symptoms" of Agenda 21 all ready present in Soderbergh's Contagion (Matt Damon, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow): martial law is imposed and unless the government is doing it in the film, like handing out food, quarantining people or passing out vaccinations, no one can take care of themselves after a massive loss of the population. So Soderbergh's newest effort to support the Obama administration shouldn't come as a surprise from the Sex, Lies and Videotape director. An image such as this one just above certainly says, put the YOU in Fab-YOU-lous!

Secondly, and we all ready discussed this with Beginners and the incredible actor Christopher Plummer getting an Oscar for kissing another man in front of cameras, the actors are willing to take destabilized gender roles to get Oscars and "enhance" their standing in Hollywood. This creates, what I feel to be, a most terrible situation: the deliberate exploitation of the gay community. I am against the act of homosexuality as much as I am the act of heterosexual sex outside marriage, but actors appear to be deliberately using--in the basest of ways--gays to advance their own careers, "artistically raping" the homosexuals being portrayed to make the individual actor more competitive in Hollywood. Case in point: in Behind the Candelabra, Liberace himself isn't being celebrated, only his sexuality is important, the part of himself he didn't want anyone to know about, but it's a political expedient now, so it's going to be publicized and exploited for all Hollywood can get out it and probably both Douglas and Damon are hoping for Emmys or Oscars or some kind of critical acclamation for their "cutting edge performance" of gay sex. Why should all of us be concerned with this?

Please compare this image of Riddick (Vin Diesel) in the barren desert to the picture of Douglas and Damon above with their swimming pool and horrible clothes; which man do you have more respect for?

Liberals and socialists use people.
We all know that liberals don't care about blacks, or Hispanics or women or teachers, gays or steel workers, they just care about the power they get from those groups and liberals are perfectly happy to persecute anyone they feel they can attain an advantage from regardless of morality or a basic obligation to be kind to other human beings for the sake of being kind to other human beings. In other words, the wringer liberals are currently putting white, heterosexual males through, will be used to put anyone else through as soon as it becomes politically expedient. That's why we should care.
And speaking of Matt Damon,...

The citizenship test for Elysium station is specifically designed to make you feel inferior and stupid so you despise the ones "smart enough" to spend life in the oasis space station. Why? So you will want affirmative action, because without the government making the playing field level for you, you can't possibly compete with anyone else because the socialists know you are inherently as dumb as they are.

At the Elysium citizenship initiative interview on their website, you can take the test to see if you qualify to experience life on the space station of luxury, which is supposed to symbolize class mobility, but I think most of us see this as a mechanism of socialism only allowing a certain elite into the privileged world rather than capitalism. For example, when you start the process, you have the chance to either sign in with Facebook (I don't have a Facebook account) or Bypass so I chose the bypass option and the "Agent" noted that this arouses suspicion and would be noted on my record. So, given the seizure of the Associated Press phone records exposed this week, and the bullying tactics of the IRS regarding conservative political parties, does my desire to keep my privacy sound like socialism wants to break into my personal life, or do we have experience of this kind of privacy invasion from the Bush Administration?

Has a Republican/capitalist government ever tried tattooing people like the Nazis did in concentration camps to the Jews, or putting microchips in citizens as is mandated in Obamacare legislation?

Here is the first question: CCB robots attacked a friend during a riot; was the robots' behavior justified or illegal and violent. Of course, I chose "illegal and violent," and the Agent responded, "Your answer is incorrect. All CCB action is lawful and just. If my statement of fact confuses you, it is very likely you will never qualify for Elysium citizenship." I'll tell you what that sounds like to me, both 1984 and Obama throwing out the Constitution believing all his actions are legal and just regardless of what laws they violate. But maybe that's just me. Also worthy to note, Drew Pearce--screenwriter of Iron Man 3--has been contracted for the script of Mission Impossible 5.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Now You See Me: Voodoo Shop & Atlas Interrogation Clips

2013-05-14T22:25:00.000-05:00

It's great to see Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine in a clip together, especially in a clip with so much tension:

Well,...
If that wasn't enough, here is a near "mirror-image" of a threat by Atlas (Eisenberg) to Hobbs (Ruffalo) which is quite interesting:

So, what do we have?
Second clip first.
We have discussed the images from this interrogation scene previously (please see the caption information in Now You See Me Opening Scene for more) and all that appears to be holding true (at least with the bit we have seen heretofore). What is most striking now, however, is how,... "traditional" the interrogation room is where Atlas is being held compared to the glass (or whatever clear material that is being used) of the prison cells for Loki in The Avengers, Silva in Skyfall, John Harrison in Star Trek Into Darkness and Loki again in Thor the Dark World. We have speculated that the clear prisons makes the captors think they are "seeing everything" to be seen, but the villains in these prisons always actually want to be there, so the more transparent the prison is, the more we should be alerted to what we are not seeing of the villain's plans. Back to Now You See Me: if Atlas and the others are being held for the theft of $140 million dollars (the number tossed around in one of the trailers we have seen) that might be a substantial enough sum to warrant a clear prison cell, or just the director's decision. The point I hope to establish is, the film makers have "bucked" a trend/fashion in films as of late to place the criminal (Atlas) in a more typical criminal environment we are used to seeing from TV shows. The room--with its plain, grayish walls and florescent lighting--actually reminds me of images of the bank vault we have been seeing in the trailers so that will be something for us to consider as we watch the film, are there are any "spaces" in the film similar to each other?

Arthur Tressler (Caine) doesn't look happy--maybe the depressing blue he's wearing accentuates that state of an uneasy mind. Given the conflict of the clip above with Thaddeus (Freeman) we really have no idea what is going on in this clip but there is an important detail of the story in that the Four Horseman magicians reveal a white collar criminal in one of the shows and take his millions and pipe it into the bank accounts of the audience during one of their magic shows; they also tend to try targeting "corrupt" businesses for their tricks (rather like The East with Ellen Page). I have speculated--and I am probably wrong, but hey, so what--that Arthur is the "author" of the Four Horseman's crimes and he uses them first, to frame himself as an alibi, then as either a means for collecting insurance/attacking his enemies/competition. We can tell by the windows they are in a private jet; Atlas is not there, but the brunette I think is Atlas' groupie. Henley (Fisher) wears a black glove that rather looks like the kind OJ Simpson would wear if he was going to kill someone and it is certainly ominous that she stands behind Arthur. Merritt's (Harrelson) hat being in his hand reveals or exposes that he isn't covering anything up but we have to ask, where is Atlas? Just in the background somewhere or is the rest of the group setting him up? Its possible that Arthur is in some way the Horseman's hostage, but I rather think--and, again, I am probably wrong--that making the strong arm threats he makes to Thaddeus in the clip above, that he isn't likely to be intimidated by anyone.

Back to the first clip.
It's easy to see class-struggle--"My bank account is bigger than yours"--at work, but the two characters are in a store selling voodoo dolls (I don't know where the store is or if it sells only voodoo items) and that's where the real arrogance is demonstrated by Arthur, that Thaddeus is no more than a doll in his hand, the same way Atlas treats Hobbs as a rodent. What we have at work is very directed psychoanalysis, that is, what the characters are doing reveals what they are thinking. Arthur picks up a voodoo doll because--using his lawyers and money--he plans on making Thaddeus suffer just like a witch pricking a doll with a spell on it (think of Pirates Of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides); Atlas throws out the phrase, "Like white on mice" because he's thinking of Hobbs in terms of a rodent, but--specifically--a white mouse that is probably used in laboratory research and is pricked by a doctor like a voodoo doll by a witch....

What is the real "eye draw" in this image? Well, for me, it has to be the garlic hanging up on Arthur's left side. The long, vertical white contrasts with the blinding rectangle of light on Thaddeus' left side. Why the garlic? It's one of the primary means of warding off vampires. Arthur reads something, so whatever it is he reads in this scene should be properly "contextualized" of taking place in a voodoo store with garlic.

Without a doubt, there is far more analysis to be done on these clips, but not knowing more about the context and events, I am not going any further right now except to say, I can't be more excited for this to come out,...
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

This might be nothing more than a publicity image and not actually appear in the film, however, if it does, it provides some "reflection" for our minds to work on. With white the dominant color of the background, the areas of shade create a "gray" dimension, and we should be alert to possible "gray areas" of the film, especially in the realm of the moral, and how--if at all--the film/characters exploit or explore those gray areas of magic or money. Atlas appears to be in a prison uniform, then again, this might actually be a warehouse or studio where the Four Horseman arrange and experiment with their tricks. It's not a prison uniform, but it looks that way (since it's gray, it might refer to his state as a "pilgrim," that Atlas really doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, or it might refer to a state of penance about something; another possibility is a sign of "decay" because corpses turn gray or, simply, if he himself has exploited gray areas and it shows in his character, etc. but, again, he wears a blue shirt underneath and we should, therefore, look for any sign of depression he might be hiding under the surface). Looking like a prisoner with a glass over his head suggests that (because he can't see himself) Atlas might be a prisoner of his own lack of self-reflection (possibly leading to his depression he might be refusing to acknowledge). This will be an interesting scene, especially if there is anyone else involved with it, but we can be sure, wherever we see a mirror in the film, it's "reflecting" something we need to note.

Trailers: Man Of Steel, After Earth, Inside Llewyn Davis, Despicable Me 2, As I Lay Dying, Ender's Game, Gravity, Captain Phillips

2013-05-13T14:46:00.000-05:00

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." Charles Dickens' famous opening lines of A Tale Of Two Cities clearly summarizes the mysterious way in which the worst circumstances brings out the very best in us; for example, who sits around telling stories to their grand kids about all the days spent on the front porch, swinging in the chair, not bothered by a thing in the world? No one. While that's the kind of relaxation we all want, it's the times of war and hardship that bring out the best in us because we have to make hard decisions and making those decisions reveals who we are to ourselves (who would go see a film where thee wasn't any kind of conflict? They just aren't made that way) and in the newest TV spot for Man Of Steel, we see this theme of strength and potential being expounded:

The newest Will Smith film, After Earth, with his son Jaden, contains numerous elements peaking my interest. First off, Jaden's character generally exhibits the kind of "American swagger" we see in heroes like Tony Stark and Captain James Kirk. We know, from previous trailers, that their space shuttle is hit by a meteor shower and is torn apart, with Will's character being sucked out the opening (we see this in Iron Man 3 and the upcoming World War Z, so this repetitive nature is important, and I am writing about it in the Iron Man 3 review). Like Oblivion, After Earth shows the world in a state of total desolation after some catastrophic event. Because we have also seen Jaden's character fighting for his life against the animals left on earth which reminds me of what has been released of the upcoming Riddick film (Vin Diesel), it's also an affirmation of the hardship--that no one likes or enjoys but is necessary--of building character and wisdom. What we have also seen in the young boy bearing the burden of their rescue is the "torch" being passed to the younger generation as in Red Dawn, Expendables II and Battleship. In this brief clip, there is quite a bit of symbolic information:

Why is the beacon in the tail?
The tail is usually the part aiding in the steering of the plan; what do we generally think of when we hear "beacon?" A "beacon of hope." Several years ago, someone came selling America "hope and change," so if that has worked out, why is earth in a state of desolation so that the beacon has to be retrieved by the younger generation? We have also seen a beacon in Wreck-It Ralph which was used to attract all the cy-bugs and preserve Sugar Rush. Back to After Earth, it will be interesting exactly how Will Smith's character is wounded because that wound--obviously keeping him from being able to go and retrieve the beacon himself--will provide great character development for him. I don't know how this is going to go, but we have been monitoring the dialogue in films regarding which economic model best suits art and the Coen brothers now seem ready to weigh in on the discussion

This film could go either way, so Llewyn's conversion into a better person and his meeting of some goal or getting to a better state in life (whether in terms of his personal relationships or interiorly or financially) could seal this as a pro-capitalist film. Here is the newest trailer for Despicable Me 2:

Is it because Agnes doesn't have a mother that she acts like a zombie? This doesn't have anything to do with single parents, this is art and it's symbolic representations of the future generation (Agnes) and there not being a "motherland" for her to identify herself with in the future. Let us compare the trailer for James Franco's As I Lay Dying (based on the William Faulkner novel) of brothers going to bury their dead mother:

In After Earth, we know there is a mother, she's just not present when the ship crashes; likewise, Clark has two mothers in Man Of Steel and we know both are important to him. The absence of the mother being highlighted in Despicable Me 2 is intriguing because it suggests Gru will be actively trying to fill that void for the girls and himself. Having said what we have said (and we could do more of a build-up but I will eave that to you to fill in), let's take a look at the newest Harrison Ford film, Ender's Game:

I'm not going to say a whole lot about it, I will wait until the second trailer is released to comment further; however, all we need is this synopsis to know what George Clooney's newest film is saying: Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock), a brilliant medical engineer on her first shuttle mission, with veteran astronaut Matt Kowalsky (George Clooney) in command of his last flight before retiring. But on a seemingly routine spacewalk, disaster strikes. The shuttle is destroyed, leaving Stone and Kowalsky completely alone-tethered to nothing but each other and spiraling out into the blackness. The deafening silence tells them they have lost any link to Earth...and any chance for rescue. As fear turns to panic, every gulp of air eats away at what little oxygen is left. But the only way home may be to go further out into the terrifying expanse of space. All we really need to know is that the shuttle is the vehicle symbolizing the economy or possibly the "ship of state" as is usually the case:

See, if you had "government support" to keep you "connected," you wouldn't lose control like that... On a similar note, here is the latest from Tom Hanks, Captain Phillips:

The ship is the ship of state and the pirates are the capitalists. Why can't it be the other way around? That's a good point, I'm glad you brought it up, and my primary reason is not a very good one: how do pirates make their living (think of Pirates Of the Caribbean) They loot and steal from others. When I think of someone who lives off the work and earnings of others as pirates do, I think of socialists and their redistribution of wealth policies, but socialists think of business owners. Obama has been in control of the "ship of state" for five years now, so its reasonable to see Tom Hanks' Captain Phillips as an Obama figure. As always, I could be wrong, and I will be the first to admit that any time I hear Tom Hanks employing an accent in his character, he comes off as mocking those who have that type of accent and that makes me mad.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

300 Rise Of An Empire, Robert Redford Captain America the Winter Soldier, The Great Gatsby

2013-05-10T18:31:00.000-05:00

Leave it to me to jinx something.
Just yesterday I was talking about the studio moving back 300 Rise Of An Empire because it seemed they were really cutting it close and, sure enough, it was announced today that the film will not open until March 2014. To be honest, even though this means a poor-close to the 2013 summer film season, and there will be more competition for its genre in March of 2014 with the Hercules films coming out, I hope they do this film well and to the best of their ability, because it could be quite powerful if they take their time and really concentrate on its potential. But I am disappointed. And of all the bizarre things, there is actually something else it appears I was right about,...

We discussed in some detail the point Oblivion seemed trying to make in Jack (Tom Cruise) being the lover of Victoria (English) and but being married to Julia (Russian descent); Captain America the Winter Soldier might make that point as well. If you will recall, in Captain America, Steve Rogers' love interest was Peggy (who was English) but has presumably died while Steve was under the icy water in a coma (she is expected to make appearances in the newest film via flashbacks). Natasha, aka "Black Widow" (Scarlett Johansson) is not only Russian, but her last name is "Romanoff" after the last royal family of Russia (not that she's any connection); this makes an interesting connection to another film we have seen recently, Oz the Great and Powerful because it takes place in 1905 and Oscar (James Franco) has a music box he tells everyone is from his Tsarina grandmother who died in a big battle, which we deduced referenced the big battles lost by the Russian royal family, strengthening the Bolshevik political program in Russia and lead, indirectly but significantly, to the October Revolution (please see Ghosts, Evil Spirits & the Undead: Oz the Great and Powerful for more). It doesn't appear at this point that there is a romantic relationship between Black Widow and Captain America (I think I read he might actually strike up a relationships with Maria Hill [Cobie Smulders] who had numerous scenes as a SHIELD agent in The Avengers) but their working relationship to tackle the "shadowy villain" threatening Washington DC is sufficient.

We discussed Robert Redford, whose new film The Company You Keep about the Weathermen, has come out, coinciding with his casting as a senior SHIELD agent in next year's Captain America the Winter Soldier, and I made the comment that--knowing it's both a political thriller and Steve Rogers' (Chris Evans) best friend Bucky is now an assassin for the Soviet Union--it might be an intentional casting of Redford (who has never appeared in a super-hero film before) that his public link to socialism and support of the Weather Underground movement might be used by film makers taping into what the audience knows about Redford to make him, in some way, a villain (and, I have reason to believe, the activities of this group was carefully being sited in Iron Man 3, so if you aren't really up on who they were and what they did, you might take a moment to familiarize yourself with their sordid history); Redford confirmed yesterday that he is signed to play a villain in Captain America the Winter Soldier; there are at least 6 known villains in the film at this time, and we know that Washington is under attack,... so,... what do you think that says?...

Leonardo DiCaprio, The Great Gatsby.

There are two things I would like to clarify: first, I don't like watching anti-capitalist films, but what is important is that the film is done well, like with Lawless (and I still can't believe there weren't any Oscar noms for that film). From what we have seen with numerous trailers, spots and clips of The Great Gatsby, is doesn't look well done, regardless of it's politics, and, sadly, the mainstream critics--most of whom are liberals and should be the ones supporting the films--are trashing it wholesale:

“Despite timely relevance, enduring truths and Luhrmann’s earnest efforts to make ‘The Great Gatsby’ jump off the screen, he — and we — finally can’t help but fail to grasp it.” Ann Hornaday, Washington Post (the "timely relevance" no doubt pertains to the class warfare and assault upon the upper-class, whether inherited wealth or self-made wealth).

What is the difference between a film being bad, and there are plenty of bad films, and a bad job communicating? Undoubtedly, poor communication between film makers and its audience is inherent in the qualification of a "bad film," without necessarily being articulated as such; specifically, what we might say is The Great Gatsby appears to be "redundant." Hornaday's criticism quoted above about Lurhmann's failing to grasp The Great Gatsby, to me, signals his failure to see the obvious merit of the book in its depictions of human relationships--among many other merits--and focusing instead upon the obvious class battles between old wealth and new wealth, shallowness of individuals who never become individuals and the idea of a well-monied utopia; that is redundancy, if we wanted to know that, all we would have to do is stand in the grocery line to buy milk and read the headlines of tabloids about the most recent celebs to enter rehab. So there is something of a crime committed: Lurhmann has this amazing material that he only took the most general theme from to make a film (Fitzergerald's book was voted greatest novel in the English language on a list of 100 books; yea, that's pretty good). One can't take a deep approach at displaying shallowness, the whole thing drowns in shallowness if that is all you're aiming for and, sadly, that appears to be the case. I am not seeing the film this weekend, but will within the week to form my own estimation even though I am dreading it.

Secondly, I wanted to clarify my remark about seeing the Wrath Of Khan before Star Trek Into Darkness opens next week. You do not have to see Wrath Of Khan in order to know what is going on in the film--film makers realize they have to include all the elements of character, history and story line into a film today in order for viewers to engage with the film rather than feel isolated and out of the loop--and you probably don't even have to have seen Star Trek (2009); if you have time to catch Wrath Of Khan before STID opens next week, it will prove rewarding because you can catch the differences that have been changed so it's easier to interpret and decode.
That's what I meant.
Yep, still working on Iron Man 3.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Now You See Me Opening Scene & Star Trek News!!!!!

2013-05-09T11:56:00.002-05:00

Without a doubt, this isn't the entire opening sequence of the film; I would be shocked if it were, we have become so used to "slices" that didn't fit in the pie being served up on YouTube and film news sites, but this will give us a general idea of how well constructed the screenplay ought to be:

What do we see here?
Each represents--we could say--a magician dominating a different part of the potential demographic through a different realm of a "possible stage": who would think a ferry could be a stage for a magic act? Good targeting of a possible audience, they don't have anywhere to go so why wouldn't they "pay" (a pun on him being willing to pay if anyone can figure out how he does the trick) attention to Jack (Dave Franco)? The trick really becomes a trick with the pickpocketing act (stealing the wallet), because that's a hyper example of knowing your audience; in other words, we have been talking about the "implied reader" or viewer a lot lately--what we know and what the film makers know we know and are willing to "tap into" in order to establish another line of communication with us--and we see Jack doing the same thing. Jack knows someone in his audience probably knows how the trick is done because of all the expose shows on television, so instead of tossing the trick out and replacing it with a new trick that hasn't yet been "exposed," he uses "play" to find a creative means of adding a new dimension to the trick, the pickpocket. The scene becomes a mirror-reversal of what is said: instead of Jack paying someone if they can figure out the trick, if someone figures out the trick, they pay Jack (with their wallet).
Why is this important?

I don't know about you, but this safe reminds me of the one in Fast Five (Fast & Furious 5), the one the group heisted in Brazil. If this is an accurate correlation, it wouldn't be the only invoked concept from Fast Five, including Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) because the FBI detective played by Mark Ruffalo is named Dylan Hobbs. Why is this important? Like Jack knowing someone in his audience probably knows how the spoon-bending trick is done, so the film knows what films we are likely to have seen as an audience, and it wants to "pick our brains" to deepen and expand the message it's sending (but we won't know that until we see the film). It's like when you are listening to a Protestant minister giving his sermon and he has you flipping your Bible pages to read as many different passages as possible, supporting what he is saying: it's builds credibility and, again, that idea of unity that numerous films are saying the same thing. When we keep seeing the same concepts over and over, and hearing the same messages again and again, we are being--quite frankly--indoctrinated with an idea, whether it's something we all ready believe or not. That's the whole purpose of decoding art, knowing what kind of indoctrination is being put out there to which we might be subjecting ourselves so we can separate ourselves from it and take a more objective examination of it rather than just passively receiving the message.

It is, perhaps--even likely--that the story chooses to follow the old rule of playwrights: if someone is going to be stabbed with a dagger in the final act, that dagger has to be introduced in the first act (or at least by the end of the second act) so it's believable to the audience; there's also a deeper reason for this, namely, that the death of the person stabbed has meaning. It would have been enough for someone to just wear a dagger on their side, but introducing a dagger displays a symbolic identity with the object and thereby--when it's used in the death of someone--that symbolic meaning intercepts, or over-comes--whoever is being killed. So, if these devices of knowing what someone knows to profit by it, and reversing the mirror image, is being introduced in the opening scene, it's going to be used later on in the film.

Deceptively simple. We know, from the trailer, that Michael Atlas (Jesse Eisenberg) tells Hobbs (Ruffalo) that Hobbs "has nothing up his sleeve." That doesn't mean that Atlas doesn't have anything up his sleeve, and we can tell because of his sweater. One, Atlas wears an under-shirt beneath his sweater, drawing attention to the fact that there is "something underneath" with him (compared to Hobbs who just wears his shirt and tie); secondly, no one wears shirts/sweaters anymore with the suede/leather elbow patches. That's not in style, and we can presume that the film is taking place today, so this is completely out of place. Since it invokes his arm, we can assume that, even as he tells Hobbs he has nothing up his sleeve, that doesn't mean that Atlas doesn't have anything up his sleeve. What is in the room? Behind Hobbs is a typical, one-way mirror, and we know there is also a one-way mirror in Man Of Steel when Superman (Henry Cavill) talks to Lois Lane (Amy Adams). From trailers of Now You See Me, we know illusion and mirrors play an important role in the film, so what can we say--at least at this point--about that mirror in the room? We know that Atlas will put the handcuffs that are on him onto Hobbs; the mirror in this scene acts to invert the reality of Atlas being a prisoner to invert the scene (the way a mirror reverses what you see when you look into it) and make Hobbs the prisoner bound in cuffs; look at how Hobbs holds his hands, the right wrist holding the left, as if he is all ready bound by the cuffs and Atlas is free (Atlas' hands being spread out wide). So this leaves us with Alma Vargas (Melanie Laurent); what about her? According to my research, she's an Interpol agent assigned to help FBI agent Hobbs, but suspicion has been cast on her character that she's possibly aiding Atlas. Her simple black and white outfit might be communicating this to us but we won't go into that here because it's just a long supposition, we'll save it for later, but we can't ignore the Diet Pepsi can on Atlas' right. Pepsi is a major brand name, an international corporation, so we will need to keep our eyes open to other corporations which might be making an appearance in the film as targets or accomplices to the heists taking place. Lastly, there is a fourth person in the room: us. Just as we discussed the noise in the room coming in to create static over what Lois Lane tells Superman in Man Of Steel, and that being the audience "imposing" our own storyline onto the film, so the movie screen acts as its own one-way mirror in Now You See Me, reflecting what we think we are seeing, whether we see it or not (please see Trailers Man Of Steel for more on the one-way mirror and the noise indicating the presence of the audience).

One last detail: the names. As we mention above, Ruffalo's Hobbs could be a reference to F & F 6's Hobbs played by Dwayne Johnson, to Hobbes of the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, which many people are familiar with or--and this is most likely, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes who incorporated the theory of the prisoner's dilemma into his philosophy of the social contract (if you have a minute, you might want to read that link, it's thorough without being too academic and has highly practical applications for what we do at this blog). Michael Caine plays Arthur Tressler; is he actually the "author" of the crimes? Jesse Eisenberg plays Michael Atlas. There is the "atlas" of a map which might refer to the traveling the group does, but there is also the Titan of Greek mythology Atlas who holds up the world as well as suggesting the title of capitalist Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged so, how, if at all, will these concepts play with and build up the characters of the film? This will probably be one of those we will need to watch a couple of times, and even then, won't catch everything.

Having seen Despicable Me recently, I am anticipating Despicable Me 2 for a number of reasons. First, the evil bank where Gru the villain/hero goes to get his loan is Lehman Brothers, the company triggering the 2008 economic crisis, so the film displayed an apparent self-awareness with the outside world and wanted us the audience to know it. The film made an academic study of "false self-interest" which is the ultimate evil in bad capitalism (for example, Gru adopts the three girls out of the self-interest of them selling cookies to his villain-rival, but finds the self-interest he should have sought was the love and happiness the girls brought to his life). Even though all the minions look just alike (two are pictured above) Gru knows their individual names and stories and shows them love and real bonding by the end. We can say this is an accurate interpretation of a "reformed villain" because of the premise of Despicable Me 2: a really bad villain is on the loose and Gru is consulted to help the Anti-Villain League bring him to justice; this appears to be a theme in films now, Fast and Furious 6 for example, with Dom's crew (Vin Diesel) being outlaws helping Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson). In the image above, two minions have been driving a car, neither of them capable of doing it on their own, but--with team work--they can. Where have we seen this before? Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted and the penguins driving.

In other news, I found out what is a huge relief to me: 300: Rise Of An Empire actually started filming last year in Bulgaria; the scenes being filmed now are merely additional footage clips,... it doesn't change the fact, however, that they are still filming footage. There's only about two and a half months before the film's scheduled release and we hardly have a poster for it (there is a poster for it at my local theater, which is a good sign). Usually, at least one trailer would have been released two months ago, along with a dozen or so images; at this time, only three real images have been made available and no trailer whatsoever. With this being May, and the film scheduled for an August release, it's possible the opening will be pushed back a month or more, it has certainly happened in the past; the problem with that? They want to bank on the summer film season because kids are still out of school to go see it; they don't want the film lost in the holiday shuffle (the mid-October through December time frame) and if they wait out past this time frame, they they will have to compete with Hercules 3D and Hercules: The Thracian Wars. Yes, there are two Hercules films coming out,...

Despicable Me 2's Lucy Wilde of the anti-villain league. What should we notice about her? Her badge is upside-down. This indicates one of two possibilities: either she is all ready romantically interested in Gru and uses her job to get involved with him, or she's actually a villain herself. Her character can be compared to Miss Hattie of the orphanage where the girls lived and with whom Gru somewhat flirted to qualify for the adoption process. Kristen Wiig plays both female characters, so it's not an arbitrary connection, but such a minor detail can have huge consequences for the structure of the narrative.

One version of Hercules will be played by Dwayne Johnson (The Rock of the wrestling world) and also boasts Ian McShane (Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Jack the Giant Slayer), Joseph Fiennes (Shakespeare In Love, Elizabeth), Rufus Sewell (The Illusionist, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter) and the incomparable John Hurt. Slated for release next summer, the film takes place in barbarian Thrace--instead of cultivated Greece--whereas Hercules 3D stars Kellan Lutz and is focusing on the 12 Labours of the demi-god. All these films have their roots in the world of mythology, not to mention Percy Jackson & the Olympians: Sea Of Monsters also coming out this year (which, thankfully, has a new director from the first installment). Why? The purpose of mythology was to explain why the universe was the way the ancients observed it was, and to explain their origins and destiny; it's easy to see, in this tumultuous time, that Americans need the same thing.
But now it's time for some Star Trek,...

Having just seen Star Trek II: Wrath Of Khan (1982) last night, which director of Star Trek Into Darkness JJ Abrams noted was a big source for the newest film, things are making far more sense now, especially sense the entire plot line has been posted online. You know me, I like to know what is going to happen before the film because it helps me focus and sort out all the details; if you want to know what happens, you can read the entire plot line at this link. We still don't know which way it will go, that's contained in details and dialogue, but now we know who is who and that this film will be amazing! Why should we bother watching Wrath Of Khan? Because that film was made for the world of 1982, a world ruled by communism and the Iron Curtain; Star Trek Into Darkness takes many of the similar elements, but re-interprets them for the world today, and there are many similar elements, but the differences in choices reflects the differences between 1982 and 2013. Those differences in choices reflects the differences in morals, history, values and technology development. Here is one last clip that, those who have seen Wrath Of Khan can think about:

Last note, at this point, I don't think I am going to see The Great Gatsby this weekend (it's all ready being touted as the first bomb of the summer). My sister isn't going to be able to make it, and it's so blatantly anti-capitalist (I could be very wrong, as always, but it looks like very poor quality to me, on every level, and I'm just not in the mood), I would rather see it at the discount theater next week and work on getting some small, but important posts up instead. I might change my mind, but at this point, I am not planning on seeing it for its opening weekend.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Elysium & Wreck-It Ralph

2013-05-08T12:24:00.000-05:00

Matt Damon stars as Max in Elysium.

Sometimes I miss the forest for the trees.
I watched Wreck-It Ralph again last night, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I realized, just a few moments into the film, that the story line sits up the same structure for the upcoming Matt Damon-Jodie Foster drama Elysium, wherein Max (Damon) lives in the garbage dump that earth has become (like Ralph living in the trash heap) and he has to rob the Space Station Elysium of something so he can live better (like Ralph getting the medal from Hero's Duty to advance to Niceland so his life will be better). There appears to be another scene from Wreck-It Ralph mirrored in an upcoming blockbuster, Star Trek Into Darkness.

In Star Trek, Spock goes into a volcano about to erupt and from the clip we have seen so far, his existence is jeopardized as he appears to be stranded in the volcano; similarly, towards the end of Wreck-It Ralph, Ralph sacrifices himself as he frees himself from King Candy's/Turbo's grip to dive into the Diet Cola Mountain surrounded by mintos (to create an eruption) and intends on sacrificing himself in order to save Vanellope and Sugar Rush (the racing arcade game Sugar Rush might have had some influence on the upcoming Chris Hemsworth Formula 1 racing film, Rush); Vanellope, however, saves Ralph with his candy go-cart and all order is restored (for the complete review, please see Children Of the Candy Corn: Wreck-It Ralph & Game Jumping for more). Why should we bother with tracing and tracking recurring patterns and motifs in films? For at least two reasons.

In another bit of news, Jason Statham is rumored to be cast as the villain in next year's Fast & Furious 7. Statham was offered the role of Owen Shaw featured in F & F 6, but turned it down and it went to Luke Evans who has nabbed two additional roles because of his performance in F & F 6 (The Crow, which Thor star Tom Hiddleston was in talks for but ultimately turned down, and Dracula). Rumors suggest Statham would be cast as Ian Shaw, older brother of Owen in F & F 7. Again, no confirmations, just rumors, but F & F 7 is picking up at a fast pace!

First, it demonstrates the dialogue taking place between films; secondly, it validates our own efforts at decoding when we see codes entering and re-entering narratives; to offer a third reason no one else in the world might agree with, it's fun. There are reasons for similar scenes and ideas being picked up by one film and reminded to viewers by other films and that reflects our culture and what's going on at the macro-level.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Now You See Me Diamond Heist

2013-05-07T09:50:00.002-05:00

Now You See Me could be the ultimate challenge for our viewing skills because illusion and reflection will play an enormous role in the narrative and characterization. When ever we see "reflections" in art, it's because the art wants us to reflect as well. Reflections aren't always accurate, however, and we will really have to be fast to keep up with this one.

The Iron Man 3 review is nearly done; it's a huge post because there is so much material, but it will be up today. Thank you for waiting! Tom Cruise has officially signed on to play Ethan Hunt once more in Mission Impossible 5 although there is no other news about the film at this time. The upcoming film Now You See Me, about magicians robbing banks, has launched a rather creative promotion for the film; why should we care? We can at least hope that the same creative energies going into promotion have gone into making the film. With last year's record-breaking box office, new strategies for audience enticement and interaction are attempting to sustain that level, if not exceed it this year. For example, we saw a Star Trek Into Darkness "animated poster" released earlier this year with a voice over by Benedict Cumberbatch in character and some special visual effects. Films know they have to compete with a string of other amazing films, so putting so much effort into the promotion of a film like Now You See Me exhibits the company's confidence in the film.

Don't blip this image because it's a copy, but do go to the link provided below if you are going to follow the trail. We will be discussing the trailers more just before the film's release, but this promo gives us a good basis for deconstruction which might be employed by the film. In the video, the magician tells us the "diamonds" could be in stacks of cards, a bracelet, a crossword puzzle, etc. What has he done? He's shown us how "unstable" the word diamond is, specifically, unstable enough for there to be 13 different examples we are supposed to search for. We tend to think of words and language having definite meaning, like the word "diamond," referring to a precious gemstone. However, this promo illustrates that all different kinds of things can be meant by "diamond," thereby showing how diamond is inherently unstable and takes apart its own constructed meaning because there are so many meanings that are possible. We should prepare ourselves to see the exact same kind of exercises in the film with word play and images.

You do need a phone that can blipp. If you go to this link at Collider.com, it will direct you to the free iTunes Blippar app and it will explain the Diamond Heist Challenge in the video provided by the magician who trained the actors for the film. 13 images have been hidden throughout the internet, each image containing a blipp to link you to exclusive film footage (the video explains what to look for) and one of those images is there at Collider (in the link provided). Have fun!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Clips Fast & Furious 6, Iron Man 3 & A Bit Of News

2013-05-04T09:19:00.001-05:00

I would also like to say, the trailer for Thor the Dark World and Man Of Steel looked awesome in 3D, I mean, they looked amazing! On the big screen, Man Of Steel plays quite well and seeing the intense graphics definitely heightened by desire to see it asap!

It is the best of Iron Man.
The third installment is a great point of argument that sequels really to foster creativity: with the initial release of a film, like Iron Man (the first one), there is the originality; with the releasing of subsequent films, the audience all ready has a bond with the characters, so the film makers are walking a tricky line: one, maintain that bond by keeping the character consistent with what audiences have seen before, but deepen the character so audiences see them in a new environment where they have to adapt and convert, but still remain the character the audiences wants. Iron Man 3 has perfected this formula and it's probably the film of the year, although there is tremendous competition, we will probably look at it as the year's best. The review is coming and we are not going to be focusing on capitalism and socialism; it's in there, but Iron Man 3 and GI Joe Retaliation reveal the villain of what is called one-world rule; mostly, however, we are going to be examining game theory.

We will talk about Despicable Me closer to the sequel's release date this summer, however, it's safe to say Gru (Steve Carrell) is a capitalist and a thief in the original but he's converted. The two most important aspects of the film is that it's the North Koreans who have the shrink machine Gru needs to steel the moon, and it's the name of the bank Gru goes to for a loan (formerly Lehmann Brothers). Knowing the Anti-Villain League wants Gru's assistance to catch a really bad villain in the sequel, reveals that--like Vin Diesel's Dom in Fast & Furious 6, Gru has been converted from being an outlaw to aiding the law, unlike The Lone Ranger when the Lone Ranger turns into a criminal.

Al Pacino has left the cast of Despicable Me 2 due out this summer. The film is scheduled to stay on course for the July 2 release as Benjamin Bratt has taken the vacant role and will re-record the voice of Eduardo, the enemy of Gru (Steve Carrell) in this version of the film. Bradley Cooper's fast-tracked biography of the most lethal sniper in American military history Chris Kyle has gotten director Steven Spielberg with Cooper to play Kyle (it appears Spielberg's Roboapocalypse has been put on hold for a while). Director Christopher Nolan's next project, the sci-fi film Interstellar, has confirmed Anne Hathaway and Matthew McConnaughey as leads, with the great Jessica Chastain in talks to also star; joining the director again after their work on The Dark Knight Rises is Sir Michael Caine (this will be their sixth time working together). The film is being kept secret, but it has been revealed it involves physicist Kip S. Thorne's theoretical work on the existence of wormholes, used as a shortcut through space and time, which featured prominently in The Avengers (where Tony put the nuke launched at Manhattan at the end of the film) and seems to be mentioned constantly in Iron Man 3.

My sister will be watching The Great Gatsby with me, so in spite of how anti-capitalist I think the film will be, she's good at swaying me with other perspectives and angles a film can take, so we will all have the benefit of her input as well. I am dreading the film but she's really looking forward to it.

Kevin Feige has confirmed that Dr Strange is the next Marvel hero they are going to be exploring in Phase 3 of The Avengers, with the brother-sister duo Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch joining The Avengers 2 cast. Lily Collins (Mirror, Mirror and The Mortal Instruments: City Of Bones) has been confirmed for the lead in the upcoming Pride and Prejudice and Zombies written by the same liberal who did Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter. Owen Uziel (Mortal Kombat) has been picked to re-write the script for 21 Jump Street 2 and Men In Black IV; Men In Black III earned more than the previous two films but it's uncertain how involved with the fourth installment Will Smith will be.

Something I was not expecting: two clips have been released for Fast and Furious 6! Based on his performance as Owen Shaw in the film, Luke Evans was offered the lead for the newest remake of Dracula; in this clip, an intimate and intense discussion between Shaw and Dom (Vin Diesel) over the fate of Lettie (Michelle Rodriguez):

This is going to be an important scene in the film; why? The race takes place in London.

And a clip of the fight scene in the subway:

We know when Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) finds Dom that--even though it appears he has the perfect life now--something is missing. Of all the things Dom's crew could ask for from Hobbs for their help, they ask for full pardons, and in our minds as the viewers and recipients of this story, we have to connect Lettie's re-appearance with this pardon to fill in what is missing in Dom's life for him to risk losing what he has for what he doesn't have. Part of the conflict--at least in my mind--is the role the cop from Brazil Elena (Fast Five) will play especially since Dom has found Lettie again, although that doesn't automatically mean Dom and Lettie end back up together, especially since we all ready know Fast & Furious 7 is in the works.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Iron Man 3: What To Look For

2013-05-03T11:25:00.001-05:00

Remember, there is a post-credits scene that is actually important for us (so tell your friends to stay and don't let them walk out early!). Tony will be on a couch, talking about certain experiences in the film to Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) who wakes up and tells Tony he's "not that kind of doctor," and then goes back to sleep. The exact moment Tony describes to Banner (or at least thinks he is) is the moment we should consult for understanding Tony and the film because that's what Tony is seeing as the most important thing that has happened in this adventure. Remember, if the film is doing psychoanalysis, it wants us to do psychoanalysis, and one of the issues in the film assuring us of that is that Tony can't sleep. If you are interested, the entire plot synopsis is here if you want the spoilers. I prefer to know what is going to happen because I catch details better, but you may prefer the surprise.

In Iron Man 2, we learned that Tony didn't like to be handed things, and it carried over to The Avengers; is that still a trait in Iron Man 3? Has Tony finally become secure enough with himself and what he can do that he has overcome his psychological tick? "Heroes, there is no such thing," the Mandarin tells the world, and, to socialists (I am not saying the Mandarin symbolizes socialism, however, this is a position we have come to know) heroes don't exist because they stand out from the crowd and that's bad because heroes pose a threat to the Socialist Party so they have to be hauled off to the Gulag or just flat-out killed.

Not being able to sleep is quite serious because if we aren't sleeping, we can't dream and this has physiological consequences as well as emotional. One of the traits of schizophrenics is that they don't have dreams the way most people do. On at least some level, we can apply this emotional break-down to Tony; the good thing, however, is in one of the clips we have seen when Tony talks to Pepper about getting up at night to go to his work shop to "tinker." Instead of just dreaming--we can apply a play on words--Tony is doing, and not just fantasizing about things to build, but building them. The film will sort all this out for us, but we should pay attention to when Tony does sleep and when he does not, if he has any dreams or if it is possible that Tony falls asleep and everything in the rest of the film is a dream.... or a nightmare.
But let's talk about Pepper.

It seems that Pepper wears a lot of white, at least from what we have seen so far. The color she wears and when she's wearing it will be a key to understanding what transformations her own character goes through. Something else I have also noticed is the bright red lipstick she wears when her and Tony talk about New York (she wears a white business suit). We know that red is the color of love or the appetites, and that it's on her mouth specifically refers to her appetites, the question is, when her character is in the white suit (either as a show of her faith or innocence, or that her faith is dead) what appetite does she express in that scene? Are her words a true statement of her love for Tony, even though they might be harsh? Or, does she use her words to tear Tony down to build herself up? Remember, she thought she could run Stark Industries better than Tony in Iron Man 2 (well, all of us probably thought we could run Stark Industries better than Tony, and its to Pepper's credit that she humbly confessed she couldn't. This poster, however, probably communicates exactly what we are looking for: the Iron Man helmet is "defaced" with the crack. Psychologically, this could be a key component of understanding Tony Stark psychologically because the face is a special part of our identity, and for the helmet to be torn might refer to Tony himself being torn over who he is and what he is (is he only great because of the suit or is he great and hence he was capable of making the suit?). We pretty much know Tony will undergo this kind of a self-crisis, one, because it's natural to people to undergo at various stages of our lives and two, because of the overwhelming events Tony has experienced (he fought the god of thunder [Thor] in The Avengers and probably would have won, or at least continued to hold his own, so that has got to do something to the ego).

We shouldn't be surprised that Pepper gets into her own Iron Man suit; not because she gets angry enough to suit up, but because the suit is a uniform, it's a visible statement about what the person in the uniform believes (that's why corrupt police shows are always so scandalous: the person wearing that uniform should be the symbol of justice because the uniform is the tangible expression of the law). What is most important about Pepper, and her relationship with Tony, is that Pepper symbolizes the working class (the white-collar working class, granted, but Pepper still works) and she is the beloved of billionaire Tony Stark and she loves the owner of the company where she is employed; such a love relationship strongly establishes the relationship of business owners (Stark) and employees (Pepper). What happens with Pepper and Tony is meant to communicate to us, vividly, what has happened regarding the upper-class and working class.
What about the Mandarin?

What a motley assemble! Given that director Shane Black wanted an "Uber Terrorist" to threaten Tony Stark and America, it's not surprising that we see so many iconic elements of the very things threatening the freedom of America. There is the ancient, Chinese robe, the cameo pants modern socialist guerrillas wear, the mythic ten rings (more on that below) and modern, expensive sunglasses worthy of Muammar Gaddafi (no telling what else we haven't seen yet). What we do know is the Mandarin is highly image conscious and there would be a reason for that: in today's world, image is everything, regardless of how many people you have or have not killed, and getting followers to your cause--to some--is merely a matter of image (consider, for example, how the liberal media protects the image of Obama from any sign of tarnish or fault for things that go wrong). Any villain you might think of while watching the Mandarin is probably meant to invoke that villain; for example, someone wrote that the Mandarin was impersonating the Joker when he says, "You'll never see me coming."

First of all, what is "Mandarin?"
The most widely spoken language in the world, it is the official language of China and Taiwan. Why have Tony Stark's great enemy be called after the most popular language in the world? Well, it's probably because the things he will say in the film, the sentiments he will express in hating America and billionaires like Stark is that those ideas are the most widely held ideas in the world, that pretty much everyone hates America today. Do you remember what we discussed regarding Victoria and Julia in Oblivion? That the film seems to be suggesting our real mate is the Russians, not the British? Keep that in mind when something is revealed about the Mandarin. I certainly wasn't expecting it.

There are two Downtown Abbey scenes invoked in Iron Man 3; this is another perfect example of the implied and unimplied reader. Because the film makers are big fans of the show, they carefully selected the scenes that would be playing in the background when certain events are taking place. Never having seen a single episode of Downtown Abbey, I qualify as the unimplied viewer because I have no knowledge I am bringing with me to the scene upon which I can draw references in further engaging with Iron Man 3; if you are a fan of the series, you are the implied reader, you have the knowledge base the film makers want to access to aide you in watching Iron Man and reward your devotion to the series with recognizing your favorite characters outside of the regular series. "Tom Branson (Allen Leech) is seen professing love to his dear Lady Sybil (Jessica Brown-Findlay) not once but twice," while Iron Man's Happy Hogan watches TV; why? both Hogan and Branson were chauffeurs (in Iron Man 3, Happy Hogan is promoted to Stark's security chief). You can read the entire article at this link for more; I would deeply appreciate fans of the series to email me with their interpretations as to why the specific scenes included (they are detailed in the link above) are where they are in the film and what you think they mean (the link above offers an interpretation).

The film takes place around Christmas; of course, being a religious holiday, that's going to play a role in the film (we have all ready seen the Christmas tree get butchered in the shoot-out in Gangster Squad, and Bradley Cooper's character reading For Whom the Bells Toll beside a Christmas tree in Silver Linings Playbook). Another important detail is there is a dragon somewhere in the film (perhaps just an image on a wall like behind the Mandarin's head in the poster above). Where else have we seen a dragon lately? The Hobbit. Smaug the dragon makes an appearance in the first and second installments of The Hobbit so that will be a motif we need to keep track of. If, at any time during the film, you have seen something that reminds you of something, that's probably because it's meant to. Take this scene, for example:

There are a number of times I have seen this example of "team work" at work: Snow White and the Huntsman, all the dwarfs jump on the rope to lift the main gate of Ravenna's castle; in The Dark Knight Rises, Commissioner Gordon and others victimized by the show trial, have to walk across the ice but, by spreading out, they avoid falling in to their deaths; In Oz the Great and Powerful, one of the group has gone too far on a cliff and the rest of the group struggle to keep them from falling. Keep that in mind. And last but not least, have fun! This is probably the biggest film of the year and I do hope you will enjoy it! I will be posting on Twitter after I get out of the theater, then getting the post up asap but it will probably be tomorrow before it's done but I will put all my effort into it!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

White House Down Trailer #2 & The Conjuring Intl Trailer

2013-05-03T09:09:00.000-05:00

Still, there is no villain, there is no conflict they are willing to own up to.
As we have been discussing, the villain Stenz is played by a white male, and it's white people they want to see the film, so they are not going to risk alienating their biggest base of movie-goers until after they have bought their ticket. "Help is not coming,"" I wonder if they told the hostages at Benghazi that. I wonder if anyone told the film makers that no one is getting to tour the White House anymore because of the Obama-enforced sequester? That's going to make the film look back because, when people see the passes, they are immediately going to think of that, oh, wait, if you are Muslim, you do get a tour of the White House, so it will be interesting to see if Channing Tatum's character is Muslim or the film was made at a time when Americans had access to the White House unlike now.
An interesting nugget of info has become available on the summer release for The Conjuring. It's not so much a horror story, as I am understanding it right now, rather, a biography on the investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren (and Lorraine is still alive). The UK trailer for The Conjuring:

There are a couple of things in this new one we should note. First, when they are driving, it appears there is a rosary hanging on their rear view mirror; this is not uncommon among Catholics and the interview/consultation with the priest at 1:04 (Ed, in real life--I don't know if this will be part of the film or not--was a demonologist, who studied demons and their powers). They are doing the initial interview with the Perron family--the owners of the house--in the kitchen (if I was meeting someone for the first time in my home, I would probably "entertain them" in the living room, just to say) so the kitchen is perhaps a indication of the appetites being at work ("The truth will consume you" the title card says; additionally, we see Lorraine falling into the basement which indicates the primal appetites) or--because the kitchen is the traditional "place" of the woman (women traditionally do the cooking in the home), it might indicate the role of women in the narrative (Lorraine is in a non-traditional role as a medium, for example).

This scene is loaded. First, anytime there is a mirror, window or glass in general, it invokes the active principle of meditating or self-reflection to achieve self-awareness. The little girl tells Lorraine in the trailer to look in the mirror and when the music is done, she will see "her" standing behind her; the music ends and Lorraine looks behind her and there's nothing, ugh! "She" is standing in front of Lorraine! Generally, I think we can say that "behind" Lorraine would be indicative of the past (that which is behind us) but "her" standing in front of Lorraine might refer to that which is in the future, still to come or encounter. Lorraine's shirt with all the ruffles is out of place, even for the 1970s: it's almost Elizabethan in it's high neck (experts in costumes might want to aide me on this) but it's a strange shirt and even a strange color. In this light, it looks blue but it might be lavender; what does blue communicate to us? It is both the color of wisdom and the color of suffering, and we know from another trailer that Ed (her husband) says she loses a bit of herself every time she does an investigation, so that self-loss would refer to the suffering (perhaps being communicated to us by the blue shirt) but also the wisdom she has gained by doing this because she can tell the family what no one else can tell them.

November 1, 1971: the date the first interview is being done places us, once again, in the 1970s; what will be really important is when the deaths happened (or the event, time frame in which the spirits haunting the house) occurred, because the film will be making the connection that (just for an example) if they want to blame events during the Civil War for what happened in the 1970s--like with Civil Rights--what happened to create the ghosts haunting and threatening the family back then has created the situation in which we are living today; further, they aren't real.y talking about the 1970s, they are talking about us as the family (symbolic of America) being haunted by something and that something which is very "hateful."

On the far left is the poster for Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas; please note the curling of the cliff highlighted by the moon in the center of the poster and how that is similar to the shadow cast on Lorraine's face as she looks in the mirror in the image above (this is just a comparison). The second image on the left is the tree of the dead from Tim Burton's The Legend Of Sleepy Hollow; please note the similarity to the tree in The Conjuring poster beside it: the barrenness of the branches and the unnatural leaning of the two as if there was a great weight causing it to grow in a crooked manner. Also at the bottom of The Conjuring poster is in the bottom, right-hand corner, there is a shadow of a person wearing a gown in the dead leaves (it's difficult to see). With the "colonial style farm house in the background, and the fog over the property, the clouds hanging in the sky get a bit lost, but there are thunder clouds in the sky indicating a storm (a symbolic storm, of course). Now, the last poster for The Conjuring on the far right is an image we have just seen in Oblivion when--just like Carolyn Perron in the poster above--Malcolm Beech (Morgan Freeman) is in the dark and lights a match so Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) can see, then he blows it out. Why is the recurring lighted-match theme important? The subtitle of the new Hunger Games films is Catching Fire, and while the recurring image of a lighted match might not have anything to do with it, it's something to keep on the back burner.

"Look what she made me do," I have no idea to what that refers, but it at least suggests that will power was over-ridden, which is an inter-personal crime: free will is a gift from God every person has; when we force someone to do something, we negate their humanity as the children of God by negating that free will (animals, for example, do not have free will, but instincts controlled and compelled by their appetites, but we have the power to over-ride our appetites).

It would appear, by the unfinished walls, the wooden shelves and the randomly stacked chairs beside Ed, that they are in the basement. Ed has a Cross around his neck and the book in his hand may be a prayer book containing exorcism prayers but what is most interesting is that his shirt is untucked and hanging out below his sweater vest. I don't know a whole lot about the styles of the 1970s, but that seems to suggest that Ed is coming apart. Looking at Lorraine, her hair is down (whereas it was up earlier) and we know hair symbolizes the thoughts, so when Lorraine's first at the Perron home, her hair is up because she is disciplining her thoughts and being objective about what she is hearing and seeing; in this scene, her hair being down, communicates that--like her hair--Lorraine has let go of her thoughts and she is thinking wild things, she can't keep the cool, objective demeanor up anymore; it's possible the same ideas apply to how Ed's shirt is being worn.

Short but imperative.
In the newest Man Of Steel spot for TV, the discussion is on choice, "society" deciding instead of the individual; why would this come up? In American society, don't we get to decide for ourselves what we want to be and do (it doesn't always work out, but we have freedom to decide and pursue our dreams)? In socialist societies, you don't decide, the government decides based on your skills, talents and intelligence. This is a point of conflict with the trailer above for White House Down, it makes it sound like whatever job you want, regardless of how unqualified you are, you get to do that; that's why this statement is important, it re-establishes the idea of standards to live up to, not standards to be brought down to the level where everyone can reach them:

Oh, this looks bad!
Remember, please, that the word "perverse" literally means "upside down," so when, for example, a person participates in child pornography, we say they are a pervert because a child who is innocent is being used for base sexual pleasure (innocence has been turned upside-down to sexual pleasure). What happens in the clip below? The USS Enterprise is turned upside-down so this is something to focus on in the upcoming film: what has been perverted to cause this?

Oh, this looks funny! Kirk complains about Uhura's boyfriend Spock. Not knowing what part of the film's narrative this takes place in (before or after his being trapped in the volcano) does, however, provide us with a insight into Spock's character development at this point in the franchise:

I am finishing up the notes on what to be looking for in Iron Man 3 right now, and will get those posted before going to see it this afternoon!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Walking With Dinosaurs, Clips Star Trek Into Darkness, F & F 6, Red In Fear Hatchet III, Pacific Rim, Clip The Great Gatsby

2013-05-02T13:18:00.000-05:00

My next post is on Pain and Gain, then tomorrow afternoon, I will be makeing a quick post on details we should be looking for while watching Iron Man 3 (it's nearly done but they keep releasing so many clips I wanted to make sure I have it all!). Since I am seeing it Friday afternoon, I will be tweeting my initial response to the film and then working like mad to get the full review up asap, but--if the film is any good at all--it might be Saturday morning before I get it up; you know how things go with me,...

I have my ticket to see Iron Man 3 in 3D tomorrow afternoon; I saw Pain and Gain last night and, let me tell you, director Michael Bay knows how to make a political statement! Bay utilizes a number of editing techniquest to enhance his communication with the audience and extend his invitation to us to do the same to the film, so I am deeply impressed! And it was outrageous! At one point, the film stops and a note comes on the screen that says, "This is still a true story!" because it's so unbelievable, however, it's set during the Clinton administration, so the prolific self-entitlement introduced to this country during that time frame is the "black hole" which began the problems overwhelming us today.
And happy birthday to Dwayne Johnson today!

I saw The Croods. Sometimes I am wrong about films, and I really try to confess when I am wrong about something, it does not bother me in the least to admit that I was wrong; then again, sometimes I am right, and when it comes to somethings, like pre-judging The Croods, I wish I had been wrong: the film was so over-whelmingly pro-socialist and anti-American that I wanted to leave the theater I was so angry about the mockery of the US Constitution and captialists. That review is coming. I also saw Butter, with Jennifer Gardner, and that was so insulting about patriotism in America and the middle-class, I couldn't even watch more than 15 minutes, which is highly unusual for me.

The second trailer for White House Down was supposed to be released this week, but as of this morning, it still hasn't. That seems like a dumb idea to release it during the frenzy record-breaking week of Iron Man 3 being released, but I will post it asap; if you see it before I get it posted, remember, what we are looking for is them showing us who their villain is. We know it's the highly talented Jason Clarke who plays Stenz, the leader of a paramilitary group; the problem is, WHD seems to be targeting the very population they want the to pay to see the film: white Americans. Nothing has been released about the motivation of the paramilitary group blowing up all Washington, but we will stay up on it because this debut will reveal volumes about the real attitude of Americans today.

On to the trailers,...
I hadn't heard anything about this film coming out until today when the first official trailer was released: Walking With Dinosaurs, due out December 20, is about two brothers wanting to follow in their father's footsteps which leads to a showdown with other dinosaurs in a migration to the Arctic North:

We've seen this before in both The Croods and Ice Age 4: Continental Drift. The world is ending (a prevalent theme in films nowadays) and we have to go to a "new place" in order to survive; like Riddick coming out later this year (Vin Diesl), the little dinosaur we see is having to fight for his survival and, apparently, becoming stronger for it. It's too early to tell exactly how the film will go, however, as we saw in Beasts Of the Southern Wild, it appears that a positive aspect of suffering--in relationship to personal growth and strength--is being highlighted in the difficulties of the journey being undertaken so I hope this is a film we can look forward to. But the film I am looking forward to, perhaps more than any other this whole year, is Star Trek Into Darkness. I don't think actors generally do a effective job of communicating about their characters in interviews, yet Zoe Saldana relates a few important tidbits in this tidbit:

So, the earth is facing complete annihilation, and it's this young generation (like critiques we have seen in Expendables 2 and Red Dawn) where the spoiled, luxury class brats--like myself--have to stand up to the threat and take responsibility; I am really liking this. This clip of Kirk confronting John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) is pretty intense and, I agree with a few others making the same observation, it's like this little conversation changes everything; watch Kirk's face the whole time and see if you notice something:

JJ Abrams is a fine director, and a scene like this proves it.
Kirk doesn't blink the entire time, his eyes are wide open and yet, he has still missed something. He is being led to look for the truth some place other than where he has been and we have seen this in both Total Recall and Oblivion, the truth is not in plain sight. We have all ready discussed the trend in films to place villains in clear cells (The Silence Of the Lambs, The Avengers, Skyfall) because it gives a sense of security to the captors that the captive isn't up to something; but just as in these other names films, the criminal is there because he wants to be there ("I surrendered to you," Harrison tells Kirk). To heighten the intensity of this scene, Abrams has us behind the glass, with Harrison, while Kirk talks, so--like Harrison--we feel the full intensity of Kirk's anger and frustration directed at us; this was the effective choice, instead of, for example, a close-up of Kirk during the scene. Then, we are flipped over to Kirk's side of the cell when Harrison speaks in this numeric code, and even though we see him, we suddenly realize how much we are not seeing.

It's in Fast and Furious from 2009 that Leticia (Michelle Rodriguez) dies, so that is the one to watch, along with Fast Five (which I have seen and was good), where Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is introduced. Fast and Furious 7 all ready has a release date for next year, so it''s worth the investment of time to see these because it's going to keep going.

This is the second and final trailer before Fast and Furious 6 is released at the end of the month; we have all ready seen most of this material, however, please watch the very last seconds:

The purpose of art is to make the intangible, tangible. Thoughts, ideas, emotions, psychology, can all become an image we can see and interact with that--if not for art--we couldn't identify with. Dom jumping off and Lettie falling off might be an illustration of how far Lettie has fallen in Dom's eyes and the leap of faith he is willing to take to save her. But we will have to see.
So, the second trailer for Red #2 has been released and we will discuss it at greater length later, but you remember our little discussion regarding the relationship between the US and Great Britain and Russia? It appears this topic is what the entire film will be about:

Just some quickies: In Fear appears to completely take place in a car during a trip:

And Hatchet III, about the man who just won't die:

I am actually anticipating this film; what I have seen so far appears to take the best principles of capitalism and put them into gear:

And the latest clip from The Great Gatsby being released next Friday:

If that doesn't say class warfare, I don't know what does.
In tidbits, a sequel to Daniel Radcliffe's The Woman In Black has been approved and will have Tom Harper (who has done mostly TV work) directing The Woman In Black: The Angel Of Death. The film earned $130 million worldwide, nearly eight times what its budget was and is currently set for (at least a UK) release of 2014. Jeremy Irvine and Phoebe Fox have been signed to star at this point.

A bit of concept art for The Angel Of Death.

The official synopsis runs: Seized by the government and converted into a military mental hospital during World War II, the sudden arrival of disturbed soldiers to Eel Marsh House has awakened its darkest inhabitant. Eve, a beautiful young nurse, is sent to the house to care for the patients but soon realizes she must save them from more than their own demons. Despite Eve’s efforts to stop her, one by one they fall victim to the Woman in Black (but children who have been evacuated from London and heavily bombed areas are also going to be at the house, at least, at this point in the film's narrative).
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

No More Business: Gangster Squad & the Police State

2013-05-01T11:24:00.000-05:00

Being as behind as I am in posts, you might wonder why I should stop and take time to get this one up; the answer is simple: it is so vehemently anti-capitalist that we need its reference to keep track of the debate we are following. During its opening weekend, it managed to bring in only $16.7 million. Why? Whether articulated or not, it's very possible (and probable) that Americans are saying no to Hollywood's liberal agenda. 2012 was a record year for Tinsel Town, but there were largely pro-capitalist films bringing in the biggest grosses (The Avengers, Skyfall, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hobbit, Les Miserables, Brave, The Amazing Spider Man, Madagascar 3 and Men In Black III). There is really no reason why Gangster Squad should have had such a lousy opening except that it did and the obvious anti-capitalist tendencies might be the direct cause.

"No names. No badges. No mercy." In some ways--and this is important to articulate--we can sympathize with a vigilante group taking the law into its own hands because it seems carrying out justice is so difficult nowadays. But this frustration is exactly the kind of opportunity socialists exploit for their own ends. Case in point: marital law was actually declared in Boston as police went from house to house searching for the bombing suspects. Gangster Squad would be better titled Police State, because if you haven;t gotten that feeling of due process being violated consistently throughout the film, you certainly have by the end. "No names, no badges, no mercy," could have been the motto of the KGB. It's not a point to be missed that the squad hit Cohen at the Club Figaro; why? The Marriage of Figaro is, as Napoleon himself declared it, "The revolution all ready put into action." Given that Mickey Cohen is talking about his Manifest Destiny and the Golden Spike, we have a clear image of the "evils" of capitalism and how to get rid of them: burn it all.

At the end of the film, two important things have happened: first, the two members of the squad who had been "the best" in their fields at what they did, die (Conway Keeler the wire-tapper and legend Max Kennard). Secondly, Chief Parker (Nick Nolte) addresses Sgt. John O'Mara's group (Josh Brolin) by calling them "Comrades." Now, in 1949, at the end of World War II, no one in their right mind would have called a fellow American "comrade" because in 1950 the famous red witch hunt began under Senator Joseph McCarthy. Let's discuss Mickey Cohen first, then we will turn out attention to the "hero," O'Mara.

Cohen was a boxer; why? Gangster Squad wants to pervert the American ideal of the person who has "fought their way up" to the top. By showing Cohen as a violent, irrational and unsophisticated man, they attempt to depict all business owners as such, and these are exactly the same techniques we will see again in The Great Gatsby. "That wasn't a murder," Cohen tells a business associate, "that was progress." I'm not definite, but I expect we will be seeing this exact same kind of position in The Lone Ranger. Cohen says that Manifest Destiny wasn't about a new start for all people, it's "take what you can, as much as you can," and that is the broad stroke by which socialists are dismantling capitalism in America. Specifically, Cohen's "robbing the palace theater with a baseball bat" is supposed to, once again, invoke the metaphor of capitalism and baseball and accuse film makers of "robbing" the art of film making for the sole purpose of making money, which is why LA is "losing its soul," according to the film. A clever way they do this is by having Cohen wear clothes too big for him, that Cohen doesn't measure up to what he should be.

"The children of the night, what music they make," Cohen says as he proceeds to order a rival drawn and quartered while wild wolves wait to eat the victim. We have discussed how socialists present capitalists as vampires, including Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, Dark Shadows, Hotel Transylvania, Stoker and Mama (the ghost of Mama acts like a vampire, sucking the life out of Annabelle). It's not just that these are films about vampires, but they symbolize capitalists being vampires, so for Cohen the businessman to quote Dracula (Bela Lugosi), is like the film makers decoding his character for us. But it's not just businessmen like Mickey Cohen; when Jerry (Ryan Gosling) hears Mickey Cohen's name, he sarcastically replies, "Mickey Mouse?" and--as we saw in Lawless including all companies and corporations in with the Bondurants' illegal activities--even Walt Disney pictures is considered to be on par with the murderous monster Mickey Cohen.

Grace Faraday (Emma Stone) is a perfect example of socialist hypocrisy. Just like the do-nothing princess Isabelle in Jack and the Giant Slayer, socialists promise women greater equality and more power, but don't actually deliver or depict women actually doing anything important; Grace doesn't do anything except sleep around like a whore. Her character wanted to be a movie star so she came to Hollywood, like the "Milk Skinned Blond" at the start of the film, and both women are attacked by men-turned-wolves instead. Instead of a few individuals taking the blame for their own behavior (the men attacking the girl) socialists blame the behavior of individuals on the system of capitalism (again, this is a demonstration of taking our free will away from us to blame the system so we want to blame the system and then have to believe them when they tell us we don't have free will because we sacrificed it to avoid paying the consequences for our actions). Most importantly, this is supposed to debunk the American Dream, that if you work hard and stick with your goals, eventually, it will pay off (we saw this in Rock Of Ages and even The Amazing Burt Wonderstone). When Grace meets with Jerry after Mickey has finally figured out she's cheating on him, he sends two of his guys to throw acid on her face, thereby trying to "deface her." There is an additional facet of the Grace's and Mickey's relationship we will discuss below, but even the "working partnership" between husband and wife O'Mara and Connie is a traditional, husband and wife and not the socialist paradise feminists are falling for. Connie helps O'Mara pick out a team, but, big deal, she's still at home barefoot and pregnant and alone, being sent out of town when things get really tough; is that what feminists are pushing for? After all, feminists always thrown in their lot with socialists because the rely upon the government taking control of all material resources and then re-distributing them "evenly" and "fairly" without bias towards men and thereby they achieve equality. Grace and Connie don't even come close to resembling independent, capable women that feminists would champion and that's because socialists don't value feminists except as votes.

The second punch taken at Cohen is punching itself: he was a boxer, in more ways than one, and having worked his way up in life, he symbolizes everything socialists hate about competition, inside and outside of the ring. Capitalists admire someone willing to fight for what they believe and work their way up; socialists don't, and Mickey Cohen's character--with his lack of manners and taste for the finer things in life--all work to undermine the "virtues" of capitalism in general and business owners specifically; how? There is not even one positive image of a business owner in the film, every single business is somehow manipulated or owned by Cohen's business; why? Socialists believe (as we saw in Lawless) that all business is illegal if it is not directly owned by the employees (the proletariat), which leads us to our next point: biting the hand that feeds you.

No one dies in a work of art unless they are all ready dead. Why does the legend Max Kennard and wire tapping expert Conway Keeler die? Because in a socialist society, the very best have to die. Socialism is the rule of the majority and the majority is the mediocrity, if someone excels at something, there is too great of a chance they will use their skills or talents to advance and become an "unnatural ruler" over others who don't have their skill set. In every socialist revolution, it's always the smartest and most talented killed of by the socialists because there are far more mediocrities in the world and appealing to them--socialists believe--will keep them in power. There is another edge to this socialists don't advertise in their platforms but which plays an important part in their rise to power and how they keep power: envy. Socialists play off the middle and lower classes greed to target the upper-class' wealth through taxation, but they also play off a feeling of envy for those with greater talents: if Max Kennard dies, you can take his place and be the next legend, because he won't be there to stand in your way and you can have his place (this is why affirmative action always plays such a key part in the Democrats' public policy making)! This works to the socialists' advantage in two ways: one, the mediocrity feels loyalty to the Party for elevating them in society and, secondly, it removes real threats to the Party's security. If there aren't all these disenfranchised talents running around, trying to get the societal order back that favors them, there aren't any threats to the Party's power base. Films such as Gangster Squad hope to achieve two things: first, to sway viewers to believe their philosophy and, secondly, to accustom the public to "purges" of talent and skill from the ranks of society so, when they start doing it, it won't be so shocking, we have all ready grown used to it. That is why it is the minority Navidad who takes Kennard's place: "Navidad" means "Christmas," but instead of the Christmas of new life Christ's birth means--and the gifts of talents God gives to each of us--socialists want minorities and the mediocre to see that socialists will give you a new Christmas, a new Navidad of self-respect and position. That's why, in the shoot-out when O'Mara tries arresting Cohen, they are shooting at each other butchering the Christmas tree between them: socialists see Christmas as only a "money making opportunity" for capitalists, while capitalists see socialists removing the religious purpose of Jesus from Christmas because socialism does not tolerate religion. There is also the way capitalists and socialists fight over Mexicans--mentioned numerous times in the film--because of Navidad (the character).

Grace (Emma Stone) serves two roles in the film: first, she shows how--according to socialists--the American Dream is only a myth (her and the "Milk Skinned Blond" from the opening sequence both go to Hollywood to make their dreams come true and instead are beset upon by men preying upon them, including Mickey Cohen). Secondly, O'Mara can't convict Mickey Cohen because no one working for him will testify against him because they are not going to destroy the big boss who gives them a job; socialists see this as the dominant reason why revolution doesn't happen in a society (they think all societies naturally want to be socialist unless the evil capitalists have such a strong hold on the workers that no one will want to go a while without a paycheck after the revolution, so they just go on muddling through with the evil capitalism brings because it's better than having to suffer. Grace, after seeing Cohen kill Jack Whalen (Sullivan Stapelton) is willing to testify against Cohen. Even though Cohen has been supporting Grace (as capitalists support workers) the relationship she hopes to have with Jerry Wooters (Ryan Gosling) is more of an impetus to turn on Cohen than stay with him, which leads us to the importance of socialists recruiting Hollywood stars to begin with.

Especially at the start of the film, there is an intentional effort to make John O'Mara (Brolin) into a "new" or "real" Captain America. The film starts in 1949, just at the end of World War II, which is mentioned numerous times, and O'Mara keeps saying how they went to fight this war and when they came back, they didn't even recognize America; probably because there weren't soup lines or unemployment lines anymore, people were in jobs again and had money to do what they wanted instead of waiting for the government to hand money to them like under Franklin D. Roosevelt (when America could have really become socialist). America was a super-power at the end of World War II, and that's what the real Captain America symbolizes, and that's what O'Mara doesn't recognize, America as a world leader; O'Mara argues that they went to fight socialism over seas, and then came home to be shocked that America wasn't socialist herself, and--like The Hunger Games--argues that America naturally would have become socialist if it hadn't been for World War II. Why does Connie have the baby in the bathtub when the gangsters come and attack the house? The violence from capitalists will "give birth" to a new future that will be cleansed (the tub) of the violence of the past.

What socialists need to sell socialism to America are those--like Grace--who "turn on" their bosses or, like Jack in Jack the Giant Slayer, have attained to the ultimate position in society and then turn it down because they don't believe in class mobility, they believe in socialism; the problem is, even in the films it doesn't work like that. By having Hollywood elite (and we won't name any names) bash capitalism and the American Dream, it creates a strong propaganda that fulfilling your dream really isn't worth it and probably won't come true anyway. Why on earth would ****, who has made so much money making great films, want to go socialist unless capitalism really is bad,...? So, in line with traditional Democrat tactics, Gangster Squad appeals to women like Grace and minorities like Navidad, and promise them, that by overthrowing the majority of white men in power, they will make their dreams come true.

"The penalty for poaching the king's deer," Whalen tells Wooster is a permanent vacation, referring to Wooster wanting to have Grace for himself, meaning, capitalists view women as property, not human beings... which is typical of socialists' accusations just as capitalists accuse socialists of treating people like livestock devoid of souls.

At the end of the film, seeing the police who have been elevated as a result fo the events makes it seem like a "police state" (all ready experienced in Boston) is a good idea after all, I mean, didn't the Soviets love it? Having police all over the place will make sure men like Cohen don't exist anymore, and all will become virtuous and happy,... so the film promises. Just as they accuse Cohen of "pledging alleigance to his own will power," the film hopes the Pledge Of Allegiance will be seen as a vehicle of capitalist greed and will be done away. Gangster Squad articulates many socialist concepts, both those we have been seeing all ready, and some new ones; as the debate continues, we are apt to refer to the film again (as with The Great Gatsby and it's class warfare). Like other fims advancing soicalist agendas, however, we also have to ask if it isn't revealing its own weaknesses: the sex role Grace plays--and not much else except being used by both sides rather than being active and controlling her own destiny, in accordance with Feminist assertions, and the image created of Navidad as well as the "purging" of skilled individuals like Max Kennard and Conway. We will be referring to the film in the future, so for that reason, I suggest you see it.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

We have all ready seen an image like this in the poster for The Hunger Games Catching Fire: some small people in front of an enormous monument to industry and capitalism (please see image analysis at this link for more). When looking at images, people naturally identify with people in an image, so the people in the image--"at the bottom"--are meant to draw our sympathy and not the inhuman monument behind them; we are being asked to make a choice, which side of the "war" are we on?

More Is Not More: Identity Thief & Big Government

2013-04-29T18:40:00.001-05:00

"Look at her, she looks like a hobbit. I'm going after Bilbo." Why would this comparison be made? In The Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins is a thief, hence the reason Gandalf chooses him to accompany them on their quest; Bilbo, however, steals back that which was stolen by the dragon Smaug (I know we haven't covered The Hobbit yet, but the act of stealing from the dragon illustrates the "recapturing" of what the devil stole from Adam and Eve when they committed Original Sin; more on this and the snake bite below). Diana (Melissa McCarthy) isn't Bilbo, Sandy the accountant (Jason Bateman) is Bilbo because he's trying to "take back what is rightfully his"; so, symbolically, who is Diana?
Big government.

We have mentioned the term "black hole" appearing more and more often: for example, in the upcoming Brad Pitt zombie drama World War Z, one character claims, "Russia is a black hole," and Disney films has committed to remaking it early 1980s sci-fi drama, The Black Hole. We have also discussed how the character of Mavis (Charlize Theron) in Young Adult is like a black hole, sucking up and using everything that comes in her path; similarly, we can say the same of Diana in Identity Thief, sucking everything up and leaving only destruction in her wake because it's through her astronomical bills and criminal record that she's tracked down by the police, Sandy and the drug dealers following her (next year's release Godzilla also shows us a monster leaving a massive wake of destruction across the country just like Diana). On a different note, why does Diana always punch people in the throat? Granted, it is a strategic, vulnerable place where a woman can maximize her advantage, however, the neck symbolizes how we are lead, the way a leash or a yoke can be put on us to guide or lead us in a certain way. Diana probably always goes for the jugular because she herself is so easily led by her appetites, she thinks everyone else is as well. What would stop a normal person (being punched in the throat) doesn't stop someone like Sandy who is driven by his morals and ideals. Additionally, Diana always seems to be "crashing," usually some kind of vehicle, but also emotionally (the emotional crashes we will discuss below) however, we can easily conclude that the vehicular crashes refer to "economic crashes" as in 2008, as well as the crashes between the American public over policies and the government over their lack of leadership.

A controversy was started when a critic made a shallow comment with regards to Ms. McCarthy's figure and weight; we have to ask objectively, however, with such an extensive pool of actresses to choose from, wouldn't there be a reason to go with McCarthy if size was an issue? In other words, isn't is fair to assume she was chosen because her size aides the audiences' understanding of who her character is? All we need to ask ourselves, then, is what is it in today's world that is "too big" and has an accountant as it's enemy?

Who else wears blue-and white checkers? Dorothy from The Wizard Of Oz. This might seem like a stretch, I won't deny it, however, are we to make the connection to the young, innocent, beloved Dorothy (who is from Kansas, and sunflowers--like the ones on Diana's shirt--are the state flower) who was symbolic of the US government preparing to go "over the ocean" to the battlefields of World War II where socialism was ravaging Europe, a comparison for how unlike Dorothy our government is today for espousing socialism? We could say that, whereas the American government waged war against socialism then, today, our socialist government is waging war against us (please see A Call To Arms: The Wizard Of Oz & World War II for more). If you will note in the background--and this isn't a fraction of everything she has, including the jet ski in her front yard that cost $4,300--just above her head, on the shelf, is two, unopened boxes of exactly the same thing, more unopened boxes stacked up behind her, a guitar she doesn't know how to play and just "stuff" all over the house. Just before this scene above, Diana stole Sandy's rental car; why is it a rental car? Because each of us is only "renting" the "vehicle" of the economy, we have to give it up to others and to the next generation (leaving the economy in good shape for the future Americans who will need to make their living from it). Diana, on the other hand, wrecks and disposes of everything without care, just like the government today with its outlandish spending (including Michelle Obama spending $10 million on vacations just in 3.5 years!) and bad programs, racking up the massive debt and attacking the Constitution.

When Sandy has tracked down Diana, she gives him the slip and steals his rental car and she goes through his luggage and randomly appropriate his toiletries for her own use. Please watch this clip, after Sandy has walked to Diana's house from where she left him on the road (Sandy found the registration with Diana's address on it in her car she wrecked after stealing his car); this scene provides a classic example of when there is more information in the background than the foreground action. A compulsive shopper, Diana has three of everything--at least--and all still in the boxes (the clip doesn't give a great view of how she has packed her house full, but it provides a glance):

Who else is so wasteful?
Who else buys more of what it needs, and fails to obtain what it does need? Who lies constantly, always giving us the "slip?" Who is consuming, consuming, consuming and running up a massive debt? Who is "too big?" There is only one answer to these questions: the government. The government's inefficiency and massive waste has, like Diana, racked up a now $17 trillion debt, we have lost our credit rating thanks to the Obama administration's failure to budget and its creation of programs such as free cell phones which has given the dead (as in, people who are buried and in their graves) their own cell phones costing at least $2.2 billion in 2012 alone. Why does the democrat/socialist government do things like this? Watch this clip, where Diana and Sandy are going back to Colorado and they have stopped on the road for dinner; please pay particular attention to the waitress:

Nearly every single thing out of Diana's mouth is a lie and she does it to get what she wants; specifically, she tells lies she thinks will play on the emotions of someone and, feeling sorry for her, they will give her what she wants, like the waitress in the clip above, who symbolizes you and me, the viewer, because we are supposed to feel as victimized as Sandy is because our identity has been stolen just like his: by the government. Diana making up stories about emotional abuse or communicating feelings of lack of self-worth stem from a culture of "entitlement" resulting in the creation of liberal entitlement programs which feed the downward spiral of people like Diana (there are people who genuinely benefit from assistance and deserve it, however, we all know there are people abusing the system and that is the point: people like Diana are bankrupting individuals by bankrupting the country, and the waitress in the clip doesn't do anything to help the problem.

There's another reason why Identity Thief would site The Hobbit: again, we haven't covered The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey yet, however, the film includes an entirely original scene of the wizards meeting to discuss Gandalf's fear that an old evil has risen anew and Saruman the White dismisses Gandalf's fears as unfounded; we know, however, that it's Saruman who--if not all ready at this point in the story, then shortly to follow--will fall victim to evil and turn from good to evil, so when Saruman speaks in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, we know this is a "dead man talking" because he has failed to heed the advice of Gandalf, either knowingly or unknowingly, and the good within him is dying as he gives himself over to evil. The scene reflects the growing portion of Americans reacting to the behavior of the government while those who support the government dismiss our concerns and agitation as petty. In Identity Thief, the outlandish behavior of Diana--symbolizing the government--validates the concerns of the growing socialism in the government and living at the expense of others, particularly the plans at wealth redistribution.

After Diana gets Sandy's credit card, what does she do? She parties at a bar. There have been numerous parties in films as of late, but what sets these recent party motifs apart from others is the outlandish nature of them and who has them. There is, for example, Project X, Spring Breakers, The Bling Ring, The Collection (at the night club they go to, and the same scene is in The Mortal Instruments: City Of Bones) and The Watch. In Identity Thief, a revealing conversation takes place after Diana has racked up a $2,000 bar bill buying drinks for everyone all night: as Diana makes a spectacle of herself getting drunk (we could interpret that as "drunk on power") someone asks someone else, "Who is she?" to which they reply, "Who cares?" When the bar tenders--acting like Sandy in this scene--cut her off, Diana mentions that all those people at the bar are her friends, to which the bar tender replies, "People like you don't have any friends," and the scene exposes the kind of strategy typical of the Democratic "Party" securing votes from people who they promise food stamps to, free health care and free cell phones in exchange for being put back in power.

A big deal is consistently made over "Sandy" being a (traditionally) female name so why does a man have it? Sandy reveals at some point that his parents were big ball fans and he was named after Sanford "Sandy" Koufax; why is this a big deal? Koufax was the youngest ball player ever inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, and the first major league player to pitch four no-hitter games, so Koufax was an excellent ball player, a legend; where else has baseball played an important role in a film lately? Brad Pitt's Moneyball, a perfect metaphor for the "game" of capitalism and how America makes it work. That Sandy is named after such an important and famous ball player (and time is taken to inform the audience about that connection) clearly indicates that we are to understand him as a symbol of baseball and competition (we'll expand this discussion below regarding his role in the new business his colleagues start up). Given this important bit of information, we can now understand another detail about Sandy's character. May 18, 1974. The date upon which a character is born usually refers to an event or circumstance which "gave birth" to a new understanding or condition that character symbolizes within the narrative. In Sandy's case, that day saw the completion of the Soviet-sponsored Warsaw radio mast which was the tallest land-based structure ever built (until 2010) but then collapsed. Remember, please, that the film specifically sites Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead when mentioned by Cornish who tells Sandy to look it up (although the way Cornish understands the principles are not what Rand wrote in the book, more on that below), and that means we are to consult it as well in understanding the framework of the film, so the anti-socialist framework of The Fountainhead is mirrored in Identity Thief, strengthening the likelihood that the collapse of the Warsaw radio mast is meant to remind us of how unsustainable socialism is and it never lasts.

Sandy, being an accountant whose family is struggling, is easy for us to identify with because those of us keeping "accounts" on what the government are doing, realize the government pretends to be acting in the name of "We the people," but are far from doing the will of the people in what it does and doesn't do, so, in this democracy, our own leaders have stolen our identity and are making us pay the bills for it. How can this be happening?
Bad capitalists.

Director Jon Favreau plays Sandy's boss Harold Cornish and provides us with the perfect example of what "bad capitalism" looks like. The painting behind Cornish's head is a perfect, graphic illustration: barrenness. The tree that doesn't bear fruit, the desolate landscape and the dark skies of a coming storm perfectly details the consequences of bosses who behave like Cornish. There is a part, just before the "set up" of robbing Cornish when, in the woods, Sandy is bitten on the neck by a snake (the same way Diana punches everyone in the throat). Given the setting is in the woods when it happens, and Diana has made an attempt to "come onto" Sandy, we can take this to be a "Garden Of Eden" moment with the same kind of consequences for Sandy as for Adam because, what follows is Sandy losing his status as a professional accountant and instead becoming a thief (the way the Forbidden Fruit was stolen from the Tree of Knowledge). That's why Sandy ends up wearing the shoes of a dead hobo, Sandy has sacrificed walking (the shoes) among the living--those employed--to be among the dead (the unemployed hobo) because he has been bitten by desperation to do what Diana has done, steal for what he needs. The dead hobo is an interesting introduction into the narrative, because usually a zombie bites someone and the newly dead person becomes a zombie (this includes the act of eating them), and we can see this in Sandy suspending his moral judgment to rob Cornish, that Sandy is the "walking dead" without his moral integrity to keep him alive. It's a plot device, commonly employed so an artist can show the viewer the digression from a state of (moral) well-being to a state of (moral) corruption and death. It warns viewers that it's not just "that character" or "those type" of people who can behave that way or commit a particular crime, it can happen to us as well.

Whether it's Bernie Madoff or the Lehmann Brothers, certain individuals who abused the system gave capitalism a bad enough name that revolutionaries felt 2008 was a good time to switch America over to socialism and Identity Thief certainly explores the role that greedy individuals like boss Harold Cornish contributed to ruining capitalism for everyone who was making it work. Giving himself and other senior management a $1.2 million bonus instead of the employees isn't good for the economy, it's not good for the business nor is it good for the ones getting the bonuses, and it's the brilliance of Identity Thief to categorize that accurately: for example, not giving the employees like Sandy a bonus when they need it so desperately decreases the employees' loyalty to the company (so he's willing to leave and start in the new company with co-workers), so the employees suffer from not getting the bonus, and the company Sandy works for suffers because it's losing its best employees who go off and start their own business which is exactly how good capitalism happens, the bad companies die and the good, hard-working employees get rewarded. But it's also not good for the ones getting the bonus because Sandy is then tempted to "take revenge" against Cornish and steal his identity, so Cornish made himself a target for revenge.

The suit Sandy wears in this clip is stolen so Sandy could appear to be Cornish and get his personal information and rob him. The neck has played a pivotal, symbolic role in the film, so the bright red tie leads us to ask the question, what is it "leading" Sandy at this point in the story? Red symbolizes either love--because we are willing to shed our (red) blood for the person we love--or anger, because we are willing to shed their blood to compensate for the wrong they have done us. Clearly, the anger at how Cornish treated Sandy leads him to steal from Cornish because Sandy repeats to the accountant trying to keep him from getting Cornish's records, the same thing Cornish said to Sandy when Sandy got upset about not getting the bonus. There is nothing in capitalism rewarding greed, or revenge and Identity Thief wants us to be clear on what successful capitalism is and why it's worth hanging onto.

Cornish's character doesn't make the film anti-capitalist because we see good capitalism taking place and benefiting the new company that is started from the disgruntled employees as well as the continued interest Sandy shows in helping Diana when she's in prison; Cornish's character does show how he ruins it for everyone: it's not his wealth that's the problem it's his attitude about his wealth that's problematic but, again, Sandy demonstrates the "good capitalism" in helping Diana to become self-sufficient once she's out of jail because the well-being of others is in all our own best interests.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

2013 Movie Guide Release Dates

2013-04-29T17:20:00.001-05:00

2013 MOVIE GUIDE

Here is a calendar with the release dates (as of now) for the rest of the year's films; there are still films not yet releasing information that will be coming out later in the summer (end of August-September) so this isn't a complete list, but definitely the most important films are here. Any titles you don't recognize? Just click on the link and it will take you to the entry for that title at Internet Movie Database and you can read up on plot details, see who is starring and discover trivia!

MAY

May 10 The Great Gatsby
May 17 Star Trek Into Darkness
May 24 The Hangover III
May 24 Fast & Furious 6
May 24 Epic
May 31 Now You See Me
May 31 After Earth
May 31 The East

Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy star in The Heat.

JUNE

June 7 The Purge
June 7 The Internship
June 7 Much Ado About Nothing
June 12 This Is the End
June 12 The Bling Ring
June 14 Man Of Steel
June 21 World War Z
June 21 Monsters University
June 28 The Heat
June 28 White House Down
June 28 Byzantium

From Despicable Me 2.

JULY

July 3 Despicable Me 2
July 3 The Lone Ranger
July 12 Pacific Rim
July 17 Turbo
July 19 The Conjuring
July 19 Red 2
July 19 RIPD
July 26 The Wolverine

AUGUST

August 2 300: Rise Of An Empire
August 7 Percy Jackson & the Olympians: Sea Of Monsters
August 9 Planes
August 19 Elysium
August 23 The Mortal Instruments: City Of Bones

Chris Hemsworth stars in Rush about Formula 1 racing.

SEPTEMBER

September 6 Riddick
September 20 Rush
September 27 Cloudy With A Chance For Meatballs 2

OCTOBER

October 18 Carrie

NOVEMBER

November 8 Thor the Dark World
November 22 The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
November 27 Frozen

The company of dwarfs from The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug.

DECEMBER

December 13 The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Once again, 7500 seems to be on the shelf with no definite release date; there are many more films than this being released this year, however, info is not available as of yet.

Emperor & American Swagger: the Persona Of the American Hero

2013-04-29T07:53:00.001-05:00

Emperor is a solid example of classic film making: from the cinematography to the acting, from the screenplay to the set decor, it is seamlessly flawless in every aspect; it might not be high up on the entertainment scale for many because it is for an implied audience of those who prefer drama and have a knowledge of history (although the film walks you through the events so, if you are wanting to learn more about WWII, this would be a great film to catch). When I first saw the trailer, I will not hesitate to confess, I was convinced the film would be anti-American and the "emperor" would be MacArthur (Tommy Lee Jones) and serve as a platform in the Obama agenda; I am most grateful to say, I was completely wrong. Consciously, the film starts walking us on that tightrope, letting us know that it knows what side it can take, but then backs away from it, reminding us of why we as a country did what we did and why it was the right thing to do. The main draw of the film for me, however, is the perfect portrayal of what an American hero is and isn't in its comparison of American soldiers to Japanese soldiers. The summer blockbuster season is about to begin, and with the greatest examples of leadership and heroism about to be served up to millions and millions worldwide, the question of what virtues make a hero are not merely academic, but necessary.

"America imperialism." Most Americans--myself included--detest that phrase, the idea of conquering another group of people and enforcing our will upon them is abhorrent because it goes against everything we stand for. Someone who believes America is an imperialist country--and there are an increasing number of people who do--would argue that Emperor does nothing more than re-enforce the American myth of World War II and the myth of American democracy that never existed to begin with because corporations in America are imperialist against American workers. General Bonner Fellers (Matthew Fox) plays the main character and is charged by MacArthur with the task of deciding whether or not the emperor was responsible for starting the war; as he researches, he talks to one of the Emperor's cabinet members and he reminds Fellers that all the lands Japan took during World War II, they didn't take from the native people of that country, because Britain and America had all ready taken it: "We were just following your excellent example," he concludes and the film wants you to know that it knows this, it is aware of the anti-American imperialist rhetoric circling in public debates and politics today. I could enter into a long discourse regarding this point but I won't. The point the film wants to make is America seeks to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people; even if we fall short of that at times, that's our purpose and our drive.

In history, General Douglas MacArthur is one of the military's most controversial figures, so he supplies a perfect example of the good, the bad and the ugly, in the concept of what comprises the "American hero." The heart of the film can be seen in this clip (which is decontextualized, so keep that in mind as you watch it):

The idea of "American swagger" is difficult to define, but we can summarize it in the idea of total self-confidence bordering on arrogance. Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pines) from Star Trek, Flint in GI Joe Retaliation, John Carter (Taylor Kitch), Kitai Raige (Jaden Smith) in the upcoming After Earth, Thor and, need we even mention, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) of Iron Man (among many others) all embody this persona of American swagger, and even rebelliousness, that make them American heroes; if you took this characterization away from them, would we still go see their films? AGAIN, this is not an academic exercise, because--heretofore--we have always had leaders in America that to at least some degree, would personify themselves with these characteristics, especially when America was under threat; that has changed with the Obama administration because nothing he does--from his constant appearing on talk shows and never-ending vacations, to his failure to defend this country from foreign attacks--is presidential nor American. I doubt any conservative would argue that Obama is arrogant, but he fails--intentionally--to be what an American hero is and all the films coming out this year are reminding Americans how a leader leads.

Some viewers have criticized the "love story" between General Fellers and the international Japanese student Aya Shimada (Eriko Hatsune) but, because their relationship illustrates so intimately the differences between the Japanese and American cultures, I consider it well played. In many ways, Japan is everything America is not, and those differences are "easy to fall in love with." Japan has an ancient history, all the people share the same heritage and DNA make-up, there is an incredible degree of discipline, endurance and honest humility in the Japanese, extending into their devotion to the emperor and the ability to completely over-ride their own person hood for a greater, national cause, among many other virtues.

Like General Fellers (Matthew Fox) we are disgusted with MacArthur having photos of himself taken all the time and using his role in Japan as a prop for his own presidential ambitions; clearly, we all know in the audience, this is not only a narcissistic vice, but even damnable behavior, yet it demonstrates the superior narrative techniques of the film makers to make an American hero disgusting, but still save him at the end, and make the mortal enemy in the Japanese emperor into a hero and martyr; this isn't easy to do, carrying the psychology of your audience on swinging tightropes and risk losing them with a single word or glance from a character, but that can be done because the film makers are confident in their ultimate subject: America. Arrogance and ambition are bound to happen in great American leaders: think of all Tony Stark's vices, and the risks Captain Kirk takes with the lives of his crew, or Thor's audacity Odin (Anthony Hopkins) punished. With the pursuit of great virtue, great vice is always a danger. That possible danger, however, does not outweigh the rewards of great virtue, but art such as Emperor reminds and critiques the pitfalls so we don't forget them.

Let's admit it: that pipe is ghastly. Why use it? Look at how MacArthur stands: his hands at his back and chest clearly exposed, he is totally vulnerable to being attacked by a sniper with no way of defending himself because he is unarmed and yet, he is not attacked and he shows no fear of being attacked. Isn't that the ultimate in confidence, not only confidence in yourself and confidence in your country, but confidence in the integrity of your foe to keep their word (this will be a point of conflict in Thor the Dark World regarding the relationship between Thor and Loki helping him). Just as MacArthur is a clear, easy target for a sniper, so his pipe is a clear easy target for caricature, but in giving his enemies such an easy target with which to attack him, the ease of the target (the ridiculous pipe) discourages criticism because it's so easy, it's so obvious, his "enemy" would look worse for making fun of the pipe than he does for smoking it; the pipe of Douglas MacArthur exhibits the ultimate in personal confidence because he has--in more ways than one--made himself an easy target which discourages all petty enemies (newspaper reporters and minor politicians) while rallying strong supporters to his side through his obvious and audacious display of self-respect in sporting such a ridiculous prop. We can further make the comparison to the emperor's own person: the Japanese prime minister gives MacArthur a long list of the do's and don'ts of meeting the emperor, and explains to Fellers how extraordinary the emperor's behavior was in directly addressing the war ministry when he recited the poem to them. Just as the emperor reciting the poem was opening him for disrespect among his generals and advisers, so MacArthur's pipe opens him up for disrespect among his advisers, however, those who themselves have self-respect recognize the lack of shallowness in MacArthur's actions (centering on the ghastly pipe) and those are the people MacArthur draws to him, those who--like himself--respect themselves and aren't taken in by shallow honors and displays of popularity. We should pause to mention an important hero in another Tommy Lee Jones film who does not fit this trend of rebellion and arrogance: Captain America. Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is pure through and through. While he's tough, he's also the perfect gentleman and never seems to step out of bounds like other heroes, which is probably why, in The Avenges, he and Tony Stark nearly duke it out with each other instead of the enemy: Steve sees men like Tony as an enemy to the American Dream and American nation. It will be intriguing to see what happens to Steve Rogers in Captain America the Winter Soldier and how--if at all--he sways in his purity (which I uphold completely, I think it's fabulous that Captain America is such a gentleman!) or attitude.

Before the war started, Fellers had to do a paper on the Japanese soldier, and Aya helps him with it by introducing him to her uncle who, is a general in the Japanese army, and he sites many of the virtues listed above in the caption as the reasons why Japan would be victorious and conquer anyone who stood in their way and never surrender; after the war, Fellers visits him again, and he is a broken, sad man, who regrets how the Japanese lost their humanity, committed terrible atrocities and lost the war. We don't see American soldiers fighting in the film to compare them, but what we do see is how Fellers composes himself and pursues the course of the best action for America to take in the post-war negotiations (the difference between justice and revenge). It is, without a doubt, Fellers' humanity, his heart, his human emotions that elevates him above others in the film and reminds viewers what makes the American soldier great in reality: our humanity.

When Fellers walks through Japan--starving and cold, on the brink of collapse--he does not rejoice, he does not think, this is what you get for starting a war--he laments the misery human beings are suffering and wants to alleviate that suffering as quickly as possible because he is compassionate. He sees people, not enemies, not sub-humans, but fellow men and women. When Aya and Fellers first meet, he expresses his admiration for her in making such a journey away from home to study in America all by herself, because he connects how difficult that would be for him to do, he bonds with her on this emotional and intellectual plane. But what does she say? She is too outspoken for a woman in Japan, but that's why Fellers loves her and respects her. What was a vice in Japan is a virtue in America, and when we see the trouble being brought on heroes like Captain Kirk, Tony Stark and Thor because of bad decisions, we will also see how they are able to counter-act the effects of their bad decisions with the same will and determination that might have led them to committing the mistake to begin with. Again, all these films serve us with serious examinations of why Americans are the way we are and why we value what we value, what makes a leader and the proper way to lead.

The very unpredictable, untameable and rebellious human heart, with all its problems and darkness, all its drama and stubbornness, is also the greatest source of virtue and heroism, courage and dignity. Because we know our own humanity, we never fail to see it in others, regardless of what they have done to us, and we always act appropriately even when anger and hatred threaten to bring us down (like with the Boston Bombing, or the manhunt in Zero Dark Thirty). Fellers' active appearance of pursuing the truth regarding Japan's war crimes is directed by his personal, hidden pursuit of discovering the fate of Aya. It's not, as one of the other officers suggests to MacArthur that Fellers' love for Aya weakens Fellers to make bad decisions, it's because of his love for her that he is strong enough to make the right decision, because our humanity is--with all its problems-- our greatest attribute as Americans, and that's why we won the war and why we became a defender of all people in the world because we strive to defend others as we defend ourselves.

There is a scene towards the end when Fellers must go to the emperor's palace and demand to see the Japanese prime minster immediately, which breaks all rules of decorum, but is necessary to close the investigation and make the decision of what will happen to the emperor. When Fellers and a few men, including his Japanese driver, arrive at the barricade to the emperor's palace, Fellers tells his driver/translator, in a most rough manner, that he demands to see the prime minister at that moment; the driver takes it upon himself to tone down the aggressiveness of Fellers' request and present him as a respectful visitor to the guards. The guards comply with the request and, when they tell him Fellers can see the prime minister, Fellers replies to them in Japanese so we know he could have made the hot-headed request himself but he didn't. Why have this scene? Why not just have Fellers ask in Japanese and get it over with? Because both approaches are correct and valid but one approach is more desirable. The Japanese cabinet was failing in the investigation and aggression became necessary because of their lack of willingness to put forth information; on the other hand, the driver's respect and courtesy was also the right approach because that is what gets results. The film makers do not want one strategy invalidated by another, but to demonstrate that both means were necessary to achieve the ends.

Yet, there is also another hero in this film: the Japanese emperor himself. The genius in writing this film lies in how the screen writer and director knew the audience--an informed audience about history and, specifically World War II (a film like this is a directed demographic to a specific type of viewer the same was as films like Project X and Spring Breakers are directed towards a specific demographic)--would assume, like the public at the time the film takes place, that the Japanese emperor was all-powerful and could have stopped the War if he had wanted to, and that he, like his generals, must have been blood-thirsty and wanted to conquer the world,.... knowing this concept is tucked away somewhere within the mind of the viewing audience, the film makers slowly and cautiously introduce the concept of an emperor against the war through small examples that grow to build up a radically different impression we would not have willingly accepted had the story come right out and told us the emperor was innocent; we had to be shown examples of his integrity just as the film shows us examples of American integrity, not to tell us we behaved honorably, but to show us we behaved honorably and compassionately.

Emperor provides a counter-balance to pro-socialist films trying to erase the American memory of why we are such a great country and why and how we became a super-power (The Great Gatsby, for example, will show, in the person of Jay Gatsby [Leonardo DiCaprio] how shallow and myth-making America's history has been and the great things we have done as a country weren't so great after all). When films like Total Recall and Oblivion base the center conflict of the identity of the main character on a loss of memory or amnesia (and we might see this with Lettie [Michelle Rodriguez] in Fast and Furious 6 because she supposedly has amnesia), it's a direct example of re-writing American history in order to indoctrinate us of what horrible people we are individually and as a country, as in Lawless, Django Unchained and Gangster Squad. A film like Emperor, therefore, fulfills an indispensable role in countering and reminding Americans and the world the reality of World War II and its aftermath, why certain decisions were made and the outcome.

When America saved the emperor, America also saved itself, and when America worked with the emperor and the Japanese people to rebuild Japan, we avoided becoming emperors ourselves; yet the humility and love the emperor shows for his people and country clearly exemplifies that Americans do not have a monopoly on virtue, we don't believe we are the only ones who are righteous, we honor it wherever and in whomever we find it. This is the kind of memory films like Oblivion and Total Recall insist we as a culture remember, of what really happened, and not letting someone else tell us what we did and why it was bad. Just as the upcoming 300: Rise of An Empire will show us the simultaneous events of the sea battle while the original 300 depicted the land battle, so Emperor has a simultaneous show going on as well: while America was helping Japan get back to prosperity, the "Iron Curtain" was slowly descending upon Eastern Europe as communism was introduced by the Soviet Union. As MacArthur tells Fellers, "If the emperor goes, the reds enter," and that drama on the "side stage of history," cannot be underestimated.

It's a most moving climax in the film when we finally see the Emperor of Japan with our own eyes. In the last seconds of the trailer at the start of this post, MacArthur says, "I've never met an emperor before, much less a god. What the hell do you say to a god?" but, from what transpires, we know the emperor is probably thinking the exact same thing of what he must say to MacArthur. The concept of a man-turned-god is one we are actually familiar with from 300 in the guise of Xerxes who is coming back in this summer's 300: Rise Of An Empire (not to mention films of Greek/Roman mythology like Wrath Of the Titans, Immortals, Percy Jackson and the Olympians: Sea of Monsters, and Hercules which put forth the same concepts). But there is a difference in these two sides, one who makes their self a god, and one who becomes a god by the tremendous virtue and bravery of their actions. In the person of the emperor who is a god according to his people, we see him humble himself before MacArthur and offer himself up as a victim so his people will be spared. This scene is nothing short of beautiful. Why? I don't believe the film intends this, however, that does not invalidate my feeling as a viewer, that it reminds me of Jesus the God of Christianity offering Himself up for the sins of His people, and the emperor-god humbling himself to the status of a war criminal (as Jesus became a criminal on the Cross) paves the way towards understanding what a leader does for their people: a leader suffers for their people, he does not make the people suffer for him. This is a central conflict of 300 and, which we will undoubtedly see again in 300: Rise Of An Empire, Thor the Dark World and Star Trek Into Darkness. George Washington, for example, is not a god, however, because of his courage and selfless serving of America he has become immortal to us because of his exemplification of heroic virtues we value, and in the films to be released, the same concepts will be put forth. So why are films like Emperor presenting us with examples of men-turned-gods? Is there someone today who has made himself into a god, above the law and makes others suffer for him rather than offering to suffer for others?

When Aya takes Fellers to meet her uncle, they pass mountains; Aya relates how, when she was little, she was told giants lived in the mountains. Where have we seen giants lately? We can see how the theme of giants would relate to imperialism, for both the Japanese and the Americans, the impulse to become a giant over others. The audience, however, is treated to a rare demonstration of witnessing the giant emperor humbling himself and, by doing so, becoming a giant when he is at his most vulnerable, and MacArthur himself humbly accepting the good-will of the emperor for peace, not retribution. Again, arrogance is always a threat in America, and it's an easy attack to make on the American people--like MacArthur's ghastly pipe--but the real presence of humility and compassion can never be denied, and if we as a country became giants, it's only because our humble human nature made us so.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

A Tale Of Two Jacks: Oblivion & Facing Fearful Odds

2013-04-27T15:29:00.000-05:00

The first image we see in the film is of a viewfinder atop the Empire State Building; why that? Because we are meant to "view" the landscape of the film and find something hidden within it, and what keeps coming up is a quote from a book providing us with the theme found in these lines from Lord Macaulay's Lays Of Ancient Rome, Canto XXVII, which poetically tells the brave deed of Horatius Cocles defending the bridge from the siege of the enemy:

Then out spake brave Horatius,

The Captain of the Gate:

To every man upon this earth,

Death cometh soon or late.

And how can man die better

Than facing fearful odds,

For the ashes of his fathers,

and the temples of his gods.

Why? Of all the books, of all the passages which could have been quoted, why center a film that takes place in 60+ years from now, upon ancient Rome? At least two reasons. First, it was upon the model of the Roman republic that our own fathers founded this country; secondly, an important word is within the passage, a word shared with the The Hunger Games: "odds." In The Hunger Games, President Snow tells the Games' contestants, "May the odds be ever in your favor," and, in the second film, Catching Fire, we see graffiti in the trailer stating, "The odds are never in your favor."

So what does this mean?

When the film opens, the year is 2077; in 2017, the earth was attacked after the moon was destroyed, which set off the balance of nature, causing massive earthquakes and tidal waves, destroying much of the earth including human life on earth; nuclear weapons had to be used, and since the earth was left uninhabitable, only the "scavs" (the aliens who attacked the earth) are left and everyone else has gone to to Saturn's moon Titan, where the remnant of humanity lives, stopping off at the Tet, a space station where they prepare for the journey; but none of this is true. "They lied to you, Jack," Malcolm Beech (Morgan Freeman) tells Jack, because the "scavs" aren't aliens, they are humans, it's the ones appearing as "humans" that are the aliens, there is no human outpost on Titan, and the Tet is an alien space ship sucking earth's resources dry before moving onto another planet to consume (very similar to The Host). Jack and Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) were the last remnant of the Odyssey space crew--which included Jack's wife, Julia Ruskokova (Olga Kurylenko, much more on this below), and who Jack sent into Delta sleep, orbiting the earth for their safety--and it's from Jack and Victoria that the aliens of the Tet cloned thousands of Jacks and Victorias to maintain the drones who would protect the fusion reactors sucking up earth's oceans to energize the Tet. Joining forces with Beech's resistance group (as in Total Recall and, again, The Host), Jack takes the fuel cells of the drones to create a bomb to blow up the Tet and save the earth for what is left of humanity.

Horatius defending the bridge reminds us all of civic duty, because he's not a patrician, or a general in the army, he's only the Captain of the Gate, and recognizes that he has the free will to choose his fate and he does so for the sake of love of country. What Horatius does, he does for his fellow man, he does to insure Rome will survive (consequently, today--April 21, is the celebration of the legendary founding of Rome in 753 BC , by brothers Romulus and Remus). In spite of the thousands of enemy soldiers coming to attack Rome at this gate Horatius defends by holding them off, he survives (the battle is rather like 300) and he makes this sacrifice for "the ashes of his fathers" (symbolizing the founding fathers, the traditions and culture of Rome) and the "temple of the gods," (his religion and beliefs).

This was the best image I could find of the "power stations" (upper-left side of the image) the real aliens use in Oblivion. It's a nuclear power concept, so the stations require vast amounts of water--earth's oceans--to keep the core cool and the energy supplies the Tet station with all its needs; the scavs (who are really humans but Jack is told they are aliens) are always trying to sabotage the reactors (the reactors are sucking up all earth's water, and you can clearly see it in the ships buried in exposed dirt) so the real aliens have drones to protect the reactors and it's Jack's job to service and repair the drones and ward off scav attacks on them. Why? Why does the Oblivion narrative include these details as part of the internal conflict? One of the reactors has an internal core meltdown; where have we heard that concept recently? The Chernobyl Diaries and A Good Day to Die Hard. Why would this be brought up? It's an interesting point, and a little known one, that socialism/communism is actually terrible for the environment; why? In capitalism--where there are plenty of abuses against the environment--the government is there to tell companies to clean up their pollution and prosecute them; when a country is socialist/communist, it's the government making the pollution and there is no one there to enforce the government to follow the laws it has passed, an important point made in Murray Feshbach's Ecocide In the USSR; Chernobyl is just one example of the Soviet Union's destruction of the environment.

Isn't that why Americans go to war and make the ultimate sacrifice for our country? One must construct an argument concisely before one can understand the arguments being made against it; in other words, "odds" of something happening or not happening do not matter, you do something because you believe in it, not because of the success rate. Jack's reading of this poem and other materials is what makes him stand out to Beech from the other dozens of "Jacks" on earth repairing drones because Jack has processed what is going on; he may not have control over much, but he does control himself.

Christina's World, Andrew Wyeth, 1948, Museum Of Modern Art, New York. Why, of all the art work in New York--where Oblivion takes place--would this painting be the one the film shows several times (there is a "art gallery" the scavs have where they keep all the art and books they have rescued, so any other work could have been used and they want us to know that). There are two types of viewers seeing this painting when the film shows it to us. The first is the un-implied viewer and the second is the implied viewer. The "un-impled viewer" is the viewer who knows nothing about this work of art, maybe they don't even know it's a famous work of art, but created solely for the purpose of the film. In the film, Julia--Jack's wife--says it reminds her of home, and this provides the viewer who is unaware of the work's background and history, a sense of "home is in sight, we just need to go a little further," and that's confirmed by the last images of the film, when Julia and her daughter are playing in front of the cabin by the lake, and Julia works in her vegetable garden, she's home. This is sufficient for the um-implied viewer, they don't need to know anymore; to someone who has an idea, however, that this is a famous work of art, and there must be something else going on for the film to show this painting, we can say it reminds us of World War II, when Jack keeps saying, "We won the war, but lost the planet," because Christina's World was Wyeth's commentary on how post-World War II America was: we won the war (against communism and Imperial Japan) but we lost so much to win, we were desolate and paralyzed. Christina, the girl in the image, was paralyzed from polio, a disease many of us today know nothing about, but ravaged America in the late 1940s and early 1950s, if not killing thousands, leaving them crippled and disabled for the rest of their lives. For Wyeth, America was like this bone-thin girl (you may click on the image to enlarge it for closer inspection; look at her right arm and left ankle, it's as thin as the images of prisoners' bodies in concentration camps America and the Allied powers liberated) abandoned in a field with no way to get herself to the safety of the house (although the house itself is probably abandoned from close analysis). Oblivion suggests that America is in the same position for us today, that our country is like this sickly, paralyzed girl, abandoned. And I agree. Oblivion's framework of interpretation is that our country has been left this way from the aliens sucking the planet dry of resources and killing off our species (again, as in The Host) and, since our country happens to be lingering in a never-ending recession, we have to ask, what are the causes weakening our country so much? Who has caused America to be so diseased that we can't recover from it? For my complete analysis on the film, please see Christina's World & Our World for more.

What are the exact reasons why we can call this a "pro-capitalist" film instead of an anti-capitalist or pro-socialist film? As we have seen, socialists have been utilizing the same concepts as capitalists and mirroring them back to accuse capitalists of what capitalists accuse socialists, however, that one of the books Jack has is Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities, which compares London and Paris shortly before and during the French Revolution when the peasantry of France killed the aristocracy. Like the "aliens" killing off all the humans, A Tale Of Two Cities depicts the same kind of event staged by the peasantry as staged by the "aliens." But how can we definitely say the Obama socialist movement is the "alien" concept to America in this film and not traditional American capitalism?

Competition.

The event pictured above happens in a flashback towards the end of the film, in the year 2017. Why 2017? If you saw the successful documentary Love Him Hate Him You Don't Know Him: Obama's 2016, you know the the dire predictions made in the film about what America would be like if Obama won the the 2012 election and had another four years to wreck the country. In this image, Jack Harper (left) and Victoria (right) are manning the Odyssey space craft on a deep space exploration that was re-assigned to observe an alien object that entered the atmoshere, the Tet. Fearing what could happen to the rest of the crew that are in hibernation mode (including Julia) Jack launches them away from the ship, sending them into orbit as the Odyssey is captured by the Tet; Jack and Victoria are cloned by the Tet. What is so important about this particular shot is that--during this scene--we see Victoria (Vicca for short) wearing a Union Jack patch on her space suit (the British flag) and we wouldn't know she was British otherwise, giving rise to a controversial point in the film we will discuss below.

What drives the free markets of capitalism and innovation we, as Americans prize so highly, except competition? The theme shows up in the "classic game" of the 2017 Super Bowl Jack remembers when a quarterback recovered his own fumble and threw a Hail Mary, hoping someone would catch it, and a third-string rookie catches the ball in the end zone, winning the game; that is what makes it a classic, because the odds are against the team winning, but the quarterback's act of faith in his team members after he committed the fumble, and a unknown rookie rising to the occasion to catch the ball makes this--not only a classic game in football--but a perfect example of how American capitalism works. Why is this moment of the film so important? Because of what is going to happen in November.

Why does the dog show up while Jack is working on the drone in the football stadium? Doesn't this somehow ruin the beauty and nostalgia of the scene, this mangy mutt showing up and nearly getting blown to bits by the drone? The dog demonstrates two things: first, that Jack Harper cares about other beings. He could have let the drone blow the dog to bits and hey, no big deal, because that's kind of how socialists have vilified capitalists, that we don't care about anything but ourselves. Jack is obviously at risk of being shot at by the drone in trying to protect the dog, so when we see Jack being so protective of the humans in the crashed spacecraft, we aren't surprised because he protects and defends life which socialists don't do because they support abortion, euthanasia, rationed health care and the outright killing of all opposition parties. Secondly, the dog appears at this particular moment because dogs symbolize loyalty. Usually in art, specifically French art, if a bedroom scene is being depicted between a man and woman, there is a little dog somewhere in the background, because the dog communicates that this is an affair, not the marriage bed (the dog being used to illustrate unfaithfulness, rather than loyalty). In this sense, we can see Jack revealing how he is loyal to the memories he still has of the game and the role that game plays in his own identity (he must be remembering the game because the score was one of the last topics of discussion prior to the Odyssey being sucked into the Tet, and the Tet erased his memory, so like his memories of Julia that come back to him, so the memories of the Super Bowl come back to him, illuminating where his loyalty and faithfulness lie). Remember, one of the Scavs sees him during this scene, and he's not behaving like one of the clones, and that's because sports and competition bring out the best in us unlike not having sports and competition, which is the thesis of The Hunger Games (which is against free markets and the competitive spirit inherent in capitalism).

In November, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire will be released and the major plot point is the "destruction of the arena," just like the destroyed arena seen in the image above for the football championship. The purpose of this football game, and the game being mentioned just before the Odyssey is swallowed up by the Tet, is how game and competition are so closely related to capitalism, and the loss of competition in America is equivalent to the whole country being lost (the theme will also be directly challenged in Monsters University and their parody of The Scare Games). It's the competition with the Tet that forces Beech and Jack to resort to play (a creative interpretation of the odds of a situation to maximize their own meagre advantages) in switching Julia's hibernation pod with Beech so Julia will live and Beech and Jack can detonate the bomb, saving mankind.

Jack is told the "scavengers" are alien lifeforms because the real aliens want the humans destroyed. Why are they called "scavs?" They are made to look like "savages" because of how they live and the clothing they wear, revealing socialists (the aliens) have made capitalists out to look. One way of correlating the scavengers with capitalists is because of where they reside, the New York Library, where all the books are still kept, though in disarray. Socialists in America--as we have been seeing--want to "re-write" the history of America to make it seem that we were always a socialist country, but greedy capitalists turned the tide in their favor; books are recorded history, and history is our collective memory as a culture. Jack is "haunted" by his memories he can't accurately remember because socialists always erase the actual history from a country they have taken over and insert their own narrative in its place, just like with Jack's memory wipe; the books, however, refresh his memory just as the study of history refreshes our memory. The erasing of our memory by re-writing history and making America out to be the guilty one all the time is the primary means of the aliens being capable to telling the lies: you can't give someone a new truth if they know what the real truth is, and the aliens can make Jack believe the drones are there to protect him instead of destroy him because he has forgotten what has always happened in history: you give some absolute power and it corrupts absolutely. Total Recall, Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters, The House At the End Of the Street, Rise Of the Guardians and The Amazing Spider Man are just a few of the films reminding us that if we let go of the narrative of our history, we don't know who we are and if we don't know who we are, we can be controlled by others.

This idea of a "competition-free world" were no one has to compete for anything leads us to examine a recurring phrase in the film: "Another day in paradise." Why does Vicca and Jack say this, does it look like they are living in paradise? Jack's little cabin on the lake might be paradise, but is the "modernist apartment in the sky" paradise or a prison? Vicca certainly never leaves it. This little catch-phrase is important because it provides us with yet another warning about the "utopia" promised by socialists (Journey 2 the Mysterious Island, Stoker, Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters, Wreck-It Ralph and The Secret World Of Arrietty). It's never another day in paradise, it's a prison of utter mind-control, lies and self-extinction just as it is in The Host: the cost far out-weighs the benefits because, if it were "another day in paradise," why would Vicca put so much importance on re-joining the others in two weeks?

There are numerous films mentioned in Oblivion in one way or another, and this is meant to intentionally jog our own memory about the role films have played in shaping America and our own selves. For example, what other famous couple meets at the Empire State Building? Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr in An Affair To Remember (and she becomes crippled in the film just as Christina is in the painting above). Jack takes a toy gorilla to remind us of King Kong, and a pair of Aviator sunglasses because that's what he wore in Top Gun. Jack's location on the Empire State Building is identical to where Zeus and Poseidon meet in Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightening Thief, meaning, the top of the Empire Sate Building is where Olympus is, where the giants of capitalism and world history have made themselves. We can't help but recall all those who jumped to their deaths when the stock market crashed, but it also reminds us that when it was constructed, it was the world's tallest building for 40 years, and it is in--what still today--is the capitol of the world, the financial heart of the world's markets. When Jack proposes to Julia and says, look through here and "I'll show you the future," that literally seems to be the US telling Russia, we will show you the future of where you and us are going economically and politically.

And now for the controversial bit I have been dreading, but appears to be picking up steam as an important argument in films. Jack's real wife is Julia (Olga Kurylenko) even though he has been sleeping with Vicca--which reminds me of the original Planet Of the Apes, as well as the brief scene when Jack, on his motorcycle, rides by the dirt-buried Statue Of Liberty--and Julia being his real wife is the reason he still dreams of her and recognizes her face when he finds her hibernation pod. The film makes it a point that we know Julia is of Russian descent with her name: "Rusakova." When Jack and Julia have retrieved the log from the space ship Odyssey, and Julia has reminded Jack that they are married, Jack returns to his apartment he shares with Vicca; he tells Vicca Julia is his wife and Vicca locks him out of the apartment (keeps him locked out) and then a drone comes and kills Vicca.

Why is this important?

Vicca is British and Julia is Russian.

There are so many cultural references made in Oblivion that we can be confident the name of the Odyssey space craft refers to events contained in Homer's epic poem Odyssey. Regrettably, I don't have time to go into that, so if someone was thinking of it, and has some thoughts they would like to share, please do so in the comment section! I will say this, however, Jack clearly wears a NASA patch on his spacesuit before the Odyssey he is on is sucked into the Tet, and Obama has ended funding for NASA human flight missions, wanting NASA instead to focus on the role Muslims have played in science. So, it might be an important point the film wants to make that the very means we would have for knowing about the "alien object" threatening us (NASA's manned missions) has been made impossible by Obama.

Numerous films as of late depict the destruction of London (GI Joe Retaliation, Star Trek Into Darkness, Red 2, Thor the Dark World) and in trying to understand reasons for it, we explored what events could be triggering this feeling that London is doomed and the answer we came up with--the only answer as reflected by the protests marches and government policies--is that it's entitlement programs and socialism. If you think there is another reason, trust me, I would LOVE to hear it (please leave a comment or email me directly!). Oblivion seems to be suggesting that because Russia has made a greater commitment to free markets and capitalism in its government, it's Russia who is our real ally (our marriage partner) and not Britain who increasingly undermines capitalism in its economy and programs; it's possible to see in Vicca's refusal to remember anything before the "security wipe" forced on them by the Tet Britain's own refusal to recall history as the making of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (please see Amidst the Dead Leaves: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy for more) seemed to be an effort at, reminding what the Cold War cost and why it was worth the cost.

Well, have we seen this in other places?

We have.

"Are you an effective team?" Sally keeps asking Vicca to affirm throughout the film and then, in the scene above, when Jack tells Vicca Julia is his wife, she tells Sally, "We are not an effective team." Just as Jack's image "reflects" on the glass, we too must "reflect" on what is being shown: since we can "see through glass" as we see Vicca on the other side, we should be able to see through this scene and what it is saying to us.

In Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted, the relationship with Vitaly the Russian Tiger proves "vital" for keeping the "Bolshevik" out of the circus and, we could say that like Edmond in The Chronicles of Narnia who knows the wicked ways of the White Witch because he has all ready fallen for them, so, too, does Vitaly and that's why he's such an invaluable partner in the circus (please see Trapeze Americano & the Capitalist Circus: Madagascar 3 Europe's Most Wanted for more); Britain, like Peter in Narnia, hasn't been punished like Edmond, so he doesn't realize the potential danger the White Witch poses and why he's willing to solicit her help when things get tough (this kind of theme is taken up in Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters as well). This isn't a definite reading of this dilemma the film presents us, however, it is a possibility and, again, if anyone has an alternate reading, I would very much welcome it; I think, however, we are going to be seeing more of London Bridge falling, rather than less.

And lastly, the controversial ending,...

Malcolm Beech first introducing himself to Jack; does the lighted match invoke the up-coming installment to The Hunger Games Catching Fire? Because Malcolm certainly gives Jack a reason to think more deeply on what the world is like and who caused it to be that way, so the match Malcolm lights is not only so Jack can see him but "see" what Malcolm tells him to be true, so the truth will be "catching fire" in Jack's mind, which it does.

The ending is apt to be problematic for a lot of people. We know Jack has died when he delivered the bomb to the Tet with Malcolm Beech and the Tet exploded. Three years later, Julia with her daughter are at the lakeside cabin Jack sent her to before he left, and the other humans from Malcolm's group have found them and with them is Tech #52 (a clone of Jack he fought at one point in the film), who provides a voice over, saying he couldn't forget Julia's face when he (briefly) saw her, and he knows Jack built a place like this, because he knows Jack, and he has spent three years looking for her, and he knew she would be there. Have we seen this before in a film recently? We have, The Vow (please see The Vow & Obamacare for more).

An important question we should ask is, "Why is the 'original' Jack Harper designated as Tech #49, when the Tet replicated thousands of Jack Harpers (as we learn from Malcolm) and the 'Jack' that finds Julia at the end is Tech #52?" These are specific numbers, designating something specific, and since memory plays such an important role in the film, it's possible these numbers refer to our cultural memory, history, and they designate years. A lot happened in 1952: Elizabeth II becomes queen; the United Kingdom becomes a nuclear power; the first in a published series of Man Will Conquer Space Soon by Werner von Braun first appears; Truman nationalizes all steel mills, although the Supreme Court has limited the president's ability to seize private business; the war with Japan and the Allies officially ends; the first international style skyscraper opens in New York on Park Avenue (where Oblivion takes place); Anne Frank's The Diary Of a Young Girl is published; Eisenhower wins the election to become president; 58,000 cases of polio are reported in the US (Oblivion shows us the painting Christian's World several times and it's from polio that the woman in the painting suffers). A lot happened in 1949, like the voting down of most of liberal president Truman's Fair Deal program which would have accelerated socialism in the US, as well as Beijing being taken over by Communist forces; the Soviet Union deports 92,000 people from the Baltic States to remote areas in the Soviet Union to fulfill the communist agenda for labor; the Red Scare begins with the FBI naming communists in the US; George Orwell's anti-communist work 1984 is published; the Soviet Union tests its first atomic bomb similar to the one detonated by the US at Nagasaki, Japan; China is officially declared a communist country; these are all events which could be tied to the film in many ways, however, what I think his number 49 refers to--and why this is the "original" Jack Harper assigned to this number--is it references 1849 and the California Gold Rush. Even though so many people didn't get filthy rich, some did, and the Rush pumped (by today's standards) billions of dollars into the economy naturally, not a stimulus package, like what Democrats keep doing during the Obama administration.

The reason this ending is a problem is because Tech #52 (the clone) defies the definition of what a clone is, that it doesn't have any memories of its own or (Jack's memory was wiped, so how could the memories have passed to Tech #52? They couldn't have). Either this is a clone that has malfunctioned, or it symbolizes how there will be "intruders" in the future, that which only looks like capitalism and we will want that because we will miss it but will still be a relic of the past and the alien invasion (because Tech #52 comes from the Tet). This is very possible. On the other hand, I don't think this is the ending the film wants to leave us with, I think--and I admit, I liked the film, I think Tom Cruise did a fabulous job and we all like a good ending--I think Oblivion wants to validate both the sacrifice Jack Harper makes and the life he wants to have with Julia in their little cabin by the lake, their idea of the American Dream. I think (and this is ambiguous, so there is no "correct" reading of the ending, whatever we want to project onto it is valid) that memories and history are so powerful, it will reanimate the future to come back and create a new start, that our relationship to capitalism is the "natural" way our minds and hearts work (Jack having no memory of wanting a cabin by the lake, but him building one anyway and Tech #52 finding her because he would want a cabin by the lake, too).

But, we will all create our own endings.

The artificial wombs. We have seen similar images to this in both Resident Evil: Retribution and Cloud Atlas (of course there was something similar in The Matrix), both capitalists and socialists arguing that the other system is the one that makes people into clones without souls or wills of their own. It's an important issue because we know Jack and Julia--as husband and wife--have spent the night together, and at the end of the film Julia is raising their daughter. This "traditional family" and the child being conceived in a natural womb (Julia's) contrasts to the Tet with its artificial wombs and makes us consider socialism as the "mother" of the state but also the Obama administration's pushing of homosexual marriage (gay couples cannot conceive children naturally) and abortion (where the child is killed within the mother's womb) so a socialist government promoting such practices has to basically "grow" its population from cells (maybe a play on words to invoke a prison?) as we see above. Whereas Cloud Atlas accuses capitalism of using incentives to raise workers up, only to butcher them and feed them back to other workers, the Chinese government must have recognized itself in those images to have deleted them when showing the film to its socialist audience, and Oblivion certainly leads us to expect that, when Vicca and Jack "join the others" in two weeks that--since there are no 'others' to join--they are slated to be killed.

In conclusion, Oblivion was a wonderful film (I gave it an A-on Rotten Tomatoes) and I hope you will get a chance to see it at the theater because there is some amazing imagery and special effects, as well as numerous film references I didnt' have time to thoroughly cover here. I have never been a Tom Cruise fan, but he is in top form in this film--and most other critics have said the same about him--and he brings a intimate warmth and humanity to his character; additionally, knowing you like to really consider films and decode them, this is one that will provide you with much food for thought to keep turning over and over again! Not to mention, many of these elements we will be referring to later in conjunction with other films.

Eat Your Art Out,

The Fine Art Diner

Nipple Confusion & Young Adult: the Debate Of Art In Capitalism

2013-04-26T12:01:00.000-05:00

This post is really out of place.
There are numerous issues this anti-capitalist film serves us, and it's the way it does it, not just the issues it decides to comment upon, that I have often wanted to site Young Adult in other posts but was unable because we had not yet discussed it. There is far more happening in this film than what we have time to delve into, however, Mavis (Charlize Theron) as a symbol of capitalism's self-destructive tendencies, and how art suffers in a capitalist environment, must be compared to Buddy's and Beth's world as a socialist haven for the average person. We'll start with Mavis.

"Everyone gets old. Not everyone grows up." Such a tagline directly targets capitalism as a form of government and, to me, once again reveals a "snob factor" among socialists (even though it's Mavis who is depicted as the snob in how she thinks of her hometown of Mercury and treats Sandra), that if you are really educated, if you are really mature and sophisticated, you want a European style socialism (consider, for example, the end of Ice Age: Continental Drift when Scrat goes to Atlantis; the inhabitants of Atlantis are the socialists because socialists promise a utopia, but it's Scrat's appetite for the nut that ruins the whole utopia for all; the same could be said of the baby shower for Beth, that it's Mavis's appetite for alcohol and what she can't have [Buddy] that ruins the party for everyone else). The dreams for self-fulfillment and realization capitalists like myself so often site as a reason for staying with capitalism instead of socialism are shown in Mavis' book she writes to be for teenagers, but not for adults, that only the young and immature dream about things that will make them the envy of others instead of a healthy part of a greater, stable community. One of the issues the film tackles is competition, that it not only a damaging feature of capitalism, but also bad for us as individuals. The green jacket Mavis wears in this poster is Buddy's from high school (like his abandoned jacket, Buddy put away competition in high school but Mavis clings to it) and--on the individual level--Mavis thinks she is "competing" with Beth for Buddy, not acknowledging the bond of marriage. Likewise, Matt's disability was caused by the high school athletes who beat him up: Matt wasn't beat up by the Young Democrats club, the Glee Club, the Physics Club, or Drama Club, he was beat up by athletes, competitors. Matt being unable to defend himself from a crippling attack is supposed to symbolize small businesses being beat-up by larger, more competitive corporations. On a social level, competition is bad because Mavis can't compete with better Young Adult books coming out so her series is being retired and what will she do now for a job?

What characteristics about Mavis not only link her with capitalism, but reveal her to be a poster child for the crusade against capitalism? She's "living her dream" and has supposedly achieved the "American Dream" but fails to achieve happiness with it. She's living in the "mini-apple," a clear shot at New York City with its wealth and glamor; we can say she has a "great life" by at least someone's standards because Sandra Freehauf (Matt's sister) tells Mavis towards the end as they sit in her kitchen drinking coffee, that she often thinks about what Mavis' life must be like and wants Mavis to take her with her back to Minneapolis. Mavis' alcoholism and inability to be in a relationship, as well as her anti-social explosion at the Slade baby shower party towards the end of the film, reveal her to be a "consumer" in a "consumer based society," and causes her to de-humanize others and herself, bringing hell to all.

The image of the liquor bottles and coffee cups in the image above emphasizes the consumer-brand name world created by consumerism and capitalism. Mavis drinking straight out of the 2 liter bottle of Diet Coke is an act of a baby sucking from its mother's nipple, breast feeding from the corporate world (the Coca-Cola company, which was also argued in Lawless) and, rather than nourish you, the products produced in a capitalist society makes you hungry for more, so appetites breed more appetites. Example: Mavis' relationships. We see her go out on a date and sleep with him the same night, then wake up in the morning and go after Buddy, then when that falls apart post-baby shower, she sleeps with Matt, then gets up and leaves without even saying good-bye to him, just using him to get her through the night. I actually agree with this point, that people who live by their appetites are enslaved to their appetites, but--unlike Young Adult--I don't blame capitalism for it, rather, human nature. I don't want to read something into a film that's not there, so this might be stretching the issue too far, however, I think we can see Mavis as a "black hole," consuming everything and giving nothing (when return except an output of radiation (which is deadly). The term is not used in the film, but it is used in the upcoming World War Z (to describe the zombie plague in Russia) and Disney has announced they are remaking their early 1980s film The Black Hole.

Beth Slade, Mavis' rival in the film, who has married Mavis' high school boyfriend Buddy and has now given birth to their first child, plays the drums in a band called Nipple Confusion, with other middle-aged women (in Mama, a decidedly anti-capitalist film, Annabell [Jessica Chastain] also belongs to a rock band for which she plays guitar). What role does Beth's band play in the film? It offers a counter-image of art to the audience against Mavis' role as an author. Mavis seems to have a great job writing books for teenagers, but as the film progresses, it's apparent that she can write those books--that no one wants to read anymore--because she herself is on that maturity level and only someone who wants the kind of things Mavis wants, and behaves as she does, would want to be a part of the consumer society/capitalist system that makes all that possible. So the name of the band Nipple Confusion refers to how America doesn't know which woman is its mother (which "motherland" is the real, nurturing mother-image): Mavis who had the miscarriage, or Beth who has successfully delivered the child and is happily married, and we see this exact dilemma presented in Looper (Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis); but there is far more to it than this.

The film really draws a battle line when Mavis and Buddy meet at a bar and Buddy reveals what he has done: he works at a local company and has lunch with his dad everyday. To Mavis, this smacks of mediocrity and a failure to achieve anything, and cleverly, the film demonstrates how capitalism breeds snobbery, not just in how we are forced to compare Mavis' successful but empty lifestyle to Buddy's simple but fulfilling career and family life, but also that Mavis sleeps around and is trying to "wreck a home" whereas Buddy and Beth are the picture of a happy, strong family; never mind that this contradicts the real-world liberal agenda of gay marriage, feminist style sexuality and abortion; the image the film wants to paint in the viewer's mind is that capitalism breeds appetites to sustain itself, and those self-perpetuating appetites are at odds with marriage (Mavis is divorced), having a solid relationship with one's parents (Mavis wasn't even going to call her parents but Buddy has lunch with his dad everyday) and making a family for one's own through children (Mavis miscarried). Al this is true on an inter-personal level with the character of Mavis, but also on a political level with what Mavis symbolizes: capitalism (Mavis) is a self-destructive lifestyle always crashing (at the baby shower and her crashing her mini-Cooper) and capitalism doesn't let you fulfill your dreams, it turns you into a walking nightmare that separates the present from the past (Mavis' bad relationship with her parents) and is sterile and doesn't create a future (Mavis' miscarriage). Mavis ordering the same beer Buddy drank when they were young reveals how, in capitalism, the theory is that an appetite stays with you all your life, you don't grow out of it, you just become more enslaved to it, as with Mavis drinking straight out of the 2 liter bottle of Diet Coke like an infant.

Nipple Confusion illustrates how Americans don't know which "mother" it should be nourished by: Mavis the destroyer or Beth the cool, loving, happy wife of Buddy and mother of a new daughter. Further, the women of Nipple Confusion are the type of women socialism wants to appeal to: a single mom, a stay-at-home wife, women who aren't super-models and aren't particularly talented, but--when there is no competition and there is not an economy based on "market demand,"--you, too, can fulfill your dream of being a drummer in a band because there are no agents or greedy executives (like Mavis' boss who keeps calling her) using you and your talents to make their living, your natural talent can be for you, naturally. That's how art is meant to be, Young Adult argues, not a pile of heavily-discounted books in a store no one wants to read to encourage them to become a bad person (like Mavis).

Watching Mavis get ready effectively communicates how "two-faced" capitalism is: in wanting to put on "our best face" we cover up who we really are (but that doesn't matter, socialists argue, because capitalism is so corrupt, that evil id going to come through, anyway, regardless of how expensive the clothes, how many hair pieces you wear, or how much foundation you put on). Mavis wanting to look her best builds up the characterization of her as a snob because both Beth and Sandra forgo wearing make-up (or at least not as much as Mavis does) so they appear as the natural women who "look better" than Charlize Theron because they are better people on the inside.

This is the power of a well-constructed symbol: not only is this character (Mavis) a walking disaster, but all that contributes to her and sustains her self-destructive behavior is to blame for who and what she is (or isn't). The KenTacoHut in the film, again, sustains and builds upon the image of Mavis we have all ready unconsciously constructed: capitalism is for pigs. There is not only the image of Mavis going and ordering a ton of food--a graphic depiction of consumers consuming way too much--but also the way capitalism works: the KenTacoHut not only maximizes profits by having three restaurants together sharing overhead costs, but increases the likelihood that people like Mavis will eat far more there than they would if the restaurants were separate. Further, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut are brand names; if companies weren't so competitive in forcing their brand name on us, we wouldn't have palaces of consumerism like KenTacoHuts, we would have a lack of brand names, like in Argo when they eat fast food from a restaurant that doesn't have its logo on the bag; we could, instead have cans with plain yellow labels at the mega-store like what we see in The Host.

In at least a general way, we can see Mavis as a Dorothy figure and Young Adult based on The Wizard Of Oz. Like Dorothy putting Toto in a basket and taking him with her, so Mavis puts her little dog in her bag and takes it with her; like Dorothy dreaming of what is over the rainbow, Mavis dreamed of life in the "mini-apple," but seeing how disappointing it is, she returns home like Dorothy but, unlike Dorothy, she's none the wiser. So, what does Mavis' little dog symbolize? Like the little dog in Seven Psychopaths, this little dog is loyalty or fidelity. Even as Mavis wants Buddy to be unfaithful to Beth, the little dog symbolizes us--the viewers-- because we are supported by the upper-class who feeds us (like in the opening scene when she's feeding her dog and she gets some of the food on her finger and leads the dog outside so she doesn't have to be bothered by it, that is how--the film argues--capitalists who aren't a part of the 1% like myself, are "lead" and eating out of the hand of the upper-class). We can't argue with the contradiction, however, that while Mavis has a dog, it's a "Hello Kitty" shirt she wears, not a Lassie or a Rin-Tin-Tin shirt, etc. We can, however, also include Matt in this category because--like Mavis--he is a consumer and--like her little dog--he follows her around and does whatever she says. Young Adult wants to depict all consumers and capitalists as being self-destructive, abusive, manipulative people like Mavis because it is capitalism that does it to us (it can't claim it's human nature because socialism can't solve for that, so, get rid of capitalism and you get rid of the problem). While we sympathize with Matt on one level and recognize him as a victim, Matt telling Mavis, "Guys like me are born loving women like you," the crippleness of his character becomes self-inflicted because he willingly allies himself to someone who, herself, is crippled through self-inflicted trauma (again, anyone identifying themselves with capitalism, like myself, has to identify themselves with Matt at this point in the film--according to Young Adult, because the upper-class is going to love us and use us the same way we know Mavis is going to use Matt).

There has been a trend I am just picking up on, revealing the confusion over whether England is still capitalist or socialist economy (and civilian protest marches over entitlement programs being cut due to lack of funds over the years has certainly fueled the perception over England's socialist identity). In Oblivion, Red 2, GI Joe Retaliation and possibly Captain America: the Winter Soldier, Star Trek Into Darkness and Thor the Dark World, arguments might be made regarding the degree that England's socialism hurts the United States; why bring that up here? At the end of the final installment of her book she's writing, Mavis has her young heroine setting off to attend college at Oxford in England. Does Mavis construct that ending because Oxford is prestigous and capitalists want to be the envy of others, and England is a great place to learn how to be a capitalist, or has Mavis actually given her character more sense than she has (according to Young Adult) and set her character off on a "new education" to become a socialist rather than remaining a capitalist? It's an ambiguous ending, however, it appears to be a conflict more and more films are picking up since we keep witnessing the "destruction of London" in movies (what is it that has destroyed London or threatens to destroy London?).

Whereas Mavis' silk dress is stained and ruined--it can't be cleaned up (and this scene is meant to remind us of the "crash" of 2008)--Beth wears green, the sign of new life, birth and hope; as Mavis descends into a self-pitying black hole of destruction in this scene, the garage door opens and Buddy is "banging the drum" of Beth's new drum set, i.e., "beating the drums" of revolution and encouraging us to start marching to the beat of a new drum.

In conclusion, we haven't touched on nearly everything the film has to offer us, but it serves us up much food for thought--in contrast to the KenTacoHut--in hopes any capitalists will grow out of their "young adult" status into a full adult and abandon a system breeding childish behavior as opposed to children. What the film does and says, it communicates creatively--regardless of my personal disagreement with its message--and I think these are issues we will only see more of, on both sides of the debate.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Mavis in on the phone and as Matt talks to her, he opens a new bottle of Ranch dressing even though--as his sister Sandra in the background alerts him and us--there is one all ready open. Why? Why waste time on this in the narrative? Because it reveals Matt to be a consumer just as Mavis is revealed to be a total fake to him later in the movie (when they are both naked); in other words, consumerism is wasteful. Look at what is hanging up on the wall over Matt's right shoulder: an owl. Why? Owls are predators, and we see the owl as Matt talks to Mavis, correlating how Matt is willing prey to Mavis' predatory appetites, further substantiated by Matt's hobby of distilling alcohol: it demonstrates how Matt is a snob in preferring his quality brew to everyday alcohol and how his Star Wars juice is just going to be "guzzled" by people like Mavis. Matt is further constructed as a "bad character" in how he treats Mavis' cousin in the wheelchair, Mike: Matt creating his massive-bodied action figures illustrates Matt's bad self-image of himself in projecting what he wishes he could be instead of taking Mike as a role model for himself. Young Adult wants to communicate this to us the audience in our own self-image we want to project and what we want to make of ourselves: becoming like Mavis or Beth, becoming like Mike who accepts his limitations or like Matt who ignores them and daydreams of being what he will never become (like most of us not getting to fulfill our dreams).

Trailers: Monster University, The East, The Purge, The Numbers Station, Mud, The Company You Keep, Godzilla Update

2013-04-25T19:09:00.002-05:00

This just got exciting; what is the dominant theme of the film going to be?

The center of Monsters University is going to be competition. There is a game, and it's a "do-or-die" situation because if Mike (Billy Crystal) loses, he can't come back to school, and, as the,... "girl" stays at 1:20, "you could totally die." What does this sound like to you? The Hunger Games? You bet it does! But, on a sad note, instead of going on to become Monsters, Inc., as Mike and Sullie do in the film, Ellen Page and crew are attacking corporations in the second trailer for The East:

Do you see that "lightening bolt" thing going across Alexander Skarsgaard's hand? That reminds me of the Weather Underground's symbol; who was the Weather Underground? A group dedicated to world communism whose leaders Barack Obama has been meeting with throughout his presidency, including Bill Ayers. By insisting that it's a corporation which is at fault--not you and I for buying the Twinkies the corporation made (just as an example)--socialists believe we the people will get angered at corporations and willingly want the government to declare all private business to be owned and operated by the government because a main premise of socialism--as we both know--is that you and I have no free will, and socialists think that will appeal to us so they want to intentionally place blame on the corporation so we will think that if the government takes them all over, the poison and lies will go away; they won't, they will only get worse. A new TV spot has been released for The Purge, now opening June 7:

Please, don't forget that "purge" is a standard term used by socialists and communists when they get rid of "undesirables" as they call them, generally, people who do not agree with them.
World War Z,... I am about half-way through the book--quite intelligently written--leaning in the liberal direction, even though it is trying hard to be "fair," but absolutely nothing like anything we have seen in either trailer or this featurette below for the film coming out in June. Before the film comes out, I PROMISE we will do a thorough examination of zombies in all their metaphysical manifestations because the book and film have created totally different zombies between them and zombies are everywhere in art today:

A difference between the film and book, for example, is the main character in the book never says anything about having a family and Gerry's (Brad Pitt) family is a primary plot device in the film version; there were difficulties with the script, particularly the ending, and we know changes were made so the film can be shown in China (Chinese censors made film makers change a scene where someone points to China on a map, suggesting the outbreak of zombies begins there, and that was altered; it's possible it was altered only for the film being shown in China and not international versions, we will have to see). The ending, however, has undergone extensive re-writing and the formats are completely different as well: the film looks like a traditional story; the book is a collection of interviews with various people who survived the infestation in different parts of the world and all from different backgrounds and governments and religions, so the main character is just a clerk whose name I don't even remember (I don't think it's given in the book). So, while the film might look like, "Oh, why on earth does Brad Pitt want to make a zombie film for?" I actually think some of the finer points of the film might prove controversial.

Here is the latest from John Cusack; The Numbers Station intrigues me because, of course, whenever there is a code in the film, that is a code that the whole film is encoded and the film makers know it; all are it encoded, as we know, that's what we do here, but it's a special validation of our efforts when the artists say, "Come on, we want you to look deeper":

The Numbers Station, which I would love to see, opens this weekend to limited theaters and that does not include mine. What I will get to see this weekend is Mud; we haven't discussed it, but I think this has some key symbols we should pay particular attention to:

The boat,.... why would that be important? The "ship of state," being up in the tree could mean that the "ship of state" is "up in the air," for anyone to take if they can get it. "The river brings a lot of trash, you have to know what to let go of," and that "flood," (like the tsunami in The Impossible and the flood in Beasts Of the Southern Wild) could refer to the "flood of problems" the country has had. Interesting that two the the film's main characters are boys; who is it that appeals to the American youth and can get them to do whatever he wants them to? Well find out the answer this weekend,... and, also, uh, this Robert Redford--all star cast--film glorifying the Weather Underground movement which staged a number of important bombings in an effort to overthrow the US government in favor of world communism:

Robert Redford has recently been noted saying he believed the Weather Underground should have done more bombings. Given this, and publicity the film is receiving, it will be highly interesting to witness his character in Captain America: the Winter Soldier and what role, if any, his senior SHIED character has regarding Bucky turning into a Soviet assassin or assisting in the attacks on Washington DC. On the flip side of socialism--actually, this is about socialism, but a capitalist's take on who falls for socialism because of bad capitalism--here is a clip from this weekend's opening Pain and Gain:

I THINK Pain and Gain is going to demonstrate how bad capitalism makes possible the movement for wealth re-distribution, but we'll see. In the meantime,...Wow,... this is good. Star Trek Into Darkness, character profile: Spock.

Noise,... we have had occasion to discuss this with a teaser featuring Benedict Cumberbatch's character (I still don't know if he is Khan or not) and with Man Of Steel's villain General Zod (Michael Shannon). What is the first rule about noise? It means the film wants to draw our attention to what is being "covered up" or what is not being said; there is, literally, interference, and we have to decipher what the interference is, why there is interference, patterns to the interference and then what it is that is not being said or being distorted and the degree of distortion. That's an awful lot for a character profile on Spock, yet consider how complex Spock's and Kirk's relationship is (it is if you saw the 2009 Star Trek, and, if you haven't, do so, please! You will not regret it, especially if you plan on seeing Star Trek Into Darkness in a couple of weeks (May 17).
One word is super important in this clip:

"Tinker."
At 0:31, Tony says he tinkers with his machines. Where have we heard that description before? Oz the Great and Powerful. Obviously, the two films aren't influencing each other, and that's why it is so remarkable they both use this word: recall, if you will, that it was the "Tinkerers" in Oz who built the items Oscar needed to overthrow the Wicked Witches.
Have you gotten your tickets?

Set photo for Godzilla. The test reel footage significantly heightens the destructive factor of the monster across the entire United States. Some of the main questions we will need to focus on for the narrative is: where does Godzilla comes from? Where does he first appear? All we really need to ask, though, is "Who has wrecked the country?" Just like Japan at the height and glory of its powers was brought low by the US atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and so created Godzilla to symbolize its fears of future massive destruction, in resurrecting the ancient lizard, we are--as a culture--comparing ourselves to the bombed-out Japanese at the end of World War II.

Godzilla in 3D is in production and slated for a May 2014 opening date. Starring Elizabeth Olsen (Martha, Marcy May, Marlene and Silent House) Juliette Binoche (My Week With Marilyn, Chocolate) and Ken Watanbe (Inception), the film being made has been "prophesied" by numerous references in other films, such as The Amazing Spider Man and The Cold Light Of Day. In my post on Jaws, I suggest that Jaws is to Americans what Godzilla was to the Japanese, it just took us a lot longer to formulate the artistic vocabulary required to release our fear and anger, than what it took the Japanese to create Godzilla (please see Jaws & the Cleansing Of America for more on Jaws and Godzilla).
There are so many amazing and important films coming out, I can hardly keep track of them all, but I am trying!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

TRAILERS: The Bling Ring, Thor Notes, Clip 2 Star Trek Into Darkness, Hercules 3D, 300: Rise Of An Empire, The Amazing Spider Man

2013-04-24T15:42:00.001-05:00

The Bling Ring, starring Emma Watson, is based on a true story, rather like Pain and Gain. Here is trailer #2:

As we have discussed previously, like Spring Breakers and Project X, even The Campaign and Neighborhood Watch, films such as The Bling Ring are targeted to a specific demographic who probably do not care much about politics nor the direction the country is headed, but can be influenced with the right message. In other words, seeing the shallowness of the characters being portrayed will communicate to them how not to act so they don't end up that way, which leads us to our next point we have touched upon briefly elsewhere: Ms. Watson. Watson's loyal fanbase knows her as the sweet little girl from Harry Potter--so this is a rather big risk for her in terms of her career--but this is probably the main reason she was cast in The Bling Ring: to illustrate a "good girl gone bad," and the badness will be accentuated by her good image; why bother with this?

The Bling Ring is due out in June. This group of films, Spring Breakers, Pain and Gain, The Bling Ring (to some degree, Project X) and Now You See Me, re-invent the films of Bonnie and Clyde, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and The Wild Bunch: you can live it up for awhile, but there's going to be hell to pay at the end (at about 1:05, the trailer above says this movie title: "America has this sick fascination with the Bonnie and Clyde kind of thing." No, it's called common sense. These films depicting the consequences of our actions do two things: first, they re-affirm that we have free will, the characters we see make their own choices, they are not made for them; secondly, the films show the logical conclusion of the choices the characters have made, namely, that the abuse of free will results in losing your free will (either because you go to jail or you die). Granted, this might be a lesson missed by a general viewer, but what art does--especially film--is to provide us with a alternate world view, a way the world can be or a way in which--at least for a moment--we should look at the world. These scenarios the narratives present are meant to sway our emotions into "liking" what we see or "not liking" what we see, but it forces an engagement, and that's a positive for people who probably don't like engaging with reality very often.

Since the young always symbolize the future (remember, at 1:20 Nicki says to interviewers, "I want to lead the country one day for all I know"), audience members will unconsciously be faced with the choice: do we want an America like the loyal, hard-working Hermione, or the shallow Nicki in The Bling Ring? Such a stark dichotomy between Watson's "two faces" deepens the sense of "loss" over Hermione's virtues that otherwise might be taken for granted, however, like Spring Breakers, Now You See Me, and Pain and Gain, I am confident the film will contain an important message, which leads us to our next point,...

The eyes are the window of the soul, so what do the sunglasses as the main poster reveal about the characters in the film? We see the girls acting like the women they have seen on TV, which prompts the question, were are the girls' real parents? The kids in this film have "adopted" celebrities to be their parents, in every sense of the world, including to "provide for them" as a parent should provide for their child (the kids go in and take what they want). When Sam asks the lawyer if he has contacted any of the victims, and he replies he has talked to all of them, she wants to know, "What did Lindsey say?" and this isn't much different than a child acting out to force its parent to acknowledge them and get some kind of response from them. Regardless of what you and I think of "celebrity culture," how we interact or don't interact with it is part of our free will; claims made that celebrities have "too much influence" are deliberately intended to undermine that free will exists at all (this is a major platform in socialism, the control capitalists have over our appetites which takes away our free will) and if we pass the blame onto Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian, we have also forsaken our free will when we forsake our responsibility for abusing it, which the film seems to be fully aware of.

What's really going on here is the re-distribution of wealth. We've discussed this before: with the class war-fare Obama has waged about the upper-class "paying their fair share," what is being exposed in a film like The Bling Ring is stealing. This is a bit more of an extended clip of the kids in Paris' closet:

Is the real problem the film presents about how much Paris Hilton has, which is what the Democrats want you to focus on, or is the real problem The Bling Ring wants to direct our attention to an inherent deficit in the characters of the kids, and--if that is the real problem--how is taking away the wealth of the rich going to solve that? It's not, because its not intended to, but the Democrats don't think we are smart enough to figure that out, namely, that taking away wealth from one doesn't make me richer, it just makes the government more powerful to take away from its citizens.

Chris Hemsworth as Thor. An interesting conflict the film is setting up is between Jane (Natalie Portman) and Sif (Jamie Alexander). In mythology, Sif is Thor's wife, and while she didn't get a lot of time in the last film, some rumors have suggested Thor's relationship with her will be expanded in this installment even as he has brought Jane to Asgard. On another note, there was a strange bit of the new Thor trailer, at the start, when a young boy touches a work truck and it begins to levitate, the area around the truck going into zero-gravity as we see a wrench floating around in the truck cab; why? The truck is being turned around, and--at least for me--it might be invoking a phrase we have heard in another trailer: "vehicular warfare" from Fast and Furious 6. Is the "turning upside-down" of the auto industry a part of using cars and public transportation as a means of war? We have all ready seen the groundwork of these arguments in both Expendables II and The Dark Knight Rises and--because cars play such an important role in the story line--it will probably be picked up by The Great Gatsby as well (see below in the next caption for more, if you will, please).

I'm not quite sure what to make of this, but thinking on the trailer released for Thor the Dark World yesterday, I realized a pattern among villains: an emphasis on the beginning. For example, in yesterday's trailer, Loki says, "When do we start?" and in trailer 3 for Star Trek Into Darkness, Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) asks Kirk, "Now, shall we begin?" and Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) tells Tony Stark in Iron Man 3, "Today is the first day of what's left of your life." Even though I am not quite sure of what to make of this pattern, a beginning or start with them is definitely an emerging pattern we will have to explore. In the meantime, Star Trek has released a second clip; we don't know where in the narrative's timeline this clip is situated, but the polar opposition between Kirk's and Spock's character is apparent, and so are the consequences:

To begin with the obvious,...
What would have happened to the crew if--Spock being in charge--they didn't try to make the ship fit through the crack? They would be captured or destroyed. The film wants us to know this, one more example how the bond between the audience and the character of Kirk is being strengthened. One of the techniques Alfred Hitchcock utilized to become the "master of suspense," was his understanding of audience identification with the character on the screen (it doesn't even have to be the main character, we can even identify with the villain!); Hitchcock understood our psychological transference from our self into the story so well, he could take us anywhere in a film, and the same is being done in this clip: it's not just the crew of the Enterprise on board this ship with Kirk, we the audience are on board that ship, fleeing the enemy just as Kirk is, and when he saves the crew, he's saving us as well. Don't get me wrong: I'm not labeling this propaganda or anything; this is the way art works, especially film, because art is cathartic, and we don't get to enjoy the cleansing quality of catharsis unless we have experienced the danger; but there is a reason the film is doing this,...

The not-so-obvious reference this second clip makes is in the first two words said: "fuel cells." Where else have we heard that phrase recently? Oblivion, when the "Scavs" have been collecting fuel cells from the drones to create a bomb to blow up the Tet. Why would "fuel cells" be included in both these films? If we expand the topic of "fuel cells" to the realm of discussion on energy in general in films, we can include two other important films to add some perspective: The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises. In those two films, billionaires Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne had both invested in green energy only to have it used as a weapon of terror against the people. It may or may NOT be the case--we will have to see--if rising gas prices are part of "vehicular warfare" since higher gas prices drain households of expendable income and purchasing power, forcing which modes of transportation we choose and limiting our travel freedom.

Ultimately, in showing these forms of leadership in Tony Stark, Captain Kirk and Thor, we are being shown what a leader is, and that is clearly not how Obama leads, is it? While North Korea has been threatening a nuke attack on us, Obama has been shooting baskets. Does that sound like a US President to you? After Americans were killed in the Benghazi attacks, Obama went to Las Vegas the next day and had his picture taken by slot machines in a casino, then partied with Beyonce and Jay-Z all day. Would we go see a film where the "hero" acted like Obama? All the qualities we see exhibited by these heroes are meant to remind us of what leaders actually do and how they do it and why those are heroic qualities.
In other film news,...

"Man. God. Hero." For Christians, we are offered the chance to fulfill all three of these roles by God if we apply our free will correctly, to build up our characters rather than destroying them. Our humanity is the gift of life that comes from God, so that we can be born into the Life of Grace and then, having cleansed ourselves of all that is weak and sinful within our natures, we can then become the servants of our fellow humans, also known as heroes or saints. That's the standard progression of the soul in Christianity (you cannot tend to the soul of someone else until you have tended to your own soul). The poster actually reveals more than it seems to. Again, we see Hercules, but he's not a mammoth of a man; he has the traditional "club" from ancient depictions of the hero, suggesting this film adaptation of his will try to stick to what we know of him. In the lower part of the poster, we see Athens (even though Hercules is the Roman demi-god, it appears he will be in Athens rather than Rome, but I could be wrong about that, the point is, the capitol is there and Hercules has a relationship to the capital--like Katniss in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire). There are storm clouds, but we can't tell if the storm clouds are gathering to block out the sun, or dissipating to reveal the sun and, it's possible, that in the upper-right corner where sunlight shines through the dark clouds, are the outlines of Olympus (but maybe not). In the center of the poster, commanding most of our attention, is Hercules' club, which symbolically relates to Thor's hammer. In his famous 12 Labors, Hercules has to kill as many beings as he must capture or aide them, and we should be prepared for a highly symbolic film.

A film I am getting really excited about is Hercules 3D. Why? The heroes we see in films this year--Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness, Man Of Steel, Thor the Dark World, 300: Rise Of An Empire, etc.--decide who the heroes are next year and what will make them a hero to the audience (Captain America, The Amazing Spider Man 2, Godzilla, Hercules, even The Penguins from the Madagascar series). Kellan Lutz (pictured below) has been cast to play strong-man Hercules; why Lutz? Why not cast a really strong man like Dwayne The Rock Johnson? Without a doubt, Lutz will be physically peaked to play Hercules, but casting Lutz gives us an idea that it's not the physical strength of Hercules, rather, his moral and emotional strength the film makers will focus on as the mythic hero performs his 12 labors. Why is this important?

Kellan Lutz has been cast as Hercules while Liam McIntyre from Spartacus will be his trusted friend. It appears at this point that there is a second Hercules film in the works (?) with The Rock Dwayne Johnson but I haven't seen any definite news I can pass along with accuracy.

I have not read the book nor have I any intention whatsoever of reading the "story" of a kinky billionaire and his sexual affair with some young girl in Fifty Shades of Grey, which is being made into a film. I am sure there is a moral lesson in the film, there is a cultural message the film will pass along to viewers--and I am sure there will be a lot of viewers--but I am not going to be one of them. I am hoping, and of course, I am often wrong, but perhaps Hercules will be a counter-cultural hero to what will be offered in Fifty Shades of Grey. With Wrath Of the Titans (Sam Worthington), Immortals (Henry Cavill), 300: Rise Of An Empire, Percy Jackson & the Olympians: the Lightening Thief and Percy Jackson: Sea Of Monsters (and the title of Olympus Has Fallen), the themes of classical history--and how those themes pertain to our current affairs today--is a hot item, and we would do well to keep it in mind, because we chose who we are and how to think of ourselves; some film makers, like those putting out The Great Gatsby, want to control how we think of ourselves and view our history, and if we give them that, they will control it and we will be lost.

In his Histories, Herodotus writes of Themistokles: "He is a man who, when making his plans, fears and reflects on everything that can happen to him, but in the moment of action, is bold." From what I understand, some of the most expensive special effects of the original 300 were the water scenes when the storm destroys a number of Xerxes' boats and we see dead soldiers floating from a water shot; if that's the case,... this might be a really expensive film, it also might pave the way for an Oscar nom for best visual effects.

300: Rise Of An Empire is,... still filming? With a August 2 release date, it seems like Warner Brothers is really cutting it close but a few more images have been released so it appears the Immortals will be slugging it out on the sea battle as well. Here is an interesting quote from director Noam Murro (Zack Snyder is just producing): “Themistokles (Sullivan Stapelton) is battle-scarred and a warrior, but at the same time he’s a politician. He’s not the king. He has to rule in a democracy. It’s a different complexity of character. These people don’t want to fight, they even say that they are not Spartans,” says Murro. “They are common people who have to do this to not be in under the rule of a dictator. This is not a duplicate movie or a cookie-cutter. It’s a very different story to tell in keeping with the original flavor of 300.”
Why is this important?

Like the Hercules figure we see above, Themistokles is not a big guy--compared to Gerard Butler's Leonides in the original 300--and that's going to be an important, on-going theme: what makes a hero strong? What makes a man a "man?" Themistokles will be highly contrasted with Xerxes' appearance and sexuality, and this will intentionally be meant to influence viewers of what is masculine, all-American behavior and what is not.

We have all ready seen Captain Kirk and Thor talking about out and out war, and we see real war in 300: Rise Of An Empire as a sea battle,... are we being prepped to go to war? Just saying. They didn't have to take this film in the direction they have taken it, for example, most of us thought it was a pre-quel, the story of Leonides growing up and the Spartan kingdom that made him, not a sea battle; so why a sea battle? Think of it this way: hasn't the Pacific and Atlantic oceans always insulated America from the kind of wars that plague European and African countries? As the "smaller world" of our century meant that our oceans don't protect us anymore, rather, we are just as open to attack as anyone else? With the recent events in the news, it certainly appears this way, and make no mistake: film makers make their movies, but they stop to listen to the news and see the images, and these things make their way into the films. But there is another hero we need to discuss: Spider Man.

You probably recall Dane DeHaan from Chronicle and Lawless and, in The Amazing Spider Man, he plays Peter Parker's (Andrew Garfield) friend Harry Osborn. Note, if you will, two details. First, the high reflection of Osborn's face on the car; reflections like these aren't accidents but intentional, so we will have to ask, what is Osborn reflection on or about? Secondly, please note the "swept" hairstyle he wears revealing a part of his forehead; does this style suggest what Osborn covers up, or what he reveals?

The official synopsis for The Amazing Spider Man 2 is: "[F]or Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), life is busy – between taking out the bad guys as Spider-Man and spending time with the person he loves, Gwen (Emma Stone), high school graduation can’t come quickly enough. Peter hasn’t forgotten about the promise he made to Gwen’s father to protect her by staying away – but that’s a promise he just can’t keep. Things will change for Peter when a new villain, Electro (Jamie Foxx), emerges, an old friend, Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan), returns, and Peter uncovers new clues about his past." There is also the character of reporter Mary Jane being played by Shailene Wooley (The Descendants) which shall add an interesting mix to this plot.

Jamie Foxx as the Amazing Spider Man villain, Electro. That's some hair he's sporting, eh? It reflects the "web" of red string we see to his left, and we have seen that before, in both A Beautiful Mind (Russell Crowe) and Sherlock Holmes A Game Of Shadows. The background on Electro is that he never talks to anyone, but thinks he's Spider Man's partner,... please note, at this point, the reflection being made on his eyeglasses and how the web he seems to have pinned up back there "connects" him to things he's not connected to. Electro wears a blue suit and appears to be kept at a mental institute for the criminally insane.

I am working on the post for Oblivion, it's really detailed; again, if you plan on seeing Iron Man 3 next weekend, you probably want to buy your tickets NOW, because those are going to go fast, especially if you plan on viewing it in 3D/IMAX. By the way, if you are in Los Angeles, do you know anything about a nuclear testing taking place? Some nasty rumors are going around about how FEMA just happened to be doing exercises nearby the Sandy Hook shooting, and police just happened to be doing a bomb drill at the finish line of the Boston Marathon and now, this weekend, drills are going to be done of a nuclear attack in Los Angeles, Oakland and Berkley; also a zombie and UFO drill in Moscow, Idaho. Hope you have a back-up flashlight ready,...
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Trailer: Thor the Dark World

2013-04-23T11:56:00.000-05:00

Oh, this is going to be good,...!

"What are you willing to sacrifice for what you believe?" that question isn't centered on what you have, what you want to get, what are you willing to sacrifice for the safety of those you love, what are you wiling to sacrifice for the destruction of your enemies? No, the question is put to Thor, "What are you willing to sacrifice for what you believe?" and that is a very pointed question because what we believe reveals our deepest, truest most intimate identity, our real self is found in what we really believe, and what we really believe we sacrifice ourselves for.
Now, this introduces the subject of Loki,...

There is a substantial amount of visual information released in this trailer. For example, it appears--and I could be wrong--that, once again, it's London under attack (in GI Joe Retaliation and Star Trek Into Darkness London is attacked); why? The last several years, London has been a hotbed of civil unrest regarding austerity measures and the government cutting back on entitlement programs, generating protests. This is important because this theme appears to be in Oblivion as well, though slyly concealed. Has England become a socialist state? Officially, this might not be the case, but is it so in reality? I remember a documentary on Winston Churchill I once watched and, regarding the elections at the end of World War II, one socialist politician made the comment that England would adopt every socialist program but never under the name of socialism. Has this, in fact, happened? No one holds the US British alliance dearer to their heart than myself, and especially my large readership base in the UK, but given the recurring destruction scenes in London films are depicting, we have to ask this question: has London destroyed itself with socialist legislation? It's a theme to which we will, regrettably, be returning. So, if this is London in the opening scenes, what is Jane doing in London? The last we saw her in Thor, she was in New Mexico and in The Avengers, Agent Coulson had her sent away consulting like in Washington sate or something. So, unless the narrative is jumping around--quite possible--what takes the American Jane to London will be symbolically important.

In our discussion on The Avengers, we examined how the "god of mischief" made his older brother look foolish when Loki tricked Thor into entering his prison and trapping Thor inside it and Loki asked Thor, "Are you ever not going to fall for that?" The scene establishes the virtue of Thor, even while risking making him look ridiculous, because it reveals that even when Thor has the greatest reasons to flat-out hate Loki for what he has done to him personally, Asgard and earth, Thor stills loves him as a brother and in every situation, Thor acts honorably and with the utmost dignity. This is what makes a hero. This is what makes a person great: what they hold in their heart. This also demonstrates what makes a villain and why Loki is such a good one. Thor strives for truth and love, Loki strives for power and revenge. "You must be truly desperate to come to me for help," Loki snips at Thor, but Thor isn't "desperate," he loves Loki and wants Loki to want to help him, Thor wants Loki to redeem himself (Thor could no more kill Loki than he could kill Jane but I do think Loki dies in this film). In prison--similar to the cells in Skyfall, The Avengers and Star Trek Into Darkness--Loki appears wasted, and sometimes "wasting away" is good because the waste within a person has been starved in exile and they become a better person (for example, we see Thor wearing black several times in the clip, and black can be taken as a sign of death, that part of Thor is wasting away, and that's good because he's being cleansed of his impetuous nature, his own arrogance and conceit); this doesn't appear to be what has happened with Loki judging by the arrogant tone he uses with Thor.

Another aspect of the trailer we need to note are similarities between Thor and Captain James Kirk in Star Trek Into Darkness. Like Kirk, we see Thor siding with the need for action and going after the trouble-makers, even if it means war, and this is not an easy agenda to sell to audiences. Like Kirk, we see Thor the great and proud, falling to his knees, just as Kirk has to apologize to his crew for putting them in jeopardy. But we all make mistakes, but heroes turn mistakes into virtue, and that's why not all of us are heroes, we don't learn the right lessons from our mistakes, and that difference reveals one of the essential roles of art in humanity, how art teaches us about ourselves.

"Some believe," Odin (Sir Anthony Hopkins) says, "that before the universe, there was nothing. They are wrong. There was darkness, and it has survived." Why elves? Is an elf a worthy enemy of the god of thunder to do battle against? Don't we generally think of elves as being good? Like the little, red-hatted elves in Rise Of the Guardians, or the plethora of immortal elves in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit? I think this is exactly why he's battling elves, we do think of them as being "good," so--in our world, on this side of the screen--there is something that "looks good" but is truly evil; what could that be? The voice over from Odin, about "darkness that has survived," creates--at least at this point--an interesting metaphysical scenario: that there is always a primal darkness that latches onto something or someone in order to resurrect itself, and we see this in The Hobbit with the resurrection of the Necromancer everyone thought was dead but is using someone to raise himself up again. In Thor the Dark World, it's not the elves that existed before the universe, it's darkness, and it's just through the elves that darkness returns.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

TRAILERS: Star Trek Into Darkness Volcano Clip, Errors Of the Human Body, Pain and Gain and Fast & Furious 6

2013-04-22T19:00:00.000-05:00

Sorry I am taking so long on Oblivion, but there were a few details that were really bugging me and I might have them figured out, which means something highly controversial if I am right, so I am working on that. In the meantime, here is the "Volcano" clip from the upcoming Star Trek Into Darkness and this is important for two reasons: first, Star Trek is being directed by JJ Abrams, who--it has just been announced--is directing the next three Star Wars films, which will probably be huge. Secondly, we know that, in Wrath of Khan from the early 1980s, which Star Trek Into Darkness is probably based on, Spock dies, and this clip is certainly a teaser:

I'm not a Chris Pines fan, but I can't think of anyone who could play Captain Kirk better than he. What Spock says is true--"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"--and or current government would do well to remember that, however, what Kirk wants to do is what we see Jack Harper doing in Oblivion, making the heroic effort to preserve life. When our government did nothing to save Americans at Benghazi--and all the resources were there for them to do so--something has basic as what Oblivion and Star Trek Into Darkness are proposing could be said to be treasonous by the standards of the Obama administration. But there is a sub-text going on as well,...

Is this it for Spock?

At 0:22, Scottie sees a sea monster outside the window, meaning, while Spock is in the fire, Kirk is in the water (we could say, like the housing market, the USS Enterprise is also "under water")--the exact opposite element--but if there is a monster in the water, there is probably a monster also in the fire, and that "monster" might just be Spock himself: Spock's calculating logic--in this context--disregards his own humanity, and it's telling that it's not the fire of the volcano which is going to kill him, but the force the will make the volcano "inert," which will also make Spock inert, but is Spock all ready "inert" by his logic and very nature? When we watch the film, knowing this scene will be coming up, we will need to pay particular attention to how Spock behaves and anything which could indict him as being "inert." But then, there is also what Bones says to Kirk,...

We know bits but not the order in which events occur, making it difficult to piece the film together without seeing it. Spock isn't a "bad character," like a villain, it's just that the film wants to draw our attention to why a certain set of characteristics should be seen as virtues instead of vices.

"If Spock were here and I were there, what would he do?" and Bones replies, "He'd let you die." That, in and of itself, my dear readers, might be the "monster in the fire," that puts Spock's life in jeopardy, his blind adhering to the rules; why? Like Kirk, the main character with whom we as the audience are asked to identify, we want there to be an exception to the rule, we know Spock must be saved and so does Kirk, so this situation strengthens our bond with Kirk's character because the story--and all art does this--is constructed as a "hypothetical world scenario" of our own culture, and the traits Kirk exhibits, which the story will prove are the correct traits for a hero to have and, hence, all Americans, is advocating that this is how all of us need to act, that we need to be Captain Kirks and not Spocks; the rest of the story line and the conflict with the villain, will prove why Kirk's traits might seem like vices, but they are exactly what this society needs right now.

"Every breakthrough has its price"

This is one of those films that looks oddly interesting to me: Dr. Geoff Burton (Eklund), a brilliant genetics researcher, is invited to a lab in Dresden, only to discover a lethal virus is being created, which he may have unintentionally caused and be its first victim. This mystery is set against Dr. Burton trying to find redemption and peace from a past haunted by the death of his infant son.

We have seen something like this in both The Amazing Spider Man and The Skin I Live In (and, if you bothered to watch it--which no one but myself probably did--this is also in Nazis At the Center Of the Earth). Is this only a science fiction thriller though? Watch this clip:

Have you ever heard of science experiments done on prisoners in Nazi concentration camps? That's the kind of thing that was done on them.
Opening this week is Pain and Gain, a film I have somewhat avoided discussing because I wasn't quite sure what to say, but--after seeing some released clips--I am pretty confident now; Trailer #1:

We have seen this before, two times before to be exact. There is Spring Breakers and The Bling Ring, both encoding the idea of stealing from the wealthy because I deserve it and they don't; don't believe me? Watch this quick spot:

What we have is a "confusion" about what the American Dream is, and all three of these films (Spring Breakers, The Bling Ring and Pain and Gain) examine what the American Dream is not to arrive at what the American Dream is (in philosophy this is called "negative theology"). Listen to what they say at 0:26, in a gun store, and tell me this isn't an anti-Obama film:

While there hasn't been a new trailer released for Fast and Furious 6, this featurette contains some new footage you might be interested in seeing:

Fast and Furious 6 is sooooo good, they have all ready committed to Fast and Furious 7 and a release date of next year for it; the director for the horror film The Conjuring has been signed to do the film. Tomorrow, via iTunes, the first look at the trailer for Thor the Dark World will be released (it's possible we won't be able to see it before the Iron Man 3 release any other way; and speaking of Iron Man 3, if you want to see it, you probably want to buy your tickets now, as in today).
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

This new poster and a full synopsis has been revealed for the magic film, Now You See Me: The Four Horsemen, a magic super-group led by the charismatic ATLAS (Jesse Eisenberg), perform a pair of high-tech magic shows, first astonishing audiences by robbing a bank on another continent, and then exposing a white-collar criminal and funneling his millions into the audience members’ bank accounts. FBI Special Agent DYLAN (Mark Ruffalo) is determined to make the magicians pay for their crimes—and to stop them before they pull off what promises to be an even more audacious heist. But he’s forced to partner with ALMA (Melanie Laurent), an Interpol detective about whom he is instantly suspicious. Out of desperation he turns to THADDEUS (Morgan Freeman), a famed magic debunker, who claims the bank heist was accomplished using disguises and video trickery. One thing Dylan and Alma agree on is that the Horsemen must have an outside point person, and that finding him (or her) is key to ending the magicians’ crime spree. Could it be Thaddeus? Or Alma? Or could it really be…magic? As pressure mounts and the world awaits the Horsemen’s spectacular final trick, Dylan and Alma race to find an answer. But it soon becomes painfully clear that staying one step ahead of these masters of illusion is beyond the skills of any one man—or woman.

Trailer: RIPD, Star Trek Disruptions Teaser, Thor 2 News & Oblivion

2013-04-20T13:23:00.000-05:00

The first poster for Thor the Dark World, to be released November 2013; there has been a correction: the first trailer will still be attached to Iron Man 3, however, we will be able to watch it via iTunes April 23; in the meantime, let's look at this poster. Pretty basic, huh? Not too original, or is that the point? There are at least three dominant characteristics standing out: first and foremost, in the center field of our view, is the right hand of Thor clutching Mjolnir the hammer with lightening charges coming from it. Contrary to belief, this would actually be a difficult poster to design, because you have first and foremost a decision to either show the god of thunder suffering and weak--in a vulnerable position, especially given the events of the film--or strong and dominant, still in control, and this poster depicts Thor as strong as ever. Thor's right hand, up high on the handle of Mjolnir, communicates his control even amidst the storm (the second element) of the poster. The third element of the poster is: Thor's hair. We know hair reveals how a character is thinking (cool and collected for hair that is all in place, or disciplined and controlled for hair pulled back); part of Thor's hair appears to be pulled back, but there are also loose strands flying around and getting in his eyes. This might seem merely aesthetic, however, we know Thor has displayed "clouded judgment" in the past, like in Thor when he took his crew and attacked Jotunheim, or crashed in at The Avengers to take Loki back to Asgard without getting Iron Man's and Captain America's permission. We do know that Thor seeks Loki's help in the plot of this film, and part of Thor's journey might be in regard to his judgment of Loki's character. On the other hand, it might have to do with Jane (Natalie Portman) or Earth, but we can be pretty sure Thor will learn something about himself during this film, and that something will pertain to the grand scheme of American justice and how we view ourselves. But we should also note: there's also nothing missing. Thor doesn't sustain any apparent physical injuries (like on his face) nor does he appear to be missing any of his armor: the cape and all seem to be just as it should and this illustrates the steadfastness of world order and the triumph of good over evil.

Oblivion is excellent!
Whether or not it's fair of me to do this, I always ask, could only this actor have been in this role, or did they just plop someone in who needed a vehicle? Oblivion is classic Tom Cruise and I actually don't think another actor could have done this role, not like Cruise does. I've never been a big fan of his, but Cruise communicates a humanity you feel and cherish, and in a film about clones, that's a sign of great skill and craft. Without a doubt, it's 100% pro-capitalist and pro-American, very consciously aware of the arguments it puts up and the films to which it's responding (The Hunger Games & The Vow), so there's a lot to discuss and numerous elements we shall be referring back to in the future as Oblivion makes a direct point. The visuals and special effects are fantastic on the big screen, so if you are in the mood for a film, take it in this weekend!

Something you might particularly like about Oblivion is the role this painting plays in the film. You know the role of the implied viewer in art: the artist knows that the audience/viewer has knowledge about "something," so they incorporate that "something" to create a sub-text dialogue with the viewer and expand the realm of the art's message: for example, of the many books Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) reads, one of them we see clearly is Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities. If you have read the book--or should I say, if you remember having read it in high school--then you know it's about the French Revolution. The film makers know people know this book title, to they included it in Jack's reading so we would know something more about him without the film having to stop and spell it out for us; the people, like my dad, who haven't the slightest idea what A Tale Of Two Cities is about, is the unimplied viewer, because--not knowing what the book is about--he can't complete that part of the message the film is trying to send him, he can't even recognize it's a code he is supposed to decipher, just like the coordinates that have to be deciphered in the film. So, back to the painting. This is a perfect example of when you don't have to be an implied viewer to get the message of the painting being included because they give it to you: "It reminds me of home," Julia (Olga Kurylenko) tells Jack, and you can make the mental calculations to fit in her emotions with the scene depicted in the painting. Of all the paintings they could have chosen, however, (and the scavs have an actual art museum of works they have saved and preserved, so they consciously know they could have chosen any number of paintings) we have to ask, Why this one? In my original critique of the painting I did last year, I closely analyze the details and why artist Andrew Wyeth chose this scene to depict and why it has become so recognizable to so many people, and I think that's part of why it's still important today and, in effect, being resurrected today, because we are in the same plight as the girl in the image (for my complete analysis, and I will be looking at the painting again in my full review of Oblivion, please see Christina's World & Our World).

A couple of days ago, we saw the villain of Man Of Steel, General Zod, release a noise-filled message to the world, and today, the villain of Star Trek Into Darkness (Benedict Cumberbatch) has done the same: I'm trying to get Oblivion posted, so I am going to let you tease this one out on your own, but do pay attention because these are elements we will be discussing in Emperor and other posts:

Don't look at it in terms of originality, rather, that redundancy in communicating noise in communication (please recall we saw the same features in the character of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises and in the trailer for Prometheus) and this wouldn't be happening if there were not a problem, somewhere in our culture, where someone was saying something that we weren't getting,... but I will leave the rest of this to you.
Moving right along,...
I just saw the trailer for RIPD last night at Oblivion, and this has me concerned; what does this remind you of?

Numerous elements suggest a reversal of Men In Black: the strange partnership between an older agent and a younger agent, the bizarre characters they come up against hiding out among the regular people, the strange weapons, and their other-dimension habitation. How does Ryan Reynolds' character die?... He falls "over a cliff." Okay, "cliff" might be a bit of a loose interpretation for me, and I could be completely wrong, I confess that up front, but what happens at 1:15? "An old Chinese guy? What about you?" and we see the gorgeous blond. Why? Well, isn't that the "two faces" of socialism in America today, the Hollywood glamor backing Obama and his agenda, and an old Chinese guy from the land of the Iron Rice Bowl? "If the dead take over, that's it for the living world," which, again, is a pretty typical kind of story line for films nowadays (World War Z has zombies like Resident Evil Retribution and Evil Dead, GallowWalkers has gallow walkers, Fast and Furious 6 has the "dead" Lettie [Michelle Rodriguez], etc.).

Without a doubt, there is also an element reminding me of Ghostbusters, perhaps because the third one--according to rumors--has finally been approved by Bill Murray and nostalgia is creeping in.

As a capitalist, you know that I think of socialism has being "dead" for two reasons: one, when the Soviet Union fell, socialism as a viable form of government for a large country/population, died,... that's it, it won't work. Two, socialism is dead because of what it does to people: denying any person has a soul and being treated like livestock by the government means you are dead as a human being. To socialists, on the other hand, I as a capitalist am dead because I deny all people equal access to a community's resources and I don't want all people to have a fair chance to succeed in life, and I'm just mean (most things, I believe, socialists and capitalists agree on, we just differ on how it can best be accomplished). What might make this a pro-capitalist film, for example, is the setting of New York City, which has been demolished in films as of late: Expendables II, Total Recall, Oblivion, Men In Black III, among others, because it's the financial capitol of the world and the site of the 2008 economic crash which triggered the "perfect storm" for Obama to take power. So we will see. I am working on Oblivion right now and will have it up asap!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

"Earth is a memory worth fighting for," and the role memories and identity play are crucial in the film. Have fun catching all the film references throughout the narrative, because there's a lot of them, I don't think I even got them all.

Trailers: Star Trek Into Darkness #3, The Great Gatsby, Man Of Steel, The Lone Ranger, Oblivion

2013-04-18T11:00:00.000-05:00

Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.

The voice-over by William Shatner, which began the Star Trek TV series throughout the mid-1960s, isn't just a voice-over: it was the battle cry of a nation, of the American people, as laid out in the 1958 study by the White House on the American endeavor to explore outer space: The first of these factors is the compelling urge of man to explore and to discover, the thrust of curiosity that leads men to try to go where no one has gone before. Most of the surface of the earth has now been explored and men now turn on the exploration of outer space as their next objective.
And we did.

This isn't the Garden Of Eden he's running through. Whatever happens in this scene must be significant because fractions of it have been included in all the trailers and it's featured on one of the major posters. The mark on the right side of Kirk's face--which appears in numerous clips, as well as other facial injuries--indicates that Kirk has been "defaced," he has lost face with his command and crew (of course, we see this in the trailer below). The circumstances leading to those symbolic injuries will prove imperative to digging into Kirk's character in this film because an injury physically revealed is actually an injury spiritually hidden, in other words, if Kirk has been defaced to his crew and command, the moral/psychological/spiritual/intimate damage to Kirk interiorly is far more extensive, but the injury points to or leads us in the direction we need to go in understanding what that damage is. Why should we care? Some might say, "It's just a movie, this is just a big budget film to make money, it doesn't matter and Star Trek isn't important." I've never really watched TV, and I think I've only seen one full version of the original Star Trek and one full version of the Next Generation with Picard, so I'm not a "trekkie" and don't have that kind of loyalty-bias. What Kirk goes through, and we can say the same of any hero, acts as a metaphor for what the country goes through. These films being released are the critical platform of political debate which isn't happening anywhere else in society, only in our art. And this is appropriate, this is one of the primary roles of art, to show us what is really going on, but it will show us, not tell us, and it's our job to seek out the message being offered so we have the perspective and can make our own decisions about where we want the country to go, or not go.

America, as Men In Black III reminded us, won the Space Race. Star Trek wasn't just a "national agenda" weekly of capitalist propaganda, it was the standard for each American to live up to, the "new life" that each viewer could have for themselves, the "new civilization" Americans could shape and create that had never existed before, and enter a political realm of individual freedom and liberty for all people in all countries throughout the world. It was like the re-settling of the American frontier all over again, and there was an unlimited potential for freedom that had to be used wisely. What inspired one generation has now been resurrected to inspire a new generation, and as we see in the trailer below because the USS Enterprise, i.e., the "ship of state," is badly damaged.
This... is... going... to be... awesome.

"I believe in you, Jim," echo words we heard in Oz the Great and Powerful, where believing was imperative to overcoming the evil consuming the land; what exactly, though, is "believing" in the person of Captain James Kirk? He's arrogant, he doesn't think he can make a mistake, he's reckless, takes unnecessary chances and doesn't follow the rules, so why on earth should we believe in him, wouldn't Spock be the safer bet? The nice, slow, easy, steady, predictable, boring bet? What Star Trek Into Darkness delivers in the character of James T. Kirk, isn't going to be a fabulous plot for an enormous-budget film, because, in all honesty, if that's all it was doing it would be hollow and total failure. Americans are smarter than that, we have to have a hero we can believe in because that hero mirrors us, ourselves, our highest ideal of what it means to be an American.

Why does a ship symbolize the "ship of state?" Like a ship at sea, or outer space, there has to be a captain and a crew, just like a government; at sea or in space, there is both smooth-sailing and stormy weather, just like what faces a nation (the Bible utizlizes the theme with the "Bark of Peter" and Peter being the head of the Church the way he was the head of his fishing ship on the Sea of Galilee; such a theme will undoubtedly appear in the next three Pirates Of the Caribbean films, for example). A ship can also symbolize more than this, like the soul, but these are "organic symbols" that flex and grow within the narrative they are situated. We cannot doubt, however, that the USS Enterprise represents the American government and the American spirit, and what happens to it comments upon our own fate in the real political arena of the world.

What is it Pike believes in when he tells Jim, "I believe in you?" Jim's heart, that he will make mistakes, but what he does, he does for a greater good, he does for a moral end, for an American ideal of justice and liberty. The virtues, and the vices of Captain James T. Kirk are the virtues and vices of America, what we hold dear, what we value in ourselves and others, what we believe leadership to be, why it's important and why it works. Star Trek Into Darkness will be the re-affirmation of all that is American.
On the other hand, The Great Gatsby will probably be a re-affirmation of what some hate about America:

"You can't relive the past," is the theme of the book, and in the book, "Reliving the past" was a new age of American millionaires trying to relive the Roaring 1920s, but after the lessons of the Great Depression; likewise, The Great Gatsby today says, "You can't relive the past," but this is talking about you can't rebuild the American economy after the 2008 economic crash. Why is there so much obviously "artificial" areas in the clips we are seeing? Because it wants to instill that capitalism is artificial and so are the people who "make it." The Great Gatsby will undermine both the inherited wealthy class (Joel Edgerton's character) and the self-made men, Jay Gatsby's character (Leonardo Di Caprio; again, if you have the time, you really should read the book, it's quite well written and a fairly quick read).

Daisy, played by Carey Mulligan, symbolizes the motherland; her husband, played by Joel Edgarton, symbolizes the old wealth, or inherited wealth in America while Jay Gatsby (DiCaprio) is the self-made man, new wealth and the American Dream; just as Daisy is in-between the two men in the poster, so she is in-between them in the story line and symbolically; stuck in a loveless marriage to the upper-class, and a dangerous, shallow romance with her lover from the past, there is no where for her to turn, and that's the anti-capitalist jist we are going to be delivered.

"A little party never hurt nobody," but that's obviously a sarcastic comment, because we see in the trailer someone getting killed, and we know from the book that her death triggers catastrophic consequences. The theme of the "party" is one we have experienced increasingly in films, but mostly as a metaphor for the way Democrats and socialists are running the country without regard for the consequences to be paid: Project X, Spring Breakers, The Collector, The Bing Ring and Identity Thief (when Diane's buying everyone's drinks at the bar); we could say, with The Great Gatsby, the table has been turned, that the rich in the country have been living "high on the hog," (a term used in Side Effects) like the wealthy at the onset of the French Revolution and they are going to die in their sins. For the party who doesn't believe in God, they are fond of pointing out the sins of others.
Okay, ready for something cool?

Uh, there's a lot going on in this one, almost the exact opposite of The Great Gatsby. Like Thorin Oakenshield in The Hobbit, a prince who does the menial work he must to survive, we see the great Superman working a number of physically intense jobs, including something that looks like an oil rig (oh, the socialists wouldn't like that, would they?). But we're also seeing the re-writing of the myth, that the "S" stands for Superman, and the film provides us with something far greater instead, a symbol of Hope, not only for Clark himself, his own destiny and purpose and what he must do, but all of us, and that's what socialists don't want to hear. Speaking of hearing, did you catch the "noise" when Lois (Amy Adams) said, "What about Super(noise)" and they look at the one-way glass; we are the ones on the other side of that glass, because we think we know what's going to be said, and we are "intruding," so to speak, on the film trying to convey it's message.
Continuing with old hero resurrections,...

Even if it is Johnny Depp, we need to ask, "Is it really a good idea to have a white man portraying a Native American (especially when the original Tonto character was portrayed by a Mohawk Indian from Canada), and re-enforcing 'stereotypes' with broken English and dream states?" This reveals two things: one, the regular dose of hypocrisy we get from liberals, because if the film were being directed by a more conservative director than Gore Verbinski (Pirates Of the Caribbean) the liberal media would be all over this crying out about "white power" and ethnocentricity; I disagree with "white power" but I actually do agree that a Native American should have portrayed this important role because of the natural diversity of this country. The second aspect of the film making process this reveals is that one form of racial prejudice is being covered up with another form of racial prejudice: Johnny Depp isn't in "red face" for this role, he's literally in "white face." Further, there are numerous elements of Depp's Jack Sparrow pirate incorporated into the very fabric of Tonto's character: is that the same head scarf from the Pirates films? His hairstyle is certainly similar. What's my point? The liberal agenda of supporting minorities and their civil rights is arbitrary at best. If I were Native American, I would be upset about this portrayal, there is nothing dignified about this. Even if this proves to be the most pro-capitalist film of the year--and I highly doubt that--this is a tragedy of cultural proportions. Just on a side note, Red 2 (Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren Catherine Zeta-Jones) has a moment when John Malkovich's character calls Bruce Willis' character, "kemosabe," after the famous name Tonto has for the Lone Ranger. I have no idea what they want to reference by this, but it is undoubtedly a reference and something we will need to track.

"You sure have a hard time staying dead," one outlaw tells the Lone Ranger in the trailer below, and we hear a similar concept conveyed in Wesley Snipes' GallowWalkers, "Being dead ain't what it used to be" which also echoes the general theme of being a zombie. In the new Disney The Lone Ranger, John Reid (the Lone Ranger, Armie Hammer), a law student, returns home only to discover outlaws have taken over; when his brother is murdered, he gets the help of Tonto (Johnny Depp) and the two form a partnership:

To begin with, we are presented with the "origin" of the masked cowboy; like Man Of Steel, going back to a hero's origin is also going back to our own origin, and helping us find our identity through finding our history, but there's a funny thing about history, everyone seems to have a different memory of what happened. In The Lone Ranger, we are being given the tale of how John Reid became the masked cowboy through Tonto retelling the tale of their adventure. This is a minor detail, but I think an imperative one, because just as Depp is dressed up to be Native American, though he isn't, and he doesn't look Native American, the film makers are insisting that he is; does he look like a Native American you have ever seen, or does he look like a freak (the expanded crow head dress particularly leads us in this direction)? If they have taken such gross liberties with Tonto's character, why should we trust their narrative at all? Are they, in the parlance of literary criticism, a reliable narrator?

My biggest complaint about the new Lone Ranger? Facial hair. Yes, I am going to complain about that 5 O'Clock shadow. No offense, guys, this is just in the realm of art, so please take this as a hypothetical discussion, not a fashion statement. The mouth/jaw symbolizes or point to, the appetites. Don't get offended guys, but facial hair is the mark of the "uncivilized man" because men who are civilized shave, so to have a growth of hair on the face pertains to that primal appetite, not the civilized and disciplined, and if you are going to have a hero, he has to be free of the appetites because only someone who has first executed justice upon their self is worthy and able to execute justice upon others (you can't teach someone a lesson you haven't learned yourself first, and justice and righteousness is a lesson one must learn). Two arguments against my position: Iron Man's Tony Stark has a beard (Thor has a beard, James Bond has some facial growth in Skyfall), does that make him a bad guy? No, of course not, because we know that Tony is a man of appetites, as a billionaire and a symbol of America's own appetites, the Iron Man films chronicle Tony's bad boy image through his journey of disciplining himself and what happens when Tony doesn't discipline himself (The Avengers shows Tony at his very best). Am I being a hypocrite in supporting Tony over the Lone Ranger? No, because another detail from the trailer clues us in on how and why The Lone Ranger is going to "ban" absolute values and morals to make morality relative: his hat. Two bits in the trailer above shows us the film acknowledges the traditional symbol but intends to undermine it. There is a joke about him getting the biggest white hat he could find, and it's brilliantly white, exactly how it should be for a hero. The hat, because it's worn on the head, symbolizes our thoughts or what governs us because the head is the governing function over the rest of the body. It's artistically correct for him to have a big, white hat, because that demonstrates his big, pure concept of justice (his being a law student re-enforces this, as well as getting his father's Rangers bad, his father symbolizes the "founding fathers" of justice in the land). What happens to the hat? Tonto puts a crease in it down the middle. Where else have we seen a "crease down the middle?" In Guy Pearce's character's hair in Lawless. In Lawless, he plays a corrupt sheriff with a dramatic part right down the middle of his hair, symbolizing how he differentiates the two sides of the law, his and theirs. The same will probably happen in The Lone Ranger, morality is relative and make-up-as-you-go-along rather than absolute and definite. In other words, the Lone Ranger will be better than the corruption we see in the film, but he won't be a symbol of absolute Good, Purity, Justice, because liberals don't like things like that (that is characteristic of religious people and right wing extremists), they aren't going to present us with a hero like that, which leads us to our next point: the prayer card we see at 0:10 and then outside the train he's on, he wears a black coat and white collar, almost making him look like a priest. This is intentional, just like in Jack and the Giant Slayer, a feeble attempt is being made to unite Christians to the cause of socialism, that those who "hunger for justice" and "thirst for righteousness" will be fed and given drink through the agenda of slaughtering the upper-class.

In the voice over, we hear Tonto telling John Reid (at 0:43) that he was told in a vision that a warrior, who had been to the great beyond and returned would help him on his quest. What does that mean? Well, the one who had died and then come back, of course, but what does that mean? Like Gangster Squad, The Hunger Games, Cloud Atlas and Jack and the Giant Slayer (which wanted to but didn't bother finishing their statement because even they realized it was ridiculous), these films have formulated the thesis that they need people who have "made it big," to support making it impossible for others to "make it big," those who are rich have to step up and support taking wealth away from the wealthy, and John Reid is supposed to symbolize that because being in a state of "death" will symbolize working with those who want to uphold the status quo, i.e., capitalism. When he comes back to life, supposedly, he will be enlightened and see that socialism, or at least the abolition of wealth will mean the abolition of corruption which will mean justice. So they want us to believe.

Helena Bonham Carter as the prostitute Red. Regardless of any degree, or lack thereof, of political correctness, it's traditional in describing Native Americans as "red skins." In making Tonto "white faced," and undermining what could have been a culturally re-affirming and educating role of Native Americans in history for the audience, instead, they make it a mockery and they appear to be doing the same with women in Red. A woman appears to have power only if she's a slut or whore and gets paid for her body; is that respectful? Does that empower women? Does that empower men and show them in their best light? Here is a case in point: Helena Bonham Carter, a big-name actress, plays the prostitute, while Ruth Wilson (who plays John Reid's sister Rebecca) is hardly known by American audiences; if Ruth is the honest, strong, hard-working pioneer sister of the great hero, why isn't a better known actress lending her face to this character instead of the prostitute's? With Charlize Theron playing the Wicked Queen in Snow White and the Huntsman, Julia Roberts playing the Wicked Queen in Mirror, Mirror, Cate Blanchett playing the Evil Step-Mother in the upcoming Cinderella and Angelina Jolie playing an evil sorceress in Maleficent, the trend of elevating the bad woman isn't a trend, but an epidemic. A woman of virtue isn't what is being portrayed to audiences as the "desirable woman," women in America should want to emulate and style themselves after, rather, the evil woman, and that is exactly what America is going to get if they keep putting out these roles as role models.

Oblivion opens this weekend: I have been hesitant to say anything about which way the film will go--because it's obviously political, you can't destroy the earth and it not be political--but since it opened oversees first, the complete plot has been revealed (you can read it here) leading me to be 80% positive that it will be anti-socialist. There are some details in the trailer which support this: Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) wears a New York Yankees baseball cap, plays with a basketball and we see him in a football stadium talking about the last Super Bowl. This is Jack's natural tendency towards competition, a dominant feature of capitalism and free markets, which films like The Hunger Games abhor as blood-thirsty murder (literally). Regardless of which way the film goes, I think it will be well-done and worth watching, and present a number of important themes (the destruction of New York and radiation, drones and what they should be used to destroy, self-sacrifice and who the real aliens are causing the destruction of the United States of America) we will see repeated throughout the films in the next several years. I will be seeing it Friday afternoon and Tweeting my initial response about it!

As we have seen numerous times in films of the last year, both the socialists and the capitalists will use the same symbol or concept to communicate their own ideas; case in point, clones. Both Resident Evil Retribution and Cloud Atlas present the argument that the other economic model turns humans into clones. Socialism makes people into clones or capitalism makes people into clones, both sides have used this argument. Oblivion's plot includes clones and will play an important role in how the earth was destroyed and why. Clones are only part of the confusing identity issues we'll see in the film, and who appears to be what will be instrumental in following the film's message.

Officially, both Snow White and the Huntsman as well as Pitch Perfect and Fast and Furious 6, all have sequels in the making; Disney has officially announced release dates for new Star Wars films to be released in starting in 2015; The Croods and 21 Jump Street (Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum) are also gearing up for sequels. Why is this kind of thing important to keep track of? These films have all made statements, and those statements are going to continue to be made, those positions are going to continue to be held, the message is going to be re-sated and re-enforced with new examples and those audiences who went to see the film the first time are going to be targeted again (and there are many more films being re-made, like the next Oz the Great and Powerful, as well as another installment of Madagascar focusing on the Penguins, these listed herein are just the most recent updates). We could say that Hollywood is digging its trenches and staying for a long fight.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

More storm troopers are on the way,...

Trailers: General Zod's Message, Into the White, The Red, Romeo and Juliet, Much Ado About Nothing

2013-04-16T11:04:00.000-05:00

It's official.
There is a post-credits scene at the end of Iron Man 3, so don't let anyone you love walk out of the film early! This is a spoiler alert, so if you don't want to know what it is, just skip down: the post-credits scene is Tony Stark, on a couch, talking about his problems and what has happened; we then see Dr. Bruce Banner (the Hulk), sleeping because Tony is so boring; Banner wakes up and tells Stark, "I'm not that kind of doctor," and then goes back to sleep. Why is this important? First, if billionaire playboy Tony Stark is reflecting on what has happened, we should, too. Secondly, if Banner isn't the doctor Tony needs to be telling his problems to, that means we are the doctor and it's up to us to help Tony through his problems. Supposedly, Tony has been having problems with nightmares (I thought the problem was he couldn't sleep, but that might be an issue as well), and whenever "sleep" and "nightmares" are involved (not to mention someone on a couch talking about their problems) that's an invitation to psychoanalyze the art and we most certainly will.
Here is General Zod's message to the world from Man Of Steel:

What he says isn't as important as how he's saying it.
You may recall, when studying the trailer for Ridley Scott's Prometheus, and clips of Bane from The Dark Knight Rises, we utilized the tool known in information theory as "noise," one of my favorite analytical tools, except for all my other favorite analytical tools. Anyway, in the clip above, we are treated to both visual noise--the static appearance of the clip and the lack of detail about the identity of who is speaking--as well as audio noise: the bleeps, high-pitched noise and static we hear making it difficult to understand what Zod says. Why do this? In this era of High Definition, when hundreds of millions--even billions--are spent to provide and receive the crispest images and the best sound, why intentionally deliver to audience members a garbled message like the one above that could risk turning people off of the film and decrease release profits?
Because this is art.

Michael Shannon (Take Shelter, Mud) as General Zod of Krypton. What can we glean about Zod's character from what he wears? His costume is as "noisy" as he broad casted message. There is nothing "sleek" about this costume, rather, there appears to be a lot "going on" that doesn't contribute to the functionality of the armor. For example, the neck piece elaborately coiled and wrapped around his shoulders; the strange "X" mark on his lower-left arm (at the bottom of the image) and all the "excess metal" appearing on the torso and waist. Clark Kent is the "man of steel" but Zod wears it, and this kind of "dichotomy" between the hero and villain, what is natural and what is artificial, will be the basis of their character development and, hence, the conflict of the narrative.

In our world today, we are surrounded by noise: from too much stimulation from too many important events going on and too many simultaneous sources, to mis-representation of what we need to know (some trivial things over-emphasized and important things trivialized). While we should recognize what the film makers are giving us in this clip--a validation that somewhere in our society, we are being threatened, even if we can't clearly make out what that threat is or who it comes from--what film makers with hold from us in this clip is just as important: who it is threatening us and the "private conversation" taking place between them (who this man is in the clip and who is the mysterious man he wants turned over to him; a private conversation occupying a public arena of discourse). What the clip is really is, obviously, an ultimatum: are we going to give this mystery man what he wants and save ourselves, or are we going to be concerned enough about someone other than ourselves to look into the matter and decide what needs to be done for the sake of doing the right thing? I know there are readers who get frustrated with me looking at everything as either socialist or capitalist, so I am grateful for this trailer, Into the White, which has all ready been released in the US:

And now The Red:

Well, those are pretty self-explanatory. What might not seem so explanatory is, why make another version of Romeo and Juliet when there are all ready so many? Well, when we discuss the zombie film Warm Bodies--which is based on Romeo and Juliet--we'll see how each generation identifies with the struggles presented in Shakespeare's classic, not only because of how he articulates some of the timeless truths we have found to still be timeless truths, but how we in our own time understand how his writing applies to us (not to mention that this does look top quality):

Director Joss Whedon (The Avengers) has remade Much Ado About Nothing in a contemporary setting but in black and white; we have viewed this clip before, but now, let's ask ourselves, what two factions that are always fighting might fall in love with each other (and, yes, this is supposed to apply to Romeo and Juliet as well):

Could both of these remakes be a message that, if capitalists like myself just put aside their irrational fear and hatred of socialism, instead of always fighting with the deplorable consequences of what fighting entails, we would actually be much happier being joined to socialism? That's your call.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Trailer: The Hunger Games Catching Fire

2013-04-15T12:07:00.000-05:00

Did you doubt me?

There's actually not a whole lot going on here, and that's intentional: they don't want you to be distracted away from the problem they are presenting to you: that there needs to be a revolution: Effie Trinket is so shallow, Katniss is so miserable, people don't have the freedom to use the Hitler salute, Gail is being publicly whipped and a "peacekeeper" cop threatens to shot the darling of Panem because she will risk it all to save Gail,... that's why there needs to be a revolution, things are so terrible now, no one has real freedom, right? The Hunger Games: Catching Fire wants to point out the injustices of individuals under capitalism so they can force us to go to a system that is injust, socialism.
Don't believe me?

Why do we get a glimpse of the relationship between sisters Primrose and Katniss? It's to instill within the proletariate in America that sacrifice is needed to bring about the revolution of socialism, and the only reason why you have been spared so far thus, is so that you can give your life for the "glorious revolution" that will make everyone equally poor and put the government in control over every aspect of your surviving family's life. When my mom saw The Hunger Games, she thought it was anti-socialist because all the images she was seeing triggered what she's seen all her life of soicalism: people are poor in socialism (District 12), they have to barter for the things they need because the government doesn't produce enough of what's needed for the people to survive (Katniss trading), they are told what to do for their jobs by the government instead of getting to to choose for themselves (everyone in District 12 being connected to mining in some way) and the top Party Members keep all the money and goods for themselves just as in the capitol. All these things are true about socialism, but I had a very different take on it than my mom; my point is, however, that these are the kinds of things that might ultimately backfire on the film makers wanting to usher in socialism because how socialists see capitalism, is actually how capitalists see socialism.

Whenever a work of art reveals a "strategy" to you--like what Haymitch (Harrelson) tells Katniss about being a distraction and making people forget their real problems--they can tell you about that strategy because that's exactly the strategy they are using on us, the audience: we aren't supposed to be thinking of the national debt, unemployment, the Muslim Brotherhood taking over the Middle East and threantening us and Israel with nukes, the Americans who died in the attacks at Benghazi and Obama and Clinton sitting there watching it happen, North Korea and who Obama really is; THOSE are the things we should be thinking about, but no, The Hunger Games Catching Fire wants to direct our attention to the faults of individuals instead of the plagues of an entirely bad system (socialism).

Philip Seymour Hoffman portrays Plutarch Heavensbee who replaced Seneca Crane as Chairman of the Games when he supposedly committed suicide after permitting both Katniss and Peeta to survive the Games. Heavensbee is a revolutionary and wants to bring down the capitol but will do so secretely. Films won't bring about a revolution the liberals desire so much, but it's preparing the way for them to, literally, force us to accept socialism, just as the Bolsheviks did with the Russians in the October Revolution. They are trying to paint a pretty face on mass death and killings, civil war and purges, but you can't. It's all coming, and they hope films like this will make it easier for more people to accept not fighting the forced revolution. I'm quite pessimistic, aren't I? Well, scenes like this serve two purposes: first, to demonstrate the greed and luxury of people who are rich (vs. the poverty of the black people in the trailer above) and to demonstrate what a shallow life riches brings; it looks like Haymitch is back to drinking again, huh? Liberals enjoy calling conservatives "racist," because we critize the policies of Obama, but they have used blacks in such a shameful way, and exploit them for their power support, I don't understand why anyone who is black would allow their dignity and self-respect to be so publicly trampled upon. Catching Fire makes it clear, however, that it's the rich who are to blame for not allowing the black man in the crowd to use the Hitler salute to honor Katniss. Now, we have actually seen a situation similar to this in The Avengers, when Loki--in Germany--is oppressing the people and one man won't bow down and Captain America comes and saves them. Captain America correlates for us that Loki sounds like Hitler (a symbol for Obama), but The Hunger Games clearly wants to reverse that demonstrating how the rich are "thought police" and won't allow you to salute or sing a tune (that's what happens in the book) if it seems like you are inciting revolt. How often as America had thought police censoring us? We don't. It's the communist regimes who have ministries of propaganda and thought police and schools of indoctrination, not America.

The contestants of the 75th Games will try destroying the Hunger Games arena with its own devices, lightening, which will be harnessed and used against the structural integrity of the arena, which is supposed to inspire the audience to turn capitalism against itself to bring it down just like the arena (once again, the film is an inversion and perversion of the capitalist model as presented in Moneyball). Why? Lightening and thunder are often seen as symbols of divine justice, coming down from heaven to strike down those who have displeased the gods (it's used quite effectively in the the early 1980's hit song, Land Down Under by the Australian band Men At Work; for more analysis on the symbolism please see Australian Apocalypse: Men At Work ). So this plays in with socialism's continuing effort to reconcile the few remaining Christians to a socialist regime: that God hates capitalists. The film wants us to know that President Snow has set himself up as "a god" by determining who will live and die, and there is a specific moment in the trailer this comes through,...

The incomparable Donald Sutherland as President of Panem, Snow. Why Snow? Snow sounds so peaceful, it conveys a sense of purity and tranquility, and that's part of why that's his name, because that's his job, but snow also covers things: it's nice to see snow covering the barren dirt of winter, limbs of trees that bear no fruit. "Snow" is his name because he's meant to "cover up" what Panem doesn't want the impoverished people to see, that they are impoverished and it's the capital's fault; remember, please, that socialists do not believe that you and I have any free will or self-motivation: we are animals that have to be told everything by the government and cared for by the government because we can't care for ouselves. Socialists think this is a great strategy because we are always absolved of any guilt for our own actions because we don't know any better and they think people will flock to them with a position like that, and many do.

At 0:27, Snow and Heavensbee watch Katniss on a "projection" type image, rather like the crystal ball we see used by the Wicked Witches in Oz the Great and Powerful. Why is Snow so against Katniss being a "beacon of hope" for the people? Doesn't that contradict the logic he proposed in The Hunger Games about why there is a winner at all? In the last film, he wanted people to have hope for themselves that the "odds would be in their favor," that they could win just like whoever won the competition. Katniss and Peeta, however, didn't win, they beat the system, and now Katniss is a beacon of hope that the system can be beat and that is why she's "the girl on fire," "fire" is the exact opposite of "snow."

This poster might be the "show them she is one of us now" strategies because her gown is "snow white," like all the films which have come out have invoked (Mirror, Mirror, Snow White and the Huntsman, Lockout (Pearce plays a guy named Snow), Oz the Great and Powerful (a poisoned apple is given to Theodora). She certainly doesn't look like the girl who hunts for squirrels in District 12, does she? But she doesn't sit down, she doesn't take the "throne" being offered to her by the capitol. Caught between two very different worlds, Katniss is being made into the image of President Snow--even as he is displeased with her--and yet she won't conform completely. This is a theme we see in Gangster Squad, that no one will sign their own death warrant, that people wil not rise up against their employers because they need the job, just as Katniss likely won't revolt when the capitol gives her so much. But she does, just as Emma Stone's character testifies against Sean Penn's character in Gangster Squad, these films are calling for people to rise up against the capitalists and revolt.

Fire does one of two things: either it destroys or it purifies, and for capitalists--like myself--fire purifies, you become stronger when you are tested through life's trials (the Greek revisionist film Hercules coming out next March will probably be about this very theme because of the "labors" Hercules must perform). To socialists, fire is destructive but it can be used for "positive forces," namely, to bring down what should be destroyed, the capitol (symbolic of capitalism; please see The Hunger Games: Hitler & America's Anti-Socialism for more). "Catching fire" is, just as the trailer says, supposed to start the fire of revolution against Snow, their spreme symbol for capitalism, first in the film, and then in America. It probably won't be that good of a film, but they will make a lot of money because they know how to play the capitalist markets so well,...
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner