Monday, July 21, 2014

NEWS: Star Wars VII & the Hand That Falls

This is the updated poster for Star Wars VII (the original poster can be seen below). We don't have to say much to say something important: for example, the bright yellow in the original has been replaced with gold in the new version. Why is this important? It looks better, someone might say; true, however, aesthetics generally--not always, but generally--the beauty or visual appeal exists because its foundation is a moral appeal. With the "first" Star Wars released in 1977, it was befitting that the words STAR WARS be written in yellow because yellow is the sign of royalty (it resembles gold which always invokes royalty): either someone becomes regal because of their bravery in battle, or someone loses their dignity because of cowardice in battle (refusal to fight for non-legitimate reasons). Consider that in those first three films (Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, The Return Of the Jedi) the three young heroes of Luke, Leia and Han had everything to prove, they were nothing, and every single encounter was a battle, they had no reason to have any confidence in themselves or each other (this is important and a theme we will elaborate upon below). So, for the first three films, they all could have been proven to be cowards (remember, Luke didn't have to go in search of Obi-Wan or in search of Leia; Han "leaves" the final battle in Star Wars to go pay off Jabba the Hutt, then comes back to cover for Luke so Luke can sink the winning shot, not to mention, they totally could have died in that trash compactor; it's never the authority you have won because of the last battle, rather, it's always what is at stake in the upcoming battle) but that's not what happens, even though they have two more films wherein they must prove themselves worthy of being some of the highest grossing heroes of cinematic history, and they do prove it. So, STAR WARS being written in yellow conveyed the dubious stakes the three heroes were fighting for in those first three films; now, however, it's definitely written in gold, which is appealing, because the original three are back and the gold verifies that they have, indeed, earned their places, and the gold of the poster is meant to convey this to us (these are some of the greatest heroes in the history of cinema!). Additionally, there is the "reflective" quality of the gold: if the gold is turned to the light, it shines even brighter, reflecting that light. Symbolically, we are meant to "catch the light" and reflect upon the poster and the characters it summons to our minds (as well as the plot of the film and the reflecting the characters will be doing themselves: that's the thing about the Star Wars films, they were all about free will: it would have been easy for Luke to choose the Dark Side, with his dad Darth Vader, but he resisted and made the tougher decision to go with the rebels). There's another detail added which one would have thought was contained in the original poster but is not: the stars. Why did they choose to have little glimmers like stars in the new poster? I think there are at least two reasons. First, an act of heroism stands out against the darkness like a star against the night sky, and seeing the reality of this in a tangible way encourages us in our own small, daily efforts, as unglamorous as Luke repairing droids on the farm on Tatooine. Secondly, the acts of courage, bravery and heroism that are made are immortalized in art and culture, just as the stars are set in the sky, not just for those who performed the deeds, but for us to be reminded of the standards of what a hero is, and aim to achieve that in our own lives. Lastly, there is a thin, but definite "red line" (it could be a red light saber); why is that there? Red, as we know, denotes blood: either we love someone enough to shed our life's blood for them, or we hate them enough to shed their life's blood to appease our wrath against them; I am guessing that we will see both.   
If you don't want to know anything about JJ Abrams' upcoming Star Wars VII, please, stop reading right now and just skip this post: it doesn't include any spoilers (none have been released), but does include solid "rumors" about the opening of the film from sources that have proven reliable in the past (and yes, it's to Abrams' credit that he's releasing teasers because bloggers and news sources--like me--are giving him tons of publicity as we analyze and write away and that's only a good thing for Abrams and company). So, you have been warned.
"It's an elegant weapon," as Obi-Wan comments, not because of the rhythmic humming noise it makes, or the color of the beam, but because of the inner-strength of the one yielding it and the testimony it provides. Please, recall, the light saber is a update of the sword, the ultimate symbol of the knight. Feminists and queer theorists (no, really, it's called Queer theory) will say this is a phallic symbol imposing "Might is right," and of course, might is never right, etc. This is a perfect example of the spread of dis-information. It's not the kind of physical might they want you to believe, rather, it's the moral might that is always right (and, perhaps they don't want you to believe in that, either, they really only want us to believe what they themselves have been programmed to believe) and this interpretation is only validated by the "light" aspect of the saber (the "sword of truth" and the "light in the darkness" combing symbolic force into one, tangible material object). The color of the light of the saber is also important, for example, in the image below, when Luke loses his hand and his saber, it's a pale blue: blue is the color of wisdom and sadness, because of the path of wisdom is the painful lessons of life. Luke has wisdom, however, Vader's saber is red and, we can say, it is so because of the hate and malice he has nurtured in his soul; in this case, Luke's pale wisdom (after all, it's not a deep blue saber, but a pale blue) is insufficient to overcome the depths of Vader's evil. This, however, changes in Return Of the Jedi.
Everyone who has anything to do with film is venting about the "opening" (or the rumored opening) of the Star Wars VII film: a hand falls to a desert planet and it's holding a light saber. Two characters find it and decide to return it to the owner, so they travel off planet and encounter Hans and Chewie who are not flying the Millennium Falcon, but something else; Hans instantly recognize that it's Luke's, but he hasn't seen Luke in 30 years, not since the events of The Return Of the Jedi. Everyone else seems to think this is a terrible opening, but I think it's perfect: the hand, his right hand, the hand Vader cut off, has been cut off again, and we are called to remember the events of Luke losing it the first time, which is awesome!
Let's compare Luke losing his hand to a similar situation in another iconic work of art, JRR Tolkien's The Lord Of the Ring. Frodo is at the edge of Mount Doom, but he can't let go of the Ring; Gollum appears (and you just have to take my word for it, Gollum is a manifestation of Bilbo's and Frodo's own souls that wants the Ring; Frodo isn't struggling against something else, i.e., Gollum, he's struggling against himself); Gollum bites off Frodo's finger to get the Ring and, in so doing, falls into Mount Doom, with the Ring and the finger. This is something like what happens to Luke fighting Vader: in both instances, the commandment from Jesus in Mark 9:43 that "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire is unquenchable." This is certainly the case of the fires of Mount Doom in TLOR, and, I think, of Luke. Throughout the film, Luke has thought well of his powers and his ability to use them, but he's not a real Jedi, but he thinks he is (note his outfit, it's gray, and gray is always the color of the pilgrim, either because they are doing penance or because they are in a state of the novitiate). Just as Frodo has to lose the part of him that wants to hold onto the Ring so the rest of him can be saved and return to the Shire; Luke has to be willing to lose the "power" that his right hand symbolizes in order to resist Vader's--his father's--invitation to combine their power and rule the universe. This act of sacrifice is what makes Luke a Jedi knight, he would rather be maimed than risk becoming evil or being used by evil for evil's own end (remember in the first film, Obi-Wan sacrifices himself to Vader so he can "become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" because Obi-Wan would then be free of his body and earthly form which causes/leads us astray, and being free of his "weaker self" of course makes him stronger in every way). Luke accepts the sacrifice of his hand, his power, and then, in Return Of the Jedi, he is a Jedi, he wears all black because he is "dead to the world" and the power the Dark Side might have had over him before now doesn't have anything in Luke to "act upon," there is no vengefulness or power-hunger or vanity, just Luke knowing what he has to do and wanting to do it. SO, when we see Luke's hand fall to the desert like this, these are some of the things we should be thinking of.
You don't think that's awesome?
Let me clarify. Luke makes an ultimate statement of, not only free will, but also of individuality. Vader wears the black mask and suit because he has lost all his individuality and free will, he does the bidding of the Emperor who uses Vader's wrath against him to control him; Luke won't  be controlled, even by the worst news he has ever received (Vader is his father), but stands against it and refuses to give in even if it means losing his life. Now, given today's entitlement wave of brainwashing and victim-hood, culture trying to tell us that everyone is gay--or if they are not gay, they are sleeping with anyone and everyone--Luke's loss of his right hand is a profound reminder of what he gained when he sacrificed it: his own self.
In a very real sense, we can compare the "falling hand with a light saber" to the glass slipper depicted in Cinderella (2015) which you can watch here. Luke is known for his biopic hand, Cinderella for her glass slipper: it's not a matter of "reducing" a person's identity to an object or just one item, rather, recognizing the power objects have to communicate to us about our individuality and how an entire story can be summoned by the mind with just the slightest hint.
 Now, on a different level, when we see that hand drop into a desert, the hand of the one who went to save others and defeat the evil empire, are we supposed to see that as the state of the United States? The right hand symbolizes strength, and the light saber is the ability to carry out justice--not only the moral ability, but the legal and political ability as well--but when was the last time the Obama Administration made an act of justice or followed the law? Is the desert the hand falls in like the wilderness through which we will see the Israelites wander through in this December's Exodus: Gods and Kings, the place of the soul's purgation? The one who was there to save others, now needs to be saved, just like the United States.
The original title card and poster. Hans hasn't seen his brother-in-law in 30 years? That would be 1985, the year Ronald Reagan was sworn in for his second term of office and Mikhail Gorbachev became the Chairman of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, i.e., the two men who would end the Soviet Union stepped onto the global stage and made choices that changed the world for the better, forever,... until 2008. 
Abrams has commented that he wants Star Wars VII to be like that first film, intentionally: so the finding of the hand is like Luke finding Leia's message on R2D2; the two characters finding Hans and Chewie is like when Luke went in search of "Old Ben" and Ben not having heard his name "Obi-Wan" in many years is like Hans not having seen his old friend for 30 years. Why do it this way? Does Abrams not have any good ideas of his own? Absolutely not, this is a good idea, because, just like I have been beating the drums, the films that defeated socialism/communism in the 1980s, will defeat socialism/communism today, and this is the instilling in a "new generation" the same values, the courage, the same hope as we first experienced so long ago.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Friday, July 18, 2014

TRAILERS: Into the Storm, Jessebelle, Annabelle, As Above, So Below, Hercules, Expendables 3

Well, if you haven't heard, the comic book company Marvel--not the film industry--has relayed that Thor the god of thunder is no longer able to carry the hammer, so a woman is going to take up his identity. Marvel has also announced that Steve Rogers, aka Captain America, has lost the super-human serum and has rapidly aged 65 years, so he is no longer to carry the shield so Sam Wilson, aka, Falcon, takes over as Captain America. Again, this isn't likely to affect the films, however, this clearly validates what I have been saying about the attack on white males in America (I am a white female myself): in order for women of the Left to feel like they have really achieved "equality" with men, they demand that all their power and possessions be stripped of them; this is the same with minorities. The obvious route to take, if Marvel was truly only interested in gaining a female audience, would have been to explore the role of Lady Sif, or another female, or just create a new female character, but no, that's not what they did, they took a white male and have completely castrated him. Gender, in other words, has no become an arbitrary factor of identity, and this is exactly what the decadent Left wants, because being "assigned" a gender when we are born is what God does, and the Left wants to subvert His authority completely in their drive to making the state god, so they support trans-gender and eventually bestiality and incest and pedophilia--yes, they will support all this, just wait--and this is to drive people further and further away from God and religion so people will be less resistant about embracing the state and dependency.
Again, I do apologize, but Grandma is finally well and I can return to my rightful post; I am sorry, this was a serious bout for her. A number of films have released trailers; maybe not all making to a theater near you, but some of are interest and you might pick them up one night at the local rent-a-film-kiosk near you, but first, let's discuss the newest news circulating about The Avengers: Age Of Ultron because this is big.
Some of you may be surprised about the characters of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch; who is who? The problem stems from them being "cross-over" characters in the Marvel universe, meaning they appear in more than one series, in this case, X-Men and The Avengers. On the left is Evan Peters portrayal of Quicksilver which we just saw in X-Men: Days Of Future Past--and it has been verified that he's returning for X-Men: Apocalypse--and the little girl is his sister, Scarlet Witch. On the right is Aaron Johnson as Quicksilver and Elizabeth Olsen as Scarlet Witch in The Avengers: the Age Of Ultron.   Yes, this is confusing. The Avengers seems to be keeping the siblings as twins, whereas X-Men seems to make Peter older but that might be his advanced aging as a result of his speed (note his gray hair). In X-Men, Peter helps the X-Men break Magneto out of the Pentagon--and it's possible Magneto is his father--but in The Avengers, the twins start out at least on the side of evil. If you saw the post-credits scene for Captain America: the Winter Soldier, you saw the twins in cages and, supposedly, this is the exact point at which The Avengers: the Age Of Ultron starts, with the Avengers breaking in and shooting up everything. An additional difference between the two sets of siblings is that the X-Men has them being very middle-class America; the Avengers, however, has them being Gypsies from Romania who just wander and travel, and, consequently, haven't had anyone to help them and teach them to use their gifts.
Supposedly, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), ha built a robot with his intelligence and personality (oh, yea, I bet the Avengers just love this) to lead an "Iron Legion" that protects the world; this robot is, ultimately, Ultron (James Spader) who has some of Stark's traits, but none of Stark's humanity (there is a switch here between the comic books and film, but this is how The Avengers 2 is going to play out). So, why is this important? Well, we just saw two perfect examples of this, one is Transformers IV and X-Men Days Of Future Past (and we can probably throw in Robocop). The Galvatron model was based on Optimus Prime, but had Megatron's conscience and broke protocol of what he was supposed to be like. In X-Men, the Sentinels have all the qualities of the mutants, but none of their humanity. So, where are these films leading the dialogue?
Simon West (The Expendables 2, Lara Croft Tomb Raider, Con Air) has been signed to direct the Tolkien & Lewis project, about the two Oxford dons who wrote The Lord Of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia, respectively. The film will explore their friendship and similarities, but also their ultimate falling-out.
The strains between human and machine have been explored since the beginnings of cinema; today, however, I think it's more of what's going to happen to us if personal identity--such as gender and religion--are removed from us and we are forced to become more like machines by a government who rules over us like animals. Gender and religion are two of the identity factors which make us human, compassionate and adaptable, whenever someone tries to replicate humanity but make humanity "more human than human" (to use the line from Blade Runner) these are aspects often left out, but they also prove to be the essentials: that which makes us emotionally and psychologically vulnerable.
Speaking of Iron Man, Disney has found its Mowgli for their new release of The Jungle Book, which is really only important for one reason: Jon Favreau is directing. There have been numerous films the Progressives have put out, calling for a return to nature and a disavow of technology, and a new edition of The Jungle Book could easily fall into that category; however, with Favreau directing, I'm not concerned about it, and am fairly confident we can count on the director/actor to deliver the perfect punch to films such as Moonrise Kingdom and Gravity who advocate digressing.
Again, several trailers have been released for films that are coming out which you may or may not get a chance to watch (more likely rent) but they are worth a glimpse. First, Into the Storm, which, granted, might end up being a global warming propaganda film, however, please listen to the speaker and who he is quoting as the rain begins pouring down on the graduates:
Did you recognize Richard Armitage (The Hobbit, Thorin Oakenshield)? The speaker at the commencement is quoting American essayist Henry David Thoreau, who is best known for his essay Resistance to Civil Government, also known as Civil Disobedience, in which he contends "The government is not just a little corrupt or unjust in the course of doing its otherwise-important work, but in fact the government is primarily an agent of corruption and injustice. Because of this, it is 'not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize (Wikipedia).'" Now, the speaker quoting Thoreau about living your dream, just as a devastating storm comes along and destroys the school, begs comparison: is there a "storm" that has "destroyed" the schools in America so that students won't be able to live out their dreams? Well, if you know anything about Common Core Curriculum--that, basically, any answer a student gives is correct if they can explain how they arrived at that answer, and puts more emphasis on emotions over logic--then a storm destroying a school makes perfect sense (not to mention the students who are "trapped under water," that being a financial term for being in debt, which the Millennials are, $17 trillion, because of Obama). I could be wrong about the film, New Line cinema tends to be pretty liberal, and so, too, is Focus Films, the newest Jeremy Renner film also looks like it's making a political point:
Now, when was the last time a reporter in this era (i.e., since 2008) risked their life to do their job? Michael Hastings, apparently, gave his life to expose something, and so, too did Sheryl Adkinson in leaving MSNBC because they wouldn't let her report the news she wanted to talk about; these reporters are rare in today's America, however, so Kill the Messenger is like a slap-in-the-face to everyone in the journalist world because none of them today can say they are doing what this journalist did. This next film, Jessabelle, is probably going to be liberal, however, it's worth stretching our minds over. Remember, a mother will symbolize "the motherland."
Given the list of pro-socialist films these film makers are associated with, and the girl (Jessabelle) who is going to die a horrible death was born during the Reagan Administration, yea, the woman on the video she thought was her mother is supposed to symbolize capitalism, etc. Speaking of pro-socialist horror films, Warner Brothers has overcome their legal problems with The Conjuring to finally release Annabelle, the story of the haunted doll.
Now, the song Cherish plays the woman who is given the doll has "cherished" the doll or the idea of having the doll, so this is materialism and that, so socialists, is the ultimate evil, so bad, that the materials themselves will rise up to destroy you, as is the case with this doll. Secondly, there is the issue with the neighbors: "I like your doll," and this is supposed to relate back to The Purge, the story of having neighbors who are jealous of your success to the point they kill you because of it, and this film appears to be no different. Thirdly, the doll, Annabelle, doesn't look anything like the original Raggity-Ann type doll that was the original Annabelle (upon which the story is based from Ed and Lorraine Warren's case studies) which means the studio totally did her up this way to make a point: blond hair and blue eyes, she's meant to be a horror image of what Western civilization values in terms of beauty (never mind Hitler's Aryan agenda). So, that pretty much takes care of that film.
Add caption
This probably won't be released in a theater near you, but I have a minor in archaeology so it struck a cord with me (a thankful cord that I never went on a expedition like this one).  As above, So Below contains a very interesting New Historicism detail, that is, a date which triggers an association we are supposed to make so we can better understand the premise of the film; can you find what it is?
At 0:31 seconds, the title card says the mass grave was built in 1785, which isn't true (although they did get the number of bodies, about 6 million correct) so this isn't an over-sight, rather, it's a lead (there was a mini-cave-in in 1774, but the graves had been built since Paris was first established in the 5th century) so, what is it about 1775? Two things happened which the film might be wanting to comment upon. First, Cardinal de Rohan is arrested for the affair of the diamond necklace involving Marie Antoinette, one of the events leading to the French Revolution; secondly, the the Pantheism controversy broke out, which was a serious atheist  issue during the Enlightenment. Given the film is about finding the gates of hell, this could be what the film is targeting. So, our next selection is called Ouija:
It's interesting to see so many films that are emphasizing the "inexplicable." The mysterious is employed... why? Yes, it's scary and scary films can make big bucks, but we also know these films have agendas (like Oculus, which was an extremely well-done pro-socialist film and I was writing the post and got on a Lacan tangent then didn't get the thing done, I will try to) and, in this case, those agendas revolve around "material objects": if there wasn't the material object of the Ouija board, none of this would have happened. Now, it's time for some pro-capitalism:
Actually, I'm not quite sure about anything with the storyline, but they are kicking-ass and that must mean it's pro-capitalist. Next weekend, Hercules opens, and we know that men symbolize the economy, so as you watch Hercules fight and rally warriors with special skill sets to his side, be thinking of that:
"You cannot deny what you are, the gods will punish you for it," which is a line of thought/reasoning we may very well be seeing in Ridley Scott's Exodus: Gods & Kings as Moses, like Hercules, searches for his identity. Now, those "descendants of Hades" who "cannot be killed by an ordinary mortal" are surely Liberals, because--just like the Necromancer in The Hobbit raising his Wraiths from the dead--so these soldiers have been long-dead but are coming back for more, just like the Cold War soldiers of socialism. "Save these people, restore order to this world," doesn't that sound like what a lot of people would like to say about the United States right now?
One last detail that's important: "My time's not come yet, I'm not sure about yours," that line comes from Braveheart, when the crazy Irish guy tells William Wallace (Mel Gibson) that same thing, which means, the makers of Hercules wanted to quote a film leading a rebellion against an unjust government in that scene (when films "quote" or "borrow" something from another film, it's not just an homage, but also a expansion of vocabulary to make you think of that other film and the events that took place in it so a reference is created). So, when we watch that scene, we will need to think of ways it reminds us of events in Braveheart. This leads us to a trailer that surprises me, but really, just watch this, because I am quite impressed with what they have done (so far, at least, in the trailers):
There are actually several details worthy of our attention. First, at 0:17-19, "Let's rock-n-roll," what does that remind you of? Rock and roll? Good, because Rock Of Ages, with Tom Cruise, is about that exactly, how rock-n-roll saved America from socialism (yea, really). Then, they are comparing themselves to "shadows in the night," and bragging--not that everyone saw them--rather, that no one saw them, and that's how they encounter April O'Neill who got a photo. They don't want to be famous. "Oh, he's using his Batman voice," what does that tell you? They watch Batman! Even though Bruce Wayne is a billionaire, and these turtles live in the sewer, they look up to Batman because he's a standard upon which they can model their own behavior.
You have to admit, regardless of what you think of them, they do always look like they are having fun; why? Why not have super serious turtles? To begin with, a turtle actually is a good symbol for a ninja because turtles are often employed as symbols of the meditative life: just as a turtle retreats into himself when he goes into his shell, so we are supposed to retreat into ourselves away from the world, and that ability to focus and know who you are are essential characteristics for good ninjas. They have fun because "seriousness" is part of the enemy they are fighting, and, again, we have all ready seen this in Rise Of the Guardians with Jack Frost (Chris Pine) when he finds his "core" is fun and fun is able to bring dreams back and defeat Pitch (Jude Law). So this aspect of the Turtles is a serious one to consider.
Next, we hear Shredder telling them, I have trainer you your whole lives to protect the city above, so even though no one knows you exist, and you live in the sewer, and you'll never get any recognition, save the city anyway. That is pretty heroic in my book. But, in spite of all their training, there is a villain so bad, that we have all ready seen him in The Wolverine: the samurai. On another note, Whoopi Goldberg will probably serve, like Robert Redford in Captain America: the Winter Soldier, as a mouth piece of socialism and it will be quite rewarding getting to see her eat her own words, even if it is only on screen.
Just as we commented upon the role of journalists above with Kill the Messenger, so April O'Neil's role in getting a story and what she's willing to do to get it should remind journalists what their calling is and how they haven't been doing it.
Really, I'm almost done with Transformers IV, and I will get that up!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Synopsis & Trailer Release: The Hobbit 3: Battle Of the Five Armies

Luke Evans as Bard the boatman. In the forthcoming posts (that is, those posts I still have not finished) I demonstrate that all the characters in the book and films are actually doubles for Bard who, I contend, is the real hero of the story, whereas Bilbo Baggins and the wizard Gandalf are actually representations of Bard himself, divided so that we can understand his soul and that his "destiny" isn't to kill Smaug, rather, his destiny is to become virtuous in all his endeavors so that he is strong enough to kill Smaug. In The Hobbit: the Desolation Of Smaug, the mayor of the town (Stephen Fry) contends that it was Gideon, Bard's ancestor, who failed to kill the dragon when Smaug first came to occupy the Lonely Mountain; from the very first scene--when there is the cameo of director Peter Jackson himself stepping out into the rain, taking a bite out of a carrot, a perfect, deep cameo!--to the last scene we saw in the second film, everything has accumulated to support that Smaug the destroyer is the ravage of socialism which the previously generation (the "Greatest Generation" and the baby boomers) have not been able to kill, so it falls to the younger generation to finally complete the deed. This is most dramatically demonstrated in the rise of Sauron, the "Necromancer" who, like socialism coming to America, all thought was "dead," but who has built up his strength in the blindness of his enemies and now seeks to take over the world. As we see in the image above, Bard prepares to shoot an ordinary arrow from his bow; all the strength of his virtue, however, will be gathered to make the Black Arrow hit its mark and that, we shall detail, is the very same task each and every single one of us is called to make our own as well. On a slightly different note, when the second Hobbit film opened, Thorin had been searching for his father, and originally, from the research I have been able to do, Billy Connolly was cast to play Thorin's father who shows up at the battle of the Lonely Mountain, but that was changed, and Connolly is now cast as Dain II; symbolically, this is important, because Thorin's father would be a symbol of "founding fathers" but Dain II has an imperative role to play, and I am confident it will be political so we will have a chance to compare Connolly's role to his would-be role.
Well, it has certainly taken a long time for this tidbit to be released. It has been officially announced that the first trailer for The Hobbit: the Battle Of Five Armies will not be released until October (again, this is partly due to new theatrical rules instituting the guideline that trailers cannot be released more than 5 months ahead of the anticipated release date for the film, and they cannot be more than 2 minutes--many films were two-and-a-half, some even three minutes long--and production companies cannot display marketing materials for a film more than four months ahead of the release date. Here, finally, is the official synopsis for the final installment of The Hobbit 3 film, due out in December:

The final installment of "The Hobbit" series will bring to an epic conclusion the adventures of Bilbo Baggins, Thorin Oakenshield, and the Company of Dwarves [sic]. Having reclaimed their homeland from the Dragon Smaug, the Company has unwittingly unleashed a deadly force into the world. Enraged, Smaug rains his fiery wrath down upon the defenseless men, women and children of Lake-town.

Obsessed above all else with his reclaimed treasure, Thorin sacrifices friendship and honor to hoard it as Bilbo's frantic attempts to make him see reason drive the Hobbit towards a desperate and dangerous choice. But there are even greater dangers ahead. Unseen by any but the Wizard Gandalf, the great enemy Sauron has sent forth legions of Orcs in a stealth attack upon the Lonely Mountain.

As darkness converges on their escalating conflict, the races of Dwarves [sic], Elves and Men must decide - unite or be destroyed. Bilbo finds himself fighting for his life and the lives of his friends in the epic Battle of the Five Armies, as the future of Middle-earth hangs in the balance.

This is off-topic, however, Ian aMcKellen is in both films. There is now word on when the film is due out, merely referred to as Mr. Holmes at this point, but we do have a bit of a synopsis: Based on a novel by Mitch Cullin, the film details the story of a long-retired Sherlock Holmes haunted by an unsolved case from fifty years ago. He remembers only fragments: a confrontation with an angry husband, a secret bond with his beautiful but unstable wife. With his legendary mental powers on the wane, and without his old sidekick Watson, Holmes is faced with the toughest case of his life. (N.B.: fans of the series Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman--both who are also in The Hobbit films--will be getting a treat from the series: a Christmas special. The producers have announced they will have a one-show special to release in-between the last season 3 episode and the upcoming season 4 just to help fans until they can get the next season out).
For those of us who have read the book, this sounds very much like what we would expect (with the exception, of course of some additional characters and part of the company of dwarfs still being in the town). Fans of JRR Tolkien have been divided between saying that director Peter Jackson has "largely" kept to the original story, or has "largely" deviated from the original story; I believe, unlike with what I felt were some gross liberties he took in The Lord Of the Rings, that he has remained remarkably true to Tolkien's The Hobbit. Why is this important? The homage to "the written word" which we have seen with all the stories being brought back to life as of late (Mirror, Mirror, Snow White and the Huntsman, I, Frankenstein, Maleficent, the Showtime series Penny Dreadful based on literary works of the Victorian era, Sherlock, based on the stories of Arthur Conan Doyle and the up-coming Dracula Untold and Cinderella, to name a few). Why is this important?
Deconstruction.
The official poster for The Hobbit 3 (you may click on it to enlarge it for better viewing). It is simple, but that doesn't mean it isn't profound.  Two colors, black and gold, and two fonts, the chiseled look of the words "The Hobbit" and then the clean, simple font of the sub-title. Black, as we know, is the color of death: either a person is "dead to the world" and alive to the spirit, or they are "dead to the spirit" and alive to the things of the world (as a part of the "organic nature" of symbols, black--in elaborating upon the means of achieving the "death of the spirit," also refers to the "dark night of the soul" when one has been seemingly abandoned to horrible circumstances and there is no light of hope to guide you, although that's when the spirit rids itself of all its weakness and becomes strongest; we can easily see this concept at work through the novel and the two installments of the film so far thus released). Against this backdrop of death, "Hobbit" takes up nearly the entire width, suggesting that Bilbo Baggins, the hobbit in The Hobbit, is enlarging himself and is finding himself expanding in this black area (there is also the detail of "Black Speech," the language of the Orcs and other foul creatures which we shall discuss in a moment). The words, "The Hobbit" appear to be chiseled out of some strong substance, perhaps stone, and because the words reference Bilbo Baggins, we can take the words to be a symbol for Bilbo Baggins (the way the glass slipper is a symbol for Cinderella in Kenneth Branaugh's trailer for the film). Just as the words appear to be chiseled out of stone, so Bilbo Baggins has been "chiseled" out of the events of his adventure, and, as Gandalf says, he's "not the same hobbit who left the shire," and we can see that in the letter "T" at the end of "Hobbit." A small chunk has been removed from that letter, right about where the heart is, and that might reference the innocence--not the purity--but the innocence Bilbo has lost which the shelter of the shire maintained. The letter "O," after the "H," we know can also stand for the ring, the ring that is The Ring, and it has become a part of Bilbo, too, not only because he finds it and uses it, but also because he becomes one of its keepers (as Frodo does in The Lord Of the Rings). We can't, however, overlook the obvious fact that this is written in gold: the gold could refer to the gold that Bilbo was promised at the start of his journey by Thorin's Company, or it could refer to the gold of The Ring, or the gold over which Smaug keeps watch, or even the little chest of gold from the Trolls' cave,... or it could refer to something else entirely. While the gold most certainly invokes monetary gold, the kind that will be the ruin of Thorin Oakenshield, and the gold of The Ring that has all ready nearly been the ruin of Bilbo in Mirkwood Forest when they battle the spiders and Bilbo drops The Ring and has to kill some bizarre beast (a beast that crawls out of a hole and "threatens" to take The Ring from Bilbo is actually a "double" for Bilbo, a part of Bilbo's character that has been made tangible for us to see so we can understand how his soul is in jeopardy because of what The Ring is doing to him, and so Bilbo can see it as well). Because we know that Bilbo has faced every challenge and danger with courage, fortitude and honor, we can say that the gold letting demonstrates the achievement of Bilbo's advance in virtue, that his soul has been purged of the weakness and impurities he had before he started out on the journey, so Bilbo is approaching a state of perfection. Now, by "perfection," we do not mean he is going to become perfect, rather, as the words "The Hobbit" take up the expanse of black--the gold "comes out of the black" because Bilbo's virtue comes out of the suffering and troubles and hardship he experiences upon the journey--so the golden virtues are taking up the entirety of Bilbo's character and making it less and less likely that he will do anything that is less than honorable, less than virtuous, less than heroic. Now, the comparatively plain font in which "The Battle Of the Five Armies" is written is a contradiction: a battle in which there are five armies fighting is hardly anything most people would consider "plain," so the smaller and plainer font in which this epic ordeal is written communicates to us that that's how we are supposed to read it beside the larger and more elaborately written "The Hobbit":  the hobbit in the story is more important and bigger than the five armies or the battle that is going to take place in the film and while it forms as it were the foundation ("Hobbit" almost rests or sits on top of The Battle Of the Five Armies) it's the story of Bilbo that will rise above the battle the film will depict.
One of the primary contributions to literary theory made by the father of Deconstruction theory Jacques Derrida, as the recognition that Western civilization is largely constructed upon dichotomies of opposites: man and woman, white and black, right and wrong, rich and poor, etc., but the most important of these opposites is present and absent. Western civilization places a greater emphasis--a greater value and priority--on that which is present, rather than absent, hence, we place a greater emphasis also on the spoken word--you have to be present to speak--rather than on writing which is a sign of absence (you cannot be there so you write a note in place of your presence and ability to speak on your own behalf). This is all nice, but why is it important? There are two reasons.
This is an image of one of the dinosaurs that will be featured in Jurassic Park IV. Why discuss it here? It's an on-going symbol we are seeing in numerous films. Reptiles, as a group, will almost always refer back to the Serpent in Eden, unless the work in which the reptile is being represented takes pains to establish an alternative reading for the symbol (the perfect case in point is The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, who are reptiles but obviously do not symbolize the serpent, rather, how to overcome the serpent: turtles are often seen as symbols of meditation and wisdom, because they "retreat within themselves" the way a wise person will retreat within themselves and away from the world). Whether it's the alligator Hushpuppy's mother shoots in Beasts Of the Southern Wild, the T-Rex Optimus Prime tames in Transformers 4, the fire-breathing dragons of Maleficent or Smaug, or the serpent depicted in Noah, or the gargantuan Godzilla, all these reptiles in some way summon to our mind the imagery of the Serpent and Original Sin (some more than others).  Smaug, in The Hobbit films, is most definitely a Serpent figure because the gold over which he guards as his own is the virtue of Thorin's and the company's souls that such an adventure would help them acquire but Smaug will see that they don't because then he would lose their souls (recall, if you will, the initial conversation between Bilbo and Smaug when Smaug thinks about letting Thorin have the gold to watch it destroy him, more on that below). Each of the representations need to be discussed in their unique contexts, however, we have to keep awares that all these various and differing films are incorporating the same symbols and symbolic vehicles, begging for comparisons between them.
First, all these films and shows named above, acknowledge that there is a written source, a primary beginning, an original; even as changes are made to the "adaptation," as they are called, it pays homage to the original that gave the adaptation birth because it demonstrates that the original was true, and reflecting the truth. Secondly, in a work like the pro-socialist film Maleficent, when the narrator tells you that "Now you are going to learn what really happened," they acknowledge the original, but blame the original for falsifying "the truth," and the truth can only be learned here and now as we are being told the truth. On the other hand, a film based upon a book like The Hobbit, uses the written word as a validation of the story itself, i.e., because there is an original written source, it cannot be disputed and the past which the written word invokes becomes its own value, e.g., because it's old, and we still look to it, that in and of itself demonstrates value (Exodus: Gods and Kings, the newest Ridley Scott film, also coming out in December, puts the name of the Biblical book in the very title because it's so important--regardless of which way the film will go--the film makes sure that we know there is a written source of this story that gives it validation and accreditation); so why is this important?
The tables have been turned.
Permit me to make an important note: while Derrida himself was rather radical in his politics, what certain groups did with Deconstruction and other aspects of his philosophy in applying it to social conditions is not necessarily keeping with what Derrida's formal works were actually researching: if you read Of Grammatology or Differance, you won't necessarily see what has become the vehicle of the Left because of how they have molded it to fit their needs; this is imperative because, just like the original story of Sleeping Beauty and the massive changes film makers applied to Maleficent, the Left will do this with anything.  On an entirely different note, another theme running throughout films, which bears political importance, is the searching for the makers, the creators. In Ridley Scott's Prometheus, the film ends with Noomi Rapace's character going in search of the "creators" and we can safely assume we will see the same with Moses (Christian Bale) in Exodus: Gods and Kings when Moses goes in search of his true identity and relationship to the people of Israel and their God. Likewise, at the end of Transformers IV, Optimus Prime leaves earth to go in search of the Transformers' creators to challenge them (I hope to go see Dinesh D'Souza's America tomorrow or Tuesday, and I expect, from the cast list, that there will be a search for the American founding fathers, which is what all this is really about; it's also possible that with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, there will be discussion about their creation as well). The reason conservatives embrace the Founding Fathers is not because they were white; not because they were rich; not because they were Protestants; the reason we embrace the Founding Fathers is because they heroically reacted to a repeating tyranny in history, namely, that a few should rule the many through force. Remembering what they stood for, and against, reminds us that we will face this repeatedly throughout history those same struggles in one form or another and for the sake of our rights, enshrined in the Constitution--the written word, the original, the one from which all the others come--and the Bill of Rights, we unite ourselves to them and the same cause.
Deconstruction is seen as a philosophical position whereby minorities--ethic minorities and women--can undermine the political power of rich white men who keep all the resources for themselves; now, however, with the advancing political doctrines of socialism (the so-called "system of the poor" which women and minorities espouse) attempting to indoctrinate Americans in an ever-more public discourse, capitalists have re-grouped around the "old dichotomies" that liberals started policing in the 1960s, demonstrating the fallacies of deconstruction in its social applications: if writing is an example of Western Civilization investing an inherently negative meaning (for lack of a better phrase, but the Left would agree with the phrase) into "writing," by continuously citing the original texts in modern adaptations, it demonstrates that capitalists habitually bring the past--the original writings, as with The Hobbit--and fuse it with the contemporary interpretations and adaptation for the modern need, thereby, neither present (the modern interpretation of the work) having any greater value over the past (the written word) because it's made clear that, without the past, the lesser-valued written article, the contemporary article could not be fashioned. So, what does this mean?
We will thoroughly explore Thorin Oakenshield in the upcoming posts, however, the poster above is most revealing about what we can expect of Thorin's fate and why. As described above with Bilbo and the gold over which Smaug guards, Thorin, too, is called to cultivate virtue and nobility; we know this because, when (in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey) the story of Thorin is related to Bilbo, the Dwarfs were failing but Thorin's bravery was commemorated with a new name, "Oakenshield," displaying his new vocation that he had taken upon himself in protecting his people; the thing is, however, you can't protect others unless you are protected yourself. For example, throughout the entire journey, Thorin has spoken and thought badly of Bilbo--he's thanked him a couple of times, but Smaug reveals that Thorin prefers the Arkenstone to Bilbo's safety--and that is the great downfall of Thorin: he's not just greedy, he's proud. Thorin's two greatest moments are when he fights Azog in the battle and then, in The Desolation Of Smaug, when Thorin stands on the golden dwarf king statue and orders it melted to try and kill Smaug; that golden dwarf king statue is a depiction of Thorin's soul at that moment, his glorious, brave and shining moment. What happens? The eye begins melting first, then it all gives way, and I predict this is exactly what will happen, Thorin will "fail to see" what he must, and because of that, he will lose everything.
Any separation touted by the Left--such as we see demonstrated in Attorney General Eric Holder's "Nation of cowards" speech--as being a value system designed to keep minorities out of government is imagined and created by the Left to further their attack on the status quo, it's not actually practiced by those the Left labels as their political enemies; in other words, the Left has completely fabricated their own version of reality; hard to believe? No, of course not. The Left claims to be politically abandoned by the system, but the system has demonstrated that is not the case, rather, the Left is imagining that the system does something it does not do, both exclude minorities--there are lots of women and minorities in government and business--and falsely valuing one dichotomy over another for their sake of maintaining a power base of rich white men. It might seem that I am making much ado about nothing, however, the gross re-writing of the story of Noah in Darren Aronofsky's last film and Sleeping Beauty by Maleficent film makers, and the adherence to original texts by pro-capitalist works, reflects the true image of who is closer to reality and who maligns the truth for their own political ends.
The document most under threat currently is the Constitution and Bill Of Rights, two written works the Left wants to do away with (just like Maleficent directors did away with the written original of Sleeping Beauty, and Aronofsky with the original story of Noah) but conservatives and patriots want to preserve and protect. While the first, official trailer for The Hobbit: the Battle Of the Five Armies is not supposed to come out until October, it is expected that some material--perhaps images or a few snippets?--might appear at the upcoming Comi-Con starting next week in San Diego. We know from a report of someone who has seen something like a trailer presented at one of the other conventions, that Gandalf announces the time has come for each to choose which side they are on, and there could certainly be no more accurate statement of the political atmosphere in America right now.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

TRAILERS: Exodus Gods & Kings, Mockingjay Part 1, Dracula Untold

One of the very first film "interpretations" I had ever heard was in regards to Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments, and it just happened to be a Marxist perspective. The film critic--whose name I do not know--writing the analysis said that The Ten Commandments is about who controls the labor force, both on the screen and off. In the film, Moses is going to be made the Crown Prince because Teti sees that Moses can control the labor force, whereas Ramses cannot get his city built; when Moses returns as a prophet, he takes away Ramses' labor force--the Israelites--and that signals the end of Egypt because now they can no longer build. Off the screen, the critic went on to advance this theory, there was also a labor dispute: the unions wouldn't allow their members to work until a certain contract had been signed, so DeMille couldn't get the film made in the projected time frame. Who controls the labor force, in other words, is a big, practical deal, then as it is now. This of course doesn't mean that Ridley Scott's new film Gods and Kings is going to be a pro-socialist film; it also doesn't mean that it won't. 
Again, please accept my apology for not getting posts up; it's been grueling.
I would also like to make good on my confession when Prometheus came out, and support Ridley Scott's newest film due out in December Exodus: Gods and Kings. I was dreading Prometheus like the plague, and was more than pleasantly surprised when I realized how pro-capitalist and, yes, deep it was; that doesn't mean that Scott will present us with a faithful religious film, however, I am going to be far more open to this then I was to Prometheus--when someone has earned our respect, they have the right to bank on it--and, I have to admit, it does look good:
We can go into A LOT of analysis here; sadly, I just can't at the moment, I am sorry, however, the first line is, "You say you didn't cause all this," spoken by Ramses (Joel Edgerton, The Great Gatsby, Zero Dark Thirty, Warrior) and what does that line invoke: personal responsibility. Who is to blame for the events taking place? This very well could be a pro-socialist film, however, I am determined to give Scott the benefit-of-the-doubt, and it's not that Moses (Bale) is shirking his responsibility, rather, that Ramses is desperate for someone to blame. I do not doubt that this will be a intense film, even if it does take a pro-socialist stand.
Okay, what can you deduce about the characters from the clothes they are wearing? What does white mean? What does black mean? Why does Ramses wear the golden ornaments and Moses wears the leather and armor? Why does Ramses have his head shaven while Moses has a full-head of hair? 
About a week ago, a "teaser" for the upcoming The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 trailer was released (the trailer was released today; Mockingjay has been cut into two films, the first airing in November this year, and the second airing next year). This is a provocative trailer on a number of levels and details why it has been so hard to label The Huger Games as capitalist or socialist:
Suzanne Collins, the author of the triology, is a liberal, that cannot be disputed. I still believe that the first film installment, The Hunger Games, was a pro-socialist work; Catching Fire, while it appeared that the surface of the film was pro-capitalist, still had a pro-socialist foundation to it but it was apparent that something had changed between the first and second films, and that was not only a new director, but as well, a director who had the screenplay re-written for Catching Fire (Francis Lawrence, who did Catching Fire, is also directing both Mockingjay films). "Ours is an elegant system," he says, "your hard work feeds us, and in return, we feed and protect you." Thank you. That is socialism. However, this signals a reverse from the initial film, in which the capitol was seen as capitalist--all the money they spent on fashion and food--and the Hunger Games themselves being a metaphor for the free market (with businesses competing for consumer dollars and putting business out being relayed as "killing children" by a socialist). So, what do we have now? Something even better:
In this trailer, the forced concept of unity is underscored--intentionally--by the dozen or so "peace keepers" surrounding Snow (you know, the soldiers that look like storm troopers). This is obviously a police state. Without a doubt, we can say that NOW, the government over which Snow presides, clearly symbolizes a socialist state, rather than the capitalist one we initially saw in The Hunger Games, so this is a good thing. With the imperial presidency of Barack Obama, who is still in office in spite of 45 impeachable offenses, America is brewing for a revolution against his forced changes in America so the new director has definitely tapped into that. There is another aspect of this teaser: hijacking.
The first image of the man of steel from Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice has been released. Why is Superman standing on top of a building? Who has have we recently seen standing on top of a building (I'll give you a hint: he is also known as 007)? Why is there a part of Superman's profile that we can't see? Why is it raining? Is this the rain of "cleansing," or is this "acid rain?" Is Superman's cape being filled with air, or is it being "deflated?" Why is he looking at us, directly? Recall, many of the film posters being released as of late depict the exact opposite: the hero has their back towards us, the viewers; what does this say about Superman and his relationship with us? How does the city-scape behind him--as opposed to the rural landscape of Kansas where he grew up--influence the mood of the image?
Basically, Peeta has been brainwashed, but in the novels, they call it Hijacking, which is interesting because that takes us back to the hijacking of the planes on 9/11, doesn't it? We have recently seen another character endure the same thing, Bucky Barnes in Captain America: the Winter Soldier. What government habitually uses drugs and brainwashing to control their citizens? Socialists. There is a significant amount of material we could still cover, however, I would like to get in one more trailer in this post, this one, for the new Luke Evans film, and I just don't know what to make of this, but there are some totally cool effects going on:
Actually, I am quite confident this is going to go socialist. There has been a trend for "untold" or the "other side" narratives, and in aligning itself with minorities who believe that, in their victim-hood, their stories are untold, this is supposed to rally them to the socialist leader who has suffered as they have suffered, because the socialist narrative has always been told only from the perspective of the winning capitalists, who always make socialism look like it failed and was cruel to its citizens. This story of Dracula Untold should clear all that up and make us realize what a nice guy Dracula is and how warm and cuddly socialism is.  Oh, they are now making Chucky 7. I think that's all for the moment, still working on Transformers.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
A scene from Exodus: Gods and Kings.

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

I Am So Sorry

Grandma has been sick: she has had bronchitis and she is allergic to a ton of medicine so it's been an excruciating recovery. I am so sorry. The Transformers post is nearly done, it was a great movie and deserves detailed attention.
Thank you so much for checking in and seeing if I have posted anything; thank you so much, and I am sorry that I haven't been able to.

Friday, June 27, 2014

It ROCKS! Transformers IV: Age Of Extinction

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

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Cartoon From 50 Years Ago Predicts the Future In America

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

Friday, June 13, 2014

TRAILER: Penguins Of Madagascar & Left Behind

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