Thursday, May 10, 2018

Sherlock Holmes 3 Is Happening!

It is official.
Sherlock Holmes 3, starring Robert Downey Jr. as the famous detective, and Jude Law as Dr. Watson, has officially been scheduled for release December 25, 2020. SH3 will open the same day as Sing 2 and a week after Avatar 2,... which means, Avatar 2 is happening,.... No word as of yet if Guy Ritchie will be returning as the director (just rumors he will) or if any of the other leading characters--such as Mrs. Watson played by Kelly Reilly, or Mycroft Holmes, played by Stephen Fry--will be returning; there does appear to be a rumor that Rachel McAdams will return as Irene Adler, based on the billing at Internet Movie Database. I hope this brightens your day as much as it did mine!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Saturday, May 5, 2018

Ant-Man & the Wasp

Ant-Man and the Wasp is set after Captain America: Civil War but before The Avengers: Infinity War; Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is on house-arrest after Captain America's team was arrested in Civil War.
I don't deserve you.
It has been nearly a month since I posted anything, and you just keep coming back, and you will NEVER know how much that means to me. Thank you, with all my heart.

As any blogger knows, our normal, daily lives often interfere with our commitment to post; I don't know of any blogger who says they post enough, but I know I have severely fallen short of even the most basic of expectations, and I am sorry. Again, there have been countless and important interferences which have been unavoidable: I haven't even been able to go watch The Avengers yet, that is how much interference there has been.

So, the second trailer for The Ant-Man and the Wasp has been released (film coming out July 6) and, with Mission Impossible: Fallout and The Grinch, it's one of the last three remaining big anticipations of the year (by the way, Daniel Craig has confirmed that Bond 25 is his next film project). So, just to refresh our memory, here is the first trailer released for Ant-Man and the Wasp:
The first trailer is an introduction to Evangeline Lilly's Wasp heroine; we don't really see the villain. Now, recall, if you will, in Ant Man, there is a short scene when Hope (Lilly) tries teaching Scott (Paul Rudd) how to control the ants, and the light above her shakes and fades in an out; that's an omen, a prophecy, communicating to us that she has "control" issues and "dark places" in her soul; why? Not just the disappearance of her mother--which we have reason to believe will be rectified in this second installment ("Janet" is being played by Michelle Pfeiffer)--but her relationship with Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), which might have been the reason he gave Hope wings and blasters, overcompensating for her mother not having been there all her adolescent years. This might backfire. It's quite possible that Hope simply doesn't have the emotional maturity or even positive self-image she needs to be a hero (remember, she kept trying to get Hank to let her get into the Ant-Man suit, and he refused; she thought it was because she was a girl or not powerful enough, so she has something to prove, not only to her father, but to herself and even her long-lost mother, and these are probably going to be deep issues), but that is exactly why the villain, Ghost, is introduced in the second trailer:
"Ghost" is an interesting name, because it might describe how Hope felt growing up; Marvel has a way of employing the "mirror villain," that is, they take the negative traits of the hero and embody them in the nemesis the hero must fight and overcome, thereby purging himself of those traits so he can advance to greater virtue; we saw this in Ant-Man with Yellowjacket (please see Margins Of Power: Ant-Man for more). In other words, Ghost (and since the villain is being played by a woman) will likely be the embodiment of Hope's vices so she will have to overcome them in order to progress to joining the Avengers,.... or what's left of them. What is interesting is about this is that, while Hope appears to be stronger and better armed than Ant-Man, Pym tells Scott Ghost can only be defeated by both of them.
This is awesome!
We don't know a lot about Ghost, but that she steals Pym's technology and she can go through walls and other objects; we can make some other deductions as well. As in Ant-Man, we know Yellowjacket Darren was a mirror-image of Scott because "yellow," the color associated with the villain, symbolizes kingship: the only gift worthy of a king is gold (the yellow color), but if a king doesn't live up to his duties, he's a coward and unworthy of being a king. Scott, then, had to deal with issues of self-worth and his ability to provide for his ex-wife and daughter and prove to them he was a man worthy of them and could provide for their needs (and overcome Scott's own poor self-image and bad habits of turning to crime when things got tough). If we look at the image above of Ghost, it's an incredibly non-human suit; at least Yellowjacket was a living being, Ghost doesn't resemble any living thing; this actually fits Hope. Please recall that throughout the first half of Ant-Man, Hope wore only black: black always symbolizes death; "good death," is when we are dead to things of the world (our worldly appetites) but alive to things of the spirit (virtues, like Hope); "bad death" is when we are alive to our worldly appetites--fame, fortune, drugs, sex--but dead to the things of the soul. Hope was like dead to both: we can't say she pursued things out of her appetites, but she certainly didn't have any virtues either, she was just dead, and her mother's disappearance, then her father leaving her alone at school, probably made her feel like she was a ghost who didn't belong to the world since she didn't have her parents giving her any guidance or love. Now, what about the eyes? Ghost's eyes--the windows of the soul--are tiny, red; red symbolizes blood, either because we love someone so much we are willing to shed our blood for them, or we have so much anger and wrath against someone that we are willing to shed their blood. Since this is the villain, we are probably safe in betting on the later interpretation. There is also some red,... "thing" on the forehead and between the eyes. It's interesting because Laurance Fishburne's character and Scott discuss the "Goliath" program, and it was between the eyes (like where that red thing is on Ghost) that we see another symbol of Ghost's anger. Ghost also doesn't have a mouth. This might well symbol that Ghost doesn't have any appetites--appetites are actually necessary, because they lead us in life, and we need to have a healthy appetite for love and virtue, otherwise, we won't pursue them--but it can also be interpreted that Ghost feels she doesn't have a voice. Ghost's costume is an ashen gray, even a grayish-white. Gray symbolizes the pilgrim and the novice: the pilgrim puts ashes (which are gray) upon their head and body as a sign of penance and humility (from dust I came, to dust I will return) and the traditional color of the novice (the beginner) is gray because they have not advanced to a state of virtue/accomplishment in their field (like Gandalf the Grey in The Hobbit and The Lord Of the Rings: it's not until Gandalf fights that Balrog and falls into the abyss that he advances to Gandalf the White. Hope, of course, is just beginning her career as a hero, so we will have to keep these details in mind and weigh different aspects of the narrative to see if we are right. 
It's my pet theory, so far supported by the women warriors in Black Panther, and the Valkyrie in Thor: Ragnarok, that Marvel is slowly but surely drawing a "new" feminism, the kind we see Guy Ritchie arguing for in King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, and even in DC Comics Suicide Squad: ditching men doesn't make a woman strong, being strong with a man is what makes women strong; feminists make themselves strong at the expense of others (exactly what they argue men have done over the centuries), rather, women are stronger when they help everyone become stronger (for greater discussion on this issue, please see the wonderful video below by Praeger University). Hope most likely wants to go it alone, she probably feels she has something to prove, but I am guessing the film will demonstrate that even if she is the stronger of the two heroes, she still needs Scott for what he has to offer her and she can't give herself: love.
In this image, we see the van which has become super small, but will enlarge again in just a moment. The oscillation between the very big and very small demonstrates that the writers are staying in the current they began in Ant-Man, namely, "the margins." In terms of criticism, "the margins" are the places to where we push what we don't like or understand; imagine a child learning to read and coming upon a word they don't know; what do they do? They skip over it, and we do the same when engaging with the world or art and encountering something that "doesn't make sense," so we push it to the margin of our mind and forget about it. Jacques Derrida, however, argued that such spaces are usually where the really important stuff takes place, and we recognize that something doesn't "make sense" because we are meant to be drawn into the illogical to explore it, not dismiss it. So, in Ant-Man and the Wasp, we see things that are incredibly small and incredibly large--both "spaces" which we aren't used to seeing being employed--so the question is, why are the film makers using this vocabulary? Well, from Hope's perspective, we can see her as going from being really small and insignificant (a bureaucrat at her father's company) to a super-hero with incredible powers; that makes for a dizzy trip. What I expect to happen--but of course I could be wrong--is that, through the events and her journey of discovery, Hope will accept having "been little" so she has a better grounding to now being powerful. Why should we care? Mostly because we ourselves are little. Most of us are rather insignificant and don't matter (or feel we don't) so understanding how important it is to "be good at being little" is important to us the audience and our real lives, recognizing that being a good parent, spouse and friend is necessary, and our own souls are the most important battle front where we have to "fight the bad guys" who want to convert us to their own vices by becoming bitter over being small and insignificant. 
We are likely to get either a few clips or another trailer before the release of the film, so having that "head start" on the film will help us to know what to look for. In the meantime, I have at least caught up on the Marvel films I missed (Spider-Man: Homecoming--which was much better than I anticipated--and Thor 3: Ragnarok--which was awesome!) but, as excited as I was that The Avengers was opening on my birthday, I was so bogged down with obligations that I missed it; maybe this weekend. But, as promised, here is an excellent video on Feminism from a former Feminist.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Friday, April 6, 2018

Fahrenheit 451 Trailer #2

We see these types of shirts frequently in communist "fashion" because the person wearing the shirt can't wear a tie, and the person wearing the shirt can't be judged because he's not wearing a tie. In Western, capitalist societies, men wear a tie to work to show they are "white collar," they have a upper-end job dependent more upon sets of mental skills usually acquired in college rather which usually leads to higher-paying jobs and the tie denotes that. On the other hand, men in communist societies wearing the shirt shown above don't have a "bare collar" revealing that they aren't "white collar employees" (the absence of the tie might reveal the absence of college training, for example), so in communist societies, the "lack" of a collar reveals the so-called "balance and fairness" of education, training and employment if everyone looks alike and no one can use their clothes as a status-symbol. Now we know that the neck symbolizes what leads us in life, and for many men, to say that their career-choice in life leads their decision-making (how much money they can or will make in a given-profession) is a legitimate concern (studies have shown that men, especially men with families, tend to choose higher-paying professions to provide for their families, or families they hope to have). In communist societies, the lack of a collar is meant to show freedom, that now you don't have to worry about making a living because the government is going to take care of that for you, and you can do what you really want to do, like burning books all day and starting fires.
HBO has released their second trailer for what looks to be an excellent adaption of Bradbury's novel. Here is the second trailer for the series that will air sometime in May on HBO:
The question, "Didn't firemen use to put out fires?" illustrates an important concept about socialist societies: they turn everything upside-down. In the mockumentary, No Men Beyond This Point, it's clear that since men were the engines of creation in capitalism, the new world of praising nature where men are slowly dying out has exalted women in a socialist, matriarchal society. In another Micheal B Jordan film, Black Panther, when his character Erik Killmonger takes the throne, the camera shows the Wakandan throne room upside-down to illustrate how Erik is going to turn the world topsy-turvey by releasing high-grade weapons into what might be considered terrorist regions. Then there's the Sofia Boutella film, The Mummy, where Tom Cruise and Annabelle Wallis have their characters turning upside-down in the plane as The Mummy nears where the sacred knife is kept and she begins regaining her powers (to establish a socialist matriarchy). Last but not least, the most anticipated film of the year, The Avengers: Infinity War, gives us a trailer with the world being upside-down as Thanos enters New York City so he can wipe out half of universe to "balance" things, just as we see un-equally created people being "balanced" by being dumbed-down so they can't read anything.
As a young woman, Sofia Boutella's character symbolizes the motherland, and the future of the motherland, what the country can still become, so what happens to her character, and the threats her character faces, reveals what the course of America should be for a more natural balance leading to genuine happiness for the greatest number of people. 
"We must be made equal by the fire and then we can be happy," That's a classic lie in socialism, there is always a delay of happiness which socialist leaders make any number of excuses to the people: we have to purge the ranks of all these hiding capitalists, then we can be happy; we have to educate ourselves more to cleanse ourselves of Western culture and then we will be happy; we have to kill the old people who remember what really happened in history, instead of what we tell you happened, and then we can be happy, etc., etc., etc. Socialism always promises happiness, but it never delivers it. Never.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Thursday, March 29, 2018

Trailer: The Grinch

A happy, blessed and holy week to you all!
In spite of having purchased my ticket for Pacific Rim: Uprising Wedsnesday afternoon, my car broke down Friday so I was unable to see it, and because it's still not fixed, I am, basically, still grounded. I have just watched Murder On the Orient Express and absolutely loved it, so this is the post I am currently working on! In the meantime, the first trailer for The Grinch with Benedict Cumberbatch has been released, and this is going to be excellent!
Can't you just see Cumberbatch saying, "Nooooooooooooo," so, how do we know this will be good? First, it comes from the geniuses at Illumination, they have consistently provided audiences with excellent work, so no fears there (which we cannot, unfortunately, say of Disney as of late). Secondly, the snowman hitting the Grinch. First of all, compound symbol (snow, then man): snow is a form of water, hence, it symbolizes reflection which has been completely realized (the Grinch knows how bad he is; how do we know that?
Costumes reveal a great deal about characters: for example, how they change, how often they change, or even how they,.... don't change. The Grinch doesn't change. What do we know about his "costume?" The "pants" he puts on symbolizes his "standing" in Whoville society (legs symbolize our "standing" and reputation). There are two dominant characteristics: first, the color green, secondly, the fur. The color green either symbolizes hope or that something has gone rotten, and we know the obvious answer here; but this is the purpose of symbols having a "dual nature" to them: at the very moment we see the bad side, we know it's bad because we see what the good is supposed to be. For example, when we see the Grinch being rotten, we know he's supposed to be full of hope (and Christmas, the final arrival of the long-awaited Messiah, is the ultimate hope fulfilled); however, it can also be the exact opposite. When we see a character full of hope, we know how precarious that fragile position is and how quickly hope can turn to despair. What about the fur on his "pants?" Fur, of course, symbolizes "animals," and our animal instincts (seeing a woman wearing a fur coat, for example, suggests she lives by her animal instincts or she's wrapped in animal appetites; it can, however, also mean she's overcome them, depending upon the context). So, the Grinch lives according to animal instincts, not Christian instincts, and we can of course site Christian instincts here because it's Christmas--the birth of Christ--which is the vehicle of the story. Now, in The Grinch, the Whos in Whoville have announced they are going to make Christmas three times bigger this year, and this is the impetus driving the Grinch to "keep Christmas from coming." The "three times bigger" will manifest in louder instruments and bigger feasts, but also in the way the Holy Trinity (represented by the number 3) manifests itself in Christmas.
What about Max? Max has a red collar because Max is led by love. When the Grinch goes to town, we see him wear a scarf with red and white stripes; the white stripes indicate that the Grinch is dead in faith and purity; the red indicates that he is full of anger and is going to take it out on someone,... on everyone. Max, on the other hand, like any good dog, is full of love for his master,... so why does the Grinch keep Max? The Grinch is lonely and the truth we are likely to discover is that the sweetness, loyalty and devotion we see in Max is actually in the Grinch as well, but the Grinch wants to suppress his own love and goodness--no doubt the film makers will give us a reason why--but goodness has to come out in some way, so the Grinch expresses his own goodness in having Max. Remember, when the Grinch,... "does his hair" while looking in the mirror, he also does Max's hair the same way. The mirror symbolizes the Grinch's ability to "reflect" upon himself on a deep, inner-level; the Grinch's hair symbolizes his thoughts, so he and Max think the same way, although he's not going to admit it until later.
The act of eating means we are taking something in and digesting it, as in, seriously thinking about it; the pickle jar he takes from one woman's shopping basket symbolizes he himself--remember, the song compares him to a greasy black banana peel, so to compare the big green Grinch to a big green pickle is no stretch of the imagination--and when the Grinch takes a bite of the pickle, it disgusts him, because it's the Grinch seeing himself as he truly is), this is the reflection upon himself in the symbolism of the "snow" in the snowman. The "man" is the Grinch's capacity to be fully human (and no, it doesn't matter that he's a Grinch, he's still called to be human because he lives in a world of humans, there are no other Grinches at the market, for example).  So, the snowman hitting the Grinch in the face is a sign that the Grinch has realized what a bad egg he is and he's not doing what he should, i.e., being a good person. In order for the Grinch to "do mean things with style," he has to know what the right thing to do with kindness is, so he can NOT do the right thing.
I have no way of knowing at this point, however, it's interesting that we first see Grinch in the first trailer for the film in bed; why? "Sleeping" symbolizes a type of death, and beds a type of coffin; death is eternal sleep and coffins the place wherein we have our eternal sleep, so sleeping and our bed can symbolize death, but usually a "symbolic death." Well, I'm glad that's perfectly clear. Seeing the Grinch asleep in his bed tells us that the Grinch is in a state of death; he's not alive, not the way he should be (alive with faith, hope, charity). Again, we see the colors red and white on his bedding that we saw in his scarf when he went into town: white to be alive with faith and purity, red for having love instead of anger. This is what the Grinch wants, because he's surrounded himself with the symbols of it, however, he can't get to it, none of us can, we have to have Grace, and that's why this is such a perfect Christmas story, because without the coming of Christ, none of us would have been able to achieve these things, we all would have been doomed to be Grinches. 
Another reason we can know the film will be good is because of the figure skater. Now, it would have been easy for the film makers to make an animated figure skater, but they intentionally didn't do that; they had a real human, at a real Olympic event figure skating, and then had the Grinch enter into that world; why? The Grinch is being inspired by the skater to become great himself. Who hasn't done this? Seeing your favorites accept an Oscar or a Grammy, and pretend you're getting one yourself? Why not? When a person "dreams," they are being inspired to achieve greatness, and that is a part of our human potential (socialists, for example, prefer to see all the bad things in a person so they can offer excuses why they themselves don't do anything great), and the Grinch is allowing himself a moment to be inspired by someone else's greatness.

I AM working on Murder On the Orient Express. I hope you have a beautiful Holy Week and, please remember, pray for those who have no one to pray for them.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
This definitely suggests we are getting a back story for the Grinch.

Friday, March 23, 2018

Triple Event: Pacific Rim

"Go big or go extinct." This tagline is more of a philosophy than a teaser for a summer blockbuster; why? What was the great "victory" and solution to human survival in World War Z? Weakness, sickness, blending in and becoming invisible; those aren't American virtues and they certainly aren't capitalist virtues either, in fact, they aren't virtues by anyone's standards at all, they are vices and that's why the pro-socialist WWZ embraces them. Pacific Rim, on the other hand, is the exact opposite: when Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba) is at his sickest from radiation poisoning years before, he rises up to make a last fight of heroic proportions and inspire everyone else to do the same. THAT is an example of American heroism and it utterly counters the,... "tactics," to put it nicely, in WWZ
I won't pretend to even begin analyzing everything within this symbolically and culturally rich film, but there are some important points Guillermo del Toro makes within Pacific Rim catapulting the film from an awesome action-blockbuster to a political manifesto, and the first of these points are the characteristics of the kaiju which establish them as agents of socialism:

1). The kaiju destroy cities: socialists, specifically the liberal branch of socialism referred to as "progressives," don't want technology and they certainly don't want big cities, which is where the kaiju always attack. Cities also attest to the power of the upper-classes, many of whom have built the towering skyscrappers creating the individual skylines of urban areas, and socialists want to destroy the monuments to wealth as much as the wealthy themselves (we see this in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises).

2). The kaiju themselves are like dinosaurs, again, because that's the time-period progressives want to digress back to, when there was no technology, free market or monetary systems. (We see these themes in the pro-socialist films of The Lone Ranger and Gravity).
There are two important colors associated with Mako: blue--the tips of her hair--this isn't a great image of her, and I apologize for that--and red, the shoes she had when kaiju attacked and killed her family. Her blue hair is a compound symbol, meaning there is a symbolic meaning for her hair, and a separate symbolic meaning for the blue, so we have to combine the two meanings to make a complete thought. We know hair symbolizes the thoughts because our thoughts originate in our head and anything on our head then manifests what kind of thoughts we have or don't have. The color blue simultaneously symbolizes both wisdom and depression: because wisdom is the greatest treasure there is, it can only be bought with the greatest hardship, which is our suffering, so where there is wisdom, there is suffering, but hopefully, where there is suffering, there is also wisdom. So, Mako's suffering (the blue) is always in her thoughts (the hair) but she has tried to put the suffering (blue) as far away from her thoughts (her hair tips rather than the roots of her hair) as possible. Pentecost (Idris Elba) however, knows that she wants vengeance and vengeance is "an open wound." Why does she want vengeance? Her red shoes. When we see her as a little girl, she wears one red shoe and carries the other one; the color red symbolizes blood, because we either love someone/something so much, we are willing to give our blood for it, or we hate someone/something so much, we are willing to spill their blood to appease our wrath. The shoe Mako holds symbolizes her love (red) of her family (because we know they were killed and when she kills the kaiju, she says, "For my family!") and her hand in which she holds the shoe symbolizes her honor, so her honor binds her to avenging the death of her family by killing a kaiju on their behalf. The shoe she wears, however, symbolizes what drives her: our feet symbolize our will, because our will takes us in life where our feet take us in our day-to-day affairs; so, Mako wills (her shoe on her foot) to kill the kaiju (the red shoe) and it's this shoe which Pentecost gives back to Mako when he tells her she can co-pilot with Raleigh because he knows that is what has led her hard-work and dedication all these years.
Why is Mako Japanese? As in the film Battleship (which was also pro-capitalist) the Japanese are natural allies in the fight against socialism because--had it not been for the US police presence after World War II--Japan likely would have fallen to socialism/communism like so many of its Asian neighbors, and this comes across in Japanese films of the time. The US symbolizes Godzilla in that great saga of films: in the first, the Japanese admit that, had they been faced with the same decision as the US, they, too, would have dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the only way to destroy Godzilla is to launch a massive bomb into Tokyo Bay, which will destroy all the life in the Bay--like the atomic bomb killing all the people--but they have to or Godzilla will destroy all Japan); in later Godzilla films, other monsters like Mothra and Rodan, are a greater threat to Japan, and the Japanese actually seek out Godzilla to save them from these other monsters, which symbolize the spread of socialism throughout the Pacific Rim during this time. So, Mako being Japanese attests to the historical allegiance between the Japanese and Americans because they both managed to avoid socialism and built up strong economies and cultures without socialism. This is also why the last stand against the kaiju takes place in Hong Kong: Hong Kong has the freest free market in the world and proves the great advantage of capitalism (whereas places like the US have a crony capitalist system in place due to decades of corrupt politicians making deals that are not in the interest of the free market). 
3). The kaiju are clones, they are not individuals. Socialists abhor individuality. They might make statements that a transgender man has the right to think he's female if that is what makes him individually happy, however, the liberals use the disenfranchised political minority for support, not because they actually support them, and because the sexual minority of gays and transgenders helps create even more divisions in society, which favors an atmosphere for socialism to take-over.

4). Kaiju are marked with identifying "bar codes" (the phrase used in the film) to identify them, because they are more like the kaiju government commodities rather than valued and loved individuals. (We literally see a bar code on the back of #47's head in Hitman: Agent 47 even though he manages to establish his own identity and individuality in spite of efforts made to keep him from doing so).

5). After Newton drifted with the kaiju secondary brain, the kaiju come looking for him but when the kaiju finds him, it's not smart enough to figure out what to do with him, the way Newton was smart enough to figure out what to do with the kaiju brain. Kaiju, like socialists, are copy cats, because individuality and originality are never rewarded in socialist societies, rather, being as mediocre as everyone else is what is rewarded. (Consider how, after President Trump won the November 2016 election, Democrats are trying to find their own celebrity billionaire to run against Trump in 2020, because they don't have any ideas, they have to copy off everyone else's).
When Raleigh and Pentecost argue about Mako, Raleigh touches Pentecost's arm and Pentecost warns him twice never to touch him again; why not? Touching is a sign of intimacy with someone, but our arms--in this case, Pentecost's arm--symbolizes our strength, so Pentecost gets his strength from not having intimacy with anyone. When Pentecost tells Chuck that he will be his co-pilot since his father Herc has a wounded arm (the source of Herc's strengh [symbolized by his wounded arm] is wounded, that is, Chuck himself and how difficult Chuck is to get a long with everyone is the wound in Herc's arm because his son is his pride and job but also his embarrassment because Chuck is such a jerk) Chuck asks Pentecost how they will make the neural handshake and Pentecost replies that he doesn't take anything with him into the Drift, no fear, no memories, no rank, and that includes no intimacy, because when you are intimate with someone, you have a fear of losing them, and Pentecost is afraid of losing Mako. When he agrees to let her pilot with Raleigh, it's because Pentecost has said good-bye to her in his heart, knowing he will likely loose her OR seeing how desperate they are, that he himself will have to pilot a Jaeger and it will kill him.
Why does Pentecost die? We know a character never dies unless one, that character is all ready "dead," i.e., they exhibit certain traits or habits which the film condemns and does so through that character's death; the only other reason for a character to die is when they sacrifice themselves for the greater good, and we know Pentecost is doing that. Chuck, on the other hand, has basically been a jerk from the very beginning; however, we can say that because Chuck willingly sacrifices himself--he says it has been a pleasure working with Pentecost and understands they have to detonate the bomb that will kill them--his character finds redemption because of the sacrifice. One could say, "But Pentecost was dying anyway, he had that radiation poisoning, so it doesn't matter if he died being blown up or dying of cancer," and that's a point, however, consider Matt Damon's character Dr Mann in Interstellar: he knew he was going to die, but he didn't want to die alone, so he tried to kill those who had come to save him just so he could possibly get back to a dying planet (Earth) to die with others. It's our survival instinct to cling to life as long as possible; Pentecost transcended his death by making it count, and we can validate this with his bleeding nose. The face symbolizes our identity, and because the nose is the most prominent feature on our face, it symbolizes our character and honor within our identity. We see a lot of nose bleeds in the film, but when Pentecost's nose bleeds, it's a sign that he's a man of blood, both because it's his pilots that die in the clashes with the kaiju, and because he himself is willing to spill his own blood to save others; again, we can validate this because we see Pentecost taking yellow pills from a silver case each time his nose begins to bleed. The "silver box" symbolizes the Word of God Pentecost keeps in his heart (in Hebrew, the word "silver" sounds like the word for Word, which is why the Body of Jesus is often depicted in silver on Crucifixes, He was the Word made Flesh, and it's also the reason why you can stop a werewolf with something silver, you are giving the man turned into the wolf the "Word of God" and bringing him out of his animal appetites and back into his human senses). So, "Pentecost," which invokes the birth of the Catholic Church and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, takes the yellow pills (yellow symbolizes our dignity) he keeps in the silver box (the Word of God) and that prepares him for the act of laying down his life for others.
6). Kaiju scream really loud, just like liberals: neither say anything intelligible, but they can certainly scream.

7). Parasites are parasites, so just as the kaiju have parasites on their bodies, so they, too are parasites, just as liberals are parasites on the wealth and achievements of others.

8). The kaiju destroyed their world and have come to earth to destroy it for us (we saw this in Warcraft with the fel "magic" that destroyed every place it went). I know liberals want us to believe that capitalists are the great enemy of nature, but again, this is well-targeted propaganda. In a capitalist society, when a company dumps toxic waste, for example, they are accountable to the government and the government can regulate them and hold force them to comply with standards; in a socialist society, the government owns everything and is not answerable to anyone, anyone, including the people, the people are powerless to get any change, so the kind of waste and environmental decay which was prevalent in the USSR (and still is in modern Russia) was just going to continue, whereas in the US, when there is the unfortunate accident or even intentional act of pollution, individuals like Erin Brockovich can stand up to the companies and force the government to intervene on behalf of the people.
Hannibal Chau is an interesting character, and because he's depicted by Ron Perleman, it's quite possible he links into Hellboy, however, I have not seen that film, so I apologize, this might be an incomplete analysis. "Hannibal," of course, refers to Hannibal Lecter from Silence Of the Lambs; why? Hannibal the Cannibal ate people, and is one of the most famous villains in cinematic history because of his "appetites"; "Chau" refers to Hannibal Chau's second favorite Chinese restaurant, so his second name, too, refers to something to do with the appetites (not to mention that "Chau" sounds like the American slang word "chow" referring either to "food" or the act of quickly eating, as in "chow down").  Just by looking at him, we can tell that Hannibal is a man of appetites, from his gold-plated shoes (again, feet symbolize the will, so his will is to acquire "gold," i.e., money) to his gold-colored neck tie (the neck symbolizes what leads us in life, like a leash, so instead of being lead by his dignity, like the yellow pills Pentecost takes, Hannibal is led by his drive for gold) to his tacky red suit that indicates he's willing to spill anyone's blood to get what he wants, which is gold. It's men like Hannibal Chau who have caused capitalism to be under such attack, because they truly embody the very worst of it, and this is why Hannibal dies the way he does, with that infant kaiju devouring him: that little infant symbolized Hannibal himself, so Hannibal's own appetites did him in: had he not been so desperate for money, Hannibal wound not have been down there and wouldn't have run into the infant kaiju, but his greed and arrogance caused him to be cocky and that's why he was eaten.
What about Hannibal's glasses and scarred eye? The glasses, while rose-colored, doesn't indicate that Hannibal sees the world in a friendly light; rather, because the lenses are red, he again, sees everything in terms of how it can feed his appetite for money and success; I haven't the slightest idea what to call it, but the lenses of his glasses have those black edges to them, like blinders, making his glasses almost like goggles, so that he can't see anything else except what is right in front of him. When he takes his glasses off, we see the scar over his eye; this symbolizes that what he has seen in life has scarred him and he intentionally chooses not to see things in any other light because decisions are easier this way. 
9). The kaiju are colonists: the act of settling in other places isn't inherently socialist--think of the ancient Greeks--however, all socialists are going to be "colonists" in the sense that they are desperate to spread "The Gospel of Marx" to every other corner of the universe as fast as possible; why? Because anywhere capitalism or the free market exists--like Hong Kong, where most of the film takes place--is going to threaten the existence of socialism because those living under socialism will know "something better and more free is possible" so they will revolt against socialism until they get a better life; it is, therefore, in the best interest of socialism to destroy any and all other capitalist societies as quickly as possible.

10). The kaiju are a matriarchal society. When Gipsy Danger drops into the breach and is about to melt-down, we see the "queen" looking at Gipsy Danger trying to figure out what is going on; we also see "queens" in Transformers The Last Knight (the home planet of Optimus Prime) and Ender's Game.

Pacific Rim: Uprising opens this weekend, and I can't wait, I know it's going to be a fabulous film, so I will get that post up asap!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Team Darryl: After Thor

If you wondered what happened to Thor's roommate, Darryl (of planet Earth), here's a video explaining exactly what happened; things just don't work out for this poor guy.

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Trailers: Tag vs Game Over, Man!

Please notice that, when the trailer begins, two of the characters have a conversation about the difference between Episcopalians and Lutherans; one character replies, "They're all fanatics," and then we go back to the wedding scene. The point is, Jerry, who has never been tagged and is literally the "target" of the animosity of those who are not his equals in the game is a "fanatic" because he's a Christian and because he's the best that has ever played the game. They didn't have to put this conversation in the film, and they certainly didn't have to put it in the trailer, even at the very start of the trailer, but they intentionally wanted to advertise that they will be insulting Christians (regardless of denomination) AND those who are good at what they do. This is what liberals do, and it's all that they do.
As funny as the trailer is, it also proposes some serious socialist problems which recently seem to dominate culture more and more,.... and more,....
So, what's the problem with a little game of tag?
Jerry is the best, so the best has to be brought down,... because that's only "fair." Anyone who has read The Fine Art Diner for any length of time knows my total adoration for game theory ("game" is separated into "game"--based upon rules allowing certain players to gain an advantage, such as tall players having an advantage over shorter players in basketball--and then "play"--which allows for "creative interpretation" of rules so that players at a disadvantage in "game", like the short ones, can get fouled so they can make free throws). TAG isn't about game theory, however, it's about games fulfilling their function (determining who is the best at whatever game is being played) and then deciding it's inherently unfair and needs to be "balanced," like with Thanos balancing the universe so it's "fair" (The Avengers: Infinity War Part 1). All the participants in TAG are white, heterosexual, middle-class men, the number one target of liberals' own game of "tag" (as in, "You're IT, and be IT we mean the enemy of all the people") and the film appears to be spreading that propaganda through two means. First, it's obvious the guys are competitive, and to liberals, "competitive" translates as "testosterone," which as any liberal will tell you is inherently evil. Secondly, the trailer highlights certain serious moments in life--the wedding, the funeral, the birth of a child--to show the game "interrupting" these serious moments; what does that accomplish?
I think those are Jeremy Renner's actual clothes. They look like the same clothes he was wearing at the introduction of the trailer. So, we have Jerry who has this "unlimited free will" in a supposedly "real life" situation. "Unlimited free will" is a term coined to describe how the hero of a story always manages to get things to work out the way they want them to (without reality interfering, like gravity, or not being in good enough shape, or being able to hold your breath under water for six minutes, or making a super-human leap across a building, etc.) and we can see it in this scene, for example, when Hamm's character desperately tries to tag Jerry but without even looking, Jerry is able to step aside and avoid being tagged by tying up his friend in a sheet that just happens to do exactly what Jerry wants, at the moment he wants it. Why is this important? Exaggerating the circumstances of the odds means that people will more willing to start rooting for the losers who get tagged all the time, and start going against Jerry because it "isn't fair" that everything works out so that Jerry wins and is able to establish himself as the best. That just isn't fair, is it liberals? So, there is lying going on, so that in reality, our real day-to-day world, we start revolting against genuine heroes who do extraordinary feats to demonstrate what is possible and give us new heights to aim for so we, in turn, can try to achieve that standard for ourselves. 
First, the new wife is obviously upset with this game, as the film hopes all good liberal women will be, so they don't allow their estrogen-gilded husbands to mimic such bad male behavior,... in any game, which goes for sports (they start small, then work their way up to bigger things). Second, by comparing their game of tag to these really important moments, the comparison belittles the importance of games (which are important because they teach people to lose or win gracefully, how to work on a team, how to develop their skills and talents, all things liberals detest and don't want as a part of a winning culture when they are determined at all costs to be losers). So, the others ganging up on Jerry, just because he's the best, is like the last Super Bowl when no one wanted the Patriots to win because they had won so many Super Bowls all ready: playing games isn't about achieving an artificial atmosphere of "fairness," playing games is meant to establish who the best player/team is, and it's the best who should win, not the saps who are lousy but want trophies anyway. And speaking of Tom Brady, that brings us to our second trailer, which I love!
Sure, they start out by complaining that they should be draped in diamonds--that's the wake-up call for ambition, to better one's lot in life, and get to a place where you want to be and you are proud of your accomplishments--then, when the hotel, i.e., their employer, is taken hostage, they don't say, "Good riddance! Let's help them burn the place down!" no, they take the honorable and masculine course of action and start kicking butt. After they succeed in saving the hotel, they are going to be utterly transformed and completely different, kind of like McFly in Back To the Future when he stands up to Biff and changes his whole course in life for the better.
Opening this weekend is Pacific Rim Uprising and I am so excited!!! I am definitely going to go see it and I will post on Pacific Rim next, just to jog our memories about what an awesome film this is and get us ready for the weekend. THEN, after Pacific Rim Uprising, I promise, it's Murder On the Orient Express, I can't wait!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Saturday, March 17, 2018

Avengers Infinity War Part 1 Trailer #2

When The Avengers was first being promoted, I thought they released a ton of footage for their marketing push, and expected--as with most films--that we had all ready seen all the good stuff in the trailers and clips; that being in ancient history now, it's safe to say that any scene from any Marvel film is sufficiently high quality to make the cut into a trailer and they will keep all the best footage for the actual filming experience. The first part of Infinity War has been moved from its early May opening to April 27, which was a brilliant move on part of Marvel because that's my birthday, and nothing puts me in the celebratory mood like an excellent film opening! So, finally, the second trailer has been released and the first shot tells us everything we need to know:
The slow turning of New York City from upside-down to right-side-up is a device we just saw in Black Panther: when Erik (Michael B Jordan) first takes the throne after the defeat of T'Challa, the scene of the Wakandian throne room starts upside-down as Erik enters, effectively communicating to the audience that the world has been turned upside-down with Erik taking the throne. The start of The Avengers Infinity War trailer begins the same way, meaning that Thanos and Erik are the same kind of villain (throw in Ultron, too) because they both want to do the same to the world, turn it upside-down.
We know Thanos receives the Tesseract from Loki--darn him--and there are at least two, possibly three Infinity Stones on earth: the one Dr. Strange holds, Vision's Stone (in his forehead) and possibly a Stone in the mines of Wakanda which came on that meteorite filled with Vibranium (but this is speculation at this point, but that would explain why Wakanda is under attack with New York and London).  Now, the Infinity Stones hold power, but why does that make sense (trust me, this is symbolically important to walk through this)? We know each color symbolizes a virtue and vice (the above image isn't a true color representation of the stones, but for example, Strange guards the green stone, which both symbolizes new life and hope, as well as something which has gone rotten, decayed, so while Strange builds himself in the virtue of hope in his new life as a wizard [after the end of his life as a medial doctor] Thanos builds his vice of being rotten and thoroughly despicable; the Tesseract is blue because blue symbolizes both sadness and wisdom, because it is only through our depressing experiences in life that we can gain wisdom, however, instead of gaining wisdom, Thanos holds grudges and chooses to see the worst in people and situations; rather than lead him to contentment with what is beyond his control [which is what wisdom ultimately does] the perverse judgment Thanos denounces upon the universe causes him to act against it so he can make it "fair and balanced" by his own distorted standards; the yellow Infinity Stone giving life to The Vision is a sign of dignity, and The Vision--not being human--has a profound respect for life and people which Thanos obviously doesn't have since he wants to wipe out half of them, again, to achieve "balance" for the half of the universe he does seem to value [those who would be willing to be his slaves]) so the color and vice which each stone symbolize then become embodied in the stone: the heroes are the "living stones" who act out the virtues in every facet of their lives, whereas Thanos has hardened his heart with vice, and has, therefore, became a stone incapable of love (like the Grinch). So, in the trailer, when we see Thanos trying to smash Thor's head, or crush Spider-Man or pommel Captain America, it's a question of whether the power of cultivated vice Thanos has harnessed is greater than the habitual virtue each of our heroes exercise in their self-sacrificial roles as heroes. This is why each and every single sacrifice we make--and no sacrifice is too little or too big--is so important because in the increasingly self-entitled world, when we willingly sacrifice something, we don't balance the bad with the good, we overcome the bad, because it takes far greater will power to sacrifice than to go with the flow, and our own powers are built up so someone else's evil won't overcome us.
Why is Thanos purple? Purple symbolizes royalty and suffering: because purple was so insanely expensive to produce in ancient times, only the king or appointed members of the royal family could wear purple; as time went on, and depictions of Jesus became popularlized, purple became the color of Lent and the Passion, because our King suffered for our offenses and sins. When a villain, such as The Joker or Thanos wear purple, it's because they want to be royalty, and usually their sufferings have something to do with becoming wicked rather than becoming holy, and they take out their pain on others rather than helping others through their pain. In Black Panther, and even in the trailer above, we see T'Challa wear a long, purple "vest" because he is a good king who is willing to suffer for his people, rather than have his people suffer for him. Thanos, then, looks at himself as being royalty--the right to rule over others--but because we know that being capable of suffering is a virtue, we also know that Thanos will cause others to suffer for him; any sufferings or wrongs which Thanos has experienced in life will also be the "defining characteristic" of his entire being (just as we look at him and notice how purple he is, so his personal character won't be made of up victories and virtues, rather, his defeats, miseries and complaints, like all liberals). 
What part of "balancing" the universe translates to "turning it upside-down?" Wiping out half of it, then re-distributing it would do that. Well, which half is he going to wipe out? That's an easy question to answer: the half that will revolt. It's always the first task of a socialist dictator to purge their enemies, and Thanos is no different than Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pott, Castro, Kim, or any other socialist leader. They have to remove those who want to remove them, and in the case of Thanos, that's going to be at least half of the universe; the remaining half is how much he can easily control and enslave forever because they will be happy just to be alive and the chances are slim they will revolt, or so Thanos thinks. There is no reality in creating "fairness" or "balance" because we are not all created equal: there is no possible way that I am equal to the incredible skills of Michael Jordan or Peyton Manning, or that they are even equal to each other, but they also aren't equal to me because it's very unlikely they would be able to critique film and art the way I can.
Pro-capitalist films have done a good job of sizing up the pro-socialists with a few pen strokes: the ones who focused on what others had, instead of what they themselves had, and decided they wanted it for themselves (consider Blofeld in Spectre, or Vortigern in King Arthur Legend Of the Sword). While he will likely be a minor character in Infinity War, we can expect Loki, the god of mischief, to indulge his grudge against his brother Thor (going back to their first film) in Loki's relentless pursuit of revenge for having been graciously adopted by Odin instead of being left for dead.
So, the most anticipated film of the year opens on my birthday, that gives you about a month to get caught up on any of the films you haven't seen (including Black Panther; I have to watch Spider-Man Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok on my end). If you are not sure which films you may need to catch up on, here is the link to all the films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe in chronological order and their "phase development" order as well.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner