Sunday, March 1, 2015

Fast & Furious 7 TV Spot #4, Dior and I

I can't even wait for April 3, this movie is going to be so cool. As they say, "WAR IS COMING."
And you know what? He's right.
He IS the cavalry. Why?
If "war is coming," then the people fighting that war tell us what that war is about; Dwayne Johnson is a (politically speaking, according to the Left, but I would never dare say this to his face) a minority. The cavalry is always used in expression as the sure force that will "win the day" and route the enemy. So, for Hobbs to admit that he is the cavalry, is to admit that, much like his role in GI Joe Retaliation, it is up to those who are being "fought over" in the political wars right now to make a last stand.
Speaking of which,...
Ms. Rodriguez has said that minorities should stop stealing white superhero roles, and, as you can imagine, she's getting quite the slack for saying publicly what I said a couple of days ago, regarding a black or Hispanic male lead for the new Sony-Marvel Spiderman. Rodriguez knows the situation first hand as she herself was "being considered to play Green Lantern," who, in the comic books, is a white male.
Way to go, girl!
On a very different note,...
Art and fashion reveal their business side. It's not so much that the film is a big deal, as what the film documents is a big deal, which means the film is, actually, kind of a big deal. As we have discussed in various degrees of generality in the past, film is like a dream a culture has, and like the dreams we ourselves have, it needs to be interpreted so as to be understood; fashion is the opposite end of that, it's the individual making themselves a work of art through their style and choice of clothing. The "fashion house" enters like a film director preparing his movie and gathering material. Fashion designers, such as Raf Simmons, interpret a living, uncensored mass of people and try to tease out individual expressions, showcasing how real people understand their day-to-day identities and express it, or don't express it:
That there are only two traditional houses of fashion left, the other one is Chanel, which poses an interesting business position: haute couture, by definition, is extreme attention to detail, and elaborate materials or design; if the clothing can even be purchased at all, it's extremely expensive. The free market, then, has dwindled the haute couture industry down and Simmons is now the Creative Director of 50% of that industry. Being so elite and specialized, however, creates an aura of perfection and mystery, allowing both Chanel and Dior to survive in spite of artistic and business challenges. Even the description, haute couture, is actually a legal status in Paris, and only certain companies and individuals can claim to properly be practicing haute couture. Here is a clip from the film to provide you with one example of the elaborate care, diligence and cost of producing one outfit, in this case, one that has to be done by the next morning:
Having seen the clip above, we might be in a better position to understand what is being discussed in this general trailer: namely, the stress of, not only following in the master's footsteps, but freeing his imagination to design clothing worthy of the prestige of haute couture:
Now, throw in the artistry of the director presenting the story to us, because that is its own feat! The film opens April 10 (probably to limited locations, but I hope,...) and stars Marion Cotillard, Jennifer Lawrence and Sharon Stone, with an appearance by Anna Wintour.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
Oh, you know Eddie Redmayne, who just won the Oscar for Best Performance? This is his next project, The Danish Girl, and, yea, that's Eddie.

Saturday, February 28, 2015

Misc News

It is incredibly sad that Leonard Nimoy has passed away. I knew he had been taken to the hospital, but didn't realize how serious his condition was. Prayers and thoughts to his family, loved ones and memory.
I have just significantly updated and expanded (with even some new images) the post 3 Davids, 3 Theologies: Donatello, Michelangelo and Bernini. This is a post plenty of people in art history classes site and study, so it was definitely time to revisit these ideas and freshen them up a bit.
Marvel has released a few new posters today for The Avengers 2, including this one of Thor and Nick Fury. Chris Hemsworth, who portrays Thor, revealed that Thor's biggest fear is "corruption of his power," and that Scarlet Witch, played by newcomer Elizabeth Olsen, has something to do with that. In the poster above, Thor stands in three-quarters profile, his right side hidden from view, suggesting that his greatest strength--his right side--has been kept hidden from us. Hemsworth said the events of Avengers 2 are personal for Thor and will effect the events taking place in Thor 3 (production for which has begun, I understand).
I'm not going to dally: I have a post I am trying to finish up, so just wanted to suggest you re-visit the David post again, and I am working on getting a big post done this weekend!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Penny Dreadful Season 2 & James Bond Spectre

I feel kind of bad about this, but the reviews for The Lazarus Effect have been devastating, and I have good films that I can spend the time writing about, so there is that decision. I am not going. I truly hope you are not disappointed, but everyone is criticizing the exact same things, and it seems a very, very poorly conceived film, so I am not even concerned with it.
On the other hand,...
Two new posters have been released for the second season of Penny Dreadful, including this one of  Sir Malcolm Murray in distress. The largely monochromatic poster--grays, whites and light blues--accentuate the red slash  across his shoulders. We know two things about season two: first, it involves witches, whereas season one was about vampires; secondly, the "Master" is still alive (the one Mina was going to give Vanessa to, and he is a vampire). We know that Madame Kali, who we saw bathing in blood in the last trailer for the series, is after Sir Malcolm for herself, but Vanessa stands in-between Madame Kali getting him (remember, in the last episode, when Malcolm ran into Madame Kali at the gun store, she asked what happened to Vanessa, and Malcolm made a rather surprising response: she's the friend of my daughter. Since Vanessa having sex with Mina's fiancee, they hand't been friends and, later that same night, Malcolm tells Mina, "I all ready have a daughter" and shots Mina to protect Vanessa, so, uh, yea, this is a rather suggestive situation between Malcolm and Kali). The red mark reminds me of the red marking left on the doors of people by "Those of whom we do not speak" in The Village. Why would Penny Dreadful so obviously invoke the film? It has to do with "the monsters within."
Here is a one and a half minute interview with director Sam Mendes and his notes on how production is going, revealing the work of an exceedingly well-conceived film. Spectre opens in the UK in late October, and the US on November 6; I just cannot wait!
After getting hurt on the set again (Craig tries to do all his own stunts) this time in a car chase scene set in Rome (the car he was driving hit a bump, causing the actor to hit his head on the car's interior, but it wasn't serious), Craig teased in an interview that the sense that "something is up" in the film will be the second part of the film's story and also tied to Bond's childhood.
Sembene's character could have done far better in season one: why was he at the theater where Vanessa followed Dorian? That was never expanded upon (did Malcolm have him follow her there? Does Sembene love Vanessa and he followed her on his own? I would be surprised if nothing is ever made of that scene, I have a feeling it's going to come back). Anyways, both Sembene and Malcolm look up at the sky, Malcolm with eyes closed and Sembene with eyes open, exposing both of their necks, which the red line slashing across the poster seems to severe from the rest of the body. It probably isn't Madame Kali flying around on her broom stick like the Wicked Witch in The Wizard of Oz, but it will be  interesting if more details are released, which I guarantee they will be.
Robert Downey Jr with a Twitter account is a bit of a dangerous thing. Marvel permitted him to tweet out that in 8 days (now 7) there will be a huge Marvel announcement; of course, the blogosphere is active with speculation, everything from a tease about the coming civil war with Captain America, to news about the new Spider Man. He did, however, generously release a new poster to go with his ambiguous forecast:
Over the Avenger's left shoulder is the scenic mountain top where the Baron's castle is that the film starts out at (rumored), but it also rather looks like that castle in Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows where Holmes "meets his death." Stark wears armor he must have rebuilt after his completely destroyed his armory in Iron Man 3; ? I don't understand that, but I am going to hope Avengers 2 will explain--they are good at that. without a doubt, however, the most striking thing we see about this poster is Stark's pose: Tony Stark is on his knees. It appears that he has been humbled, but we obviously don't know why or if he is actually doing something else, like getting ready to leap, but the profile (which always means there is something we don't see and can't) suggests there is much more to Stark's character which is exactly how it should be.
Ok, so, like my sister--who never reads this blog EVER--but thinks she knows exactly what I need to do on it (and we never watch the same films, EVER), made me watch these trailers for the new Kevin Hart and Will Ferrell film Get Hard. Here is trailer one:
And here is trailer number two:
Comedy is an incredible way to level playing fields and open dialogue without people getting hurt; because if you are laughing, you're not getting hurt; the problem is, the "IF." This looks pretty funny, which--if it does well--could be another big score for Mr. Hart whose mega hit Ride Along ($25 million budget, made $50 million opening weekend) has all ready made him a hot commodity. By the way, Dear White People is available to watch on Amazon Instant Video, as well as Whiplash, Boyhood, Birdman, Kill the Messenger, The Theory of Everything and Penguins of Madagascar.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

What Is Wrong With the Oscars? News The Huntsman & New Spider Man

I have received so many requests to "Say something about the Oscars!" that I guess I have to; I also need to talk about what is happening with a few films so this might seem disjointed, but it will bring everything up to speed.
So, the Oscars.
Sony and Marvel Studios came to an unprecedented agreement to combine Sony-owned Spider Man and the Marvel-owned Avengers into one; rumors started circulating about who the next Spider Man would be: Logan Lehrman and Taron Egerton both being lead contenders. Today, however, rumors are circulating that strongly suggest the next Spider Man will be either black or possibly Latino. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with this, except that it is a part of a larger context to destroy white people and the art expressions we have created for ourselves. IF black people, or Latino people, held the values which a character like Spider Man represents, ethnic artists would have developed those characters--OR EVEN BETTER ONES--for their own culture; they haven't because they don't. These are characters which symbolize the needs of white people, in our own peculiar way, and--this is going to offend people, but I don't care---WE OWN THEM. The same as Martin Luther King Jr and Harriet Tubman are owned by black people. Changing the characters who are supposed to represent us and our problems and hopes and wishes and dreams is a FORM OF REDISTRIBUTION. A blatant attempt at wiping out our cultural identity by destroying our art and cultural heritage through redistributing identity that doesn't have any foundation in reality or art apart from political consequences and agendas.
This is the deal: the Oscars used to be a BIG DEAL. Why? At least three reasons: first, fans got to root for their favorite actors and films (guessing who was going to win used to be a BIG DEAL, but not now, which is one of the problems); secondly, as has been mentioned before, success breeds success. Those who win Oscars, are courted for making films that we will be seeing for the next several years (it's easier to get financing when you have Oscar winners and it's easy to advertise the film to get viewers to watch it when there are Oscar winners involved, making the film look important). Thirdly, the Oscars was a few hours when stars truly showed themselves as stars, worthy of fame and their fans adoration: the bond between the celebrities and viewers was strengthened, insuring that those fans would continue to go see their favorite stars in their next film.
All of this has changed.
The pre-quel to Snow White and the Huntsman, The Huntsman, starring Chris Hemsworth and Charlize Theron, has now added Jessica Chastain to the new film, which suggests a dramatic increase in the quality of the script. Kristen Stewart has not been asked back. 
Not all of this is the Academy's fault, however, they can be faulted for not holding up a standard and insisting on that standard being fulfilled: they have, instead, consistently lowered their standards, thinking, erroneously, that lower standards equals higher quality entertainment equals more viewers. The stars do not act like stars, and--as with what appears to be all of Hollywood--they have willingly sold their one night of putting their best face forward in exchange of being talked about the next day. There are no behavior standards for the stars--the host appears on stage in his underwear? You have got to be the most tasteless and classless of all hosts to even suggest in a closed door meeting that something like that might happen!--and fans no longer bond with them; in fact, when people go to the movies and see people that they have seen making jokes about green cards, or yelling about prison being the new slavery, etc., etc, (these are things others have complained about the night to me) you don't want to see the star in their new film, because you don't want to be associated with liking someone who has no glamour, in a word, no RIGHT to be famous.
I have an incredible degree of respect and admiration for JJ Abrams. Because of this, I have made a personal decision that I am not going to participate in the "try and find out as much confidential information about the film as you can before the release" race. Abrams and company have gone to great lengths to secure the fruits of their very hard work and I respect that so I will no longer be posting rumors about this happens, or that happens, regarding  the plot of the film. I will obviously be posting things released by the Studio itself and Abrams, including obviously, trailers and the like, but there are so many sites trying to publish the latest rumors, that it's an act of disrespect I am not going to participate in with this. 
Many other writers have pointed this out, however, I am going to take this a step further. While many lament the "dis" superhero films have received, they seem to be missing the pattern, one with a nasty message. The highest grossing films of the last several years don't get Oscar nominations, those films that the most fans went to go see. The films receiving tons of nominations, such as Birdman with a pitiful $37 million in total box office revenue (that would hardly even qualify as a good opening weekend, but that's it's gross take, like American Hustle of last year), are films that fans have consciously not gone to see, while intentionally going to see films such as Godzilla.  In other words, the American public has intentionally rejected all the liberal and socialist inundated films that Hollywood desperately thought their diminishing star power would compel people to go see, while Hollywood punishes the pro-America, pro-capitalist films that fans have spent their dollars supporting. In still other words, there is literally a war between Hollywood and film fans, and the fans are winning.
I really want to like this film, I really do, but the more I see of it, the less confident I am that I can. I will probably go see this, because I am concerned that animated films are working over-time to brainwash kids, and while I haven't been able to make it to every film, I am quite concerned about this; I will wait to see the film to see if my suspicions are founded or not.
The 16% drop in viewership was not the result of Neil Patrick Harris hosting (even though that's why I didn't want it), nor was it the result of the black population boycotting because Selma wasn't nominated for more awards--I can base that on its statistics, hardly anyone has gone to see this film--no one in the potential viewing audience saw any of the films and so had no investment in seeing if their favorite was going to win; because so many actors have distanced themselves from fans by their outspoken liberal political views, and many undignified, un-star-like behavior, people didn't have a vested interest in tuning in for the celebrities, either.
There is another factor working against the increasingly socialist Oscars show: the free market. So many other groups (the New York Film Critics, the Chicago Film Critics, Alliance of Women Film Journalists, American Cinema Editors, Austin Film Critics Association--how many film critics are there in Austin?--not to mention other real big ones like Golden Globes, BAFTA and Screen Actors Guild, AFI, etc.). By the time the Oscars roll around, saturation has set in and, rather than excellence being celebrated, it becomes narcissism with all these awards being given out to the save films over and over and over and over. To some degree, the Academy isn't at fault for this: they can't do anything about a group wanting attention, so forming the Alliance of Women Film Journalists so they can garner some publicity for themselves; what the Academy is at fault for is failing to distinguish the Oscars as being the creme dela creme. Because they have people running the show who don't believe in excellence, rather, in ever-lowering standards (Anne Hathaway and James Franco, really?) the BAFTAs show-up the Oscars and remind people what glamour used to be, and where it certainly doesn't exist anymore.
Because stars refuse to behave with dignity, and even--dare I say it?--exhibit leadership in public manners and courteousness--no one in the audience wants to watch there own unglamorous selves: we don't want to see the stars acting like normal people, doing the boring daily stuff that we do all the time--Ellen's selfie, and ordering pizza, or wearing underwear--that stuff goes on in my life, why should I bother with someone else doing it? The Oscars used to be about people looking their best, behaving their best and doing the best; the Oscars used to be inspiring; now, it's a showcase for mediocrity on every level, and that is a catastrophe.
As we know, Hollywood loves movies about making movies, the shallow are fascinated with themselves. Because we the audience don't get very many opportunities to see and understand how films are made--hence, to appreciate the work that goes into making the entertainment that means so much to so many of us--movies about making movies educate audiences and serve as a vehicle to understand the art form America relies upon as a means of self-critique, morality-questioning and soul-searching.  I have not seen Birdman, and I probably won't. No, I know I won't. This film is a vehicle for undermining the very leadership films such as Captain America and Thor are serving to disenchanted Americans sick of our POTUS; those films remind us who we are and what we believe. Birdman is a personal critique of Michael Keaton's of his playing Batman years ago, and feeling guilty that he enjoyed the success so much, in spite of him being politically adverse to everything a superhero represents and symbolizes. Thank you, I am not in the least bit interested. What is most interesting to me is, I actually thought Hollywood--in a mode of forced "repentance" for their "racism," would vote Selma Best Picture, but no, the lure of lamenting how money makes it impossible for them to be truly devoted to their art and rules every facet of the industry was far more important for them then appeasing the monster of racism they helped to create. That is the most interesting thing at the Oscars that didn't happen.
My sister told me, "It's like they called in for all the jokes, they were so bad." I know this is going to sound weird, but that's the point of diagnosing what's wrong: only mediocrities embrace socialism, because they are content with being mediocre, and want mediocrity celebrated. All the films being nominated and winning are pro-socialist, and that's a political agenda that screams brainwashing. The Oscars aren't about mediocrity, they are about excellence, so if they are going to celebrate mediocrity instead of excellence, people who want excellence aren't going to watch. That's a pretty simple lesson for the Academy to grasp, but they won't, and that's the tragedy.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
I almost totally forgot! The Lazarus Effect does not appear to be opening early, at least not in my vicinity, so I have plans to go and see the earliest showing on Friday. I am 90% confident this film will be pro-socialist because of the director's past work. I could be wrong: just because James Wan directed the very pro-socialist The Conjuring, doesn't mean that his next project, Fast and Furious 7 is going to be pro-socialist. As usual, I will be posting my immediate response via Twitter, and I will work like heck to get the post up asap.

Monday, February 23, 2015

We Are What We Are & "Consumers"

While I am going to make light of this film, it is about cannibalism, so please, if you are squeamish, just skip this post. I first came across the film in October, 2013, and saw it at the library, so wanted to see if I was correct about the premise that, like the original The Hunger Games, We Are What We Are tries to describe capitalism in the US in graphic terms; I was actually right about this one. Why would the Left be so determined to depict capitalism as murdering cannibals? Because of the horrors of World War II and the Jewish Holocaust: to make people forget what socialism can cause in reality, the Left fabricates metaphors for capitalism in an attempt to erase their own guilt of what they have done.
If you will recall, The Conjuring, a smash hit, pivoted the whole horror film on a "double-meaning" of "possessions": people become "possessed" by the devil when they have "possessions" or material things; in the case of the Perron family, they (or, rather, the mother) wanted to take possession of the farm house (a farm house which looks a lot like the farm house in We Are What We Are, therefore, she was "possessed." In The Hunger Games (just the first film, this doesn't apply really to the other films) the Games are a metaphor of the "free market," where one company tries to outperform another company by figuring out what the masses are "hungry for" in consumer goods, so of course, by the Left's logic, children murdering children is a great metaphor of entrepreneurship and producing the best products possible.  In We Are What We Are, the Left continues with their "logic": if you consume material goods, you are also consuming human body parts.
We Are What We Are is a remake of the Mexican horror film, Somos Lo Que Hay. When The Hunger Games: Catching Fire opens, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) is hunting, and she starts to soot a turkey with her bow and arrow, and that turkey turns into a human; that's not a coincidence; in Martha, Marcy May, Marlene, with Elizabeth Olson, the people at the "commune" were not allowed to eat meat or three meals a day (I couldn't tell if they only ate once, or twice); in Darren Aronofsky's Noah, Noah tells his sons that hunters eat animals because they mistakenly think it makes them stronger, and then we see Noah-the-moss-eater single-handedly fight off 4-6 of the "hunters." The exact opposite line is taken in Divergent when Four (Theo James) tells Tris (Shailene Woodley) that, because she was living as in Abnegation, and abstaining from meat, she wasn't strong enough to defend herself and she needed more protein. The reason I am detailing this is because it demonstrates a public debate taking place about what we eat. Why is that important? It wouldn't be important, unless the Left wants the State to decide what we eat and don't eat (like with Michelle Obama deciding what will and will not be acceptable for school lunches or US troops in Afghanistan being reduced to two meals a day), in which case, it would be important for them to brainwash the masses that we shouldn't eat meat, because if we are eating meat, we will be physically strong enough to defend ourselves. 
The film opens with a radically misleading quote: we see a picture of a spider's web, and a quote, "'It is with love that I do this, God's will be done.' Alyce Parker." "Alyce Parker" is one of the characters in the film, the mother of the Parker family. The viewer doesn't know this when the film opens, but the film makes it look like a quote from an important person--in this case, some prominent religious woman--and that, the events we are going to see, is condoned by all religious people. The storm that comes is a metaphor for the "political storms" of 2008 when the communists started running the US: just as the storm in the film washes up bones, so, too, did the rise to power of Obama reveal the horrors of what the US has been doing. I completely disagree with this, personally, but this is the line of analysis the film wants to establish.
No, no, that's not human flesh, that's one of the first opening scenes in a general store where a man has brought a dead pig in for butchering. Because this is a graphic image, however, of the pork, the film sends a clear message: any eater of flesh, no matter what kind of animal it is, might as well be eating human flesh. This is re-enforced in the film when, later, we see three pieces of bacon sizzling in a skillet and the word SUNDAY comes up on the screen (three pieces of bacon is supposed to insult the Trinity, I suppose). It's not really because "animals are humans, too," but because "Humans are animals, so to eat an animal is to eat a human" (which is why it's a dog in the film that finds the first human bone from the Parker family's ritual, the dog "recognized its own" to a Liberal). The Left has to say we are animals because they have to deny the existence of the soul, and morality to any higher power, or power outside of, the State because what the State might command us to do might conflict with our religion (that happened a lot in the Soviet Union). Herein lies a classic Left logic conundrum: they put enough value on the person to make a statement like We Are What We Are, and try to make themselves look superior, morally, to capitalists, however, when it comes to moral debates on issues like abortion, sex, drug legalization and religion, they claim we are animals and people should be allowed to live by their appetites and what they want, which would make them "consumers." After Iris and Rose have killed their "lamb," and vowed they won't do that again, Marge the neighbor brings over a lasagna for them and chimes in, "It's vegetarian." Before Anders is killed in the woods, Iris and he see a dead animal on the ground, foreshadowing that he himself will be killed. Someone just sent me this article talking about the legislation to change our diets to plant-based from meat-based; unbelievable!
When Mrs. Parker leaves the general store, she's sees a photo of a young MISSING woman, who is possibly a minority (the film is literally dark so it's hard to see her skin color); blood starts coming out of Mrs. Parker's mouth; why? Supposedly, she sees the picture of a girl and is remembering how she ate that girl, and the thought of what she has done has made her sick, or, in some mystical act of justice, the girl is taking revenge on Mrs. Parker. Mrs. Parker drops the bag of supplies she has, supplies (presumably) to take another victim, but because Mrs. Parker could go into a store, and freely purchase the things she would need for their ritual, the act of being a consumer (purchasing the supplies) and eating another human being, are totally connected by the film makers as one in the same act. When she dies, just a moment later, we can clearly see that Mrs. Parker acts as a symbol for the "motherland," America, and all her traditions and culture (which have been selectively re-interpreted by the film makers).
What happens in this scene, is utterly comical! As Mrs. Parker tries to get into her truck, as the rain comes down, she gets knocked backwards--again, some mystical act of justice?--and hits her head on this pipe sticking out of the ground and lands in this pool of water, like a condemnation of Baptism, with blood coming out of her mouth, and she flops around and dies. This scene has an important element: no, not the bag with the flashlight and twine, but the truck itself. We will see this in Mad Max: Fury Road, but Liberals also hate that Americans have independence and can go and do what we want by virtue of our cars. The first victim we see is when Frank is driving that night and he sees a car with its hazard lights on and he stops, and we know this person doesn't have a chance. What's the moral of the lesson for a liberal? Don't own a car.
It might surprise someone that the Parkers don't have a dryer, or electricity, but this demonstrates yet another segment of American society the Left needs to wage war against in order to successfully entrench its policies, those who are self-sufficient and living off/or trying to live off the grid. From making local laws to not allowing people to use solar panels, grow their own food or collect rain water, to prohibiting the selling of fresh milk and eggs, the government does not want anyone to be able to take care of themselves, but everyone to be dependent upon the government for everything, because that gives the government power. Which is why the issue is quietly brought up that the father, Frank Parker, won't let any of them go to a doctor, and, as a result, Alyce was a victim to the early stages of Parkinson's disease, as revealed by the autopsy.
This image is actually from Man Of Steel, and above is young Clark Kent saving his drowning school bus from the flood waters. For a brief second in We Are What We Are, we see a small TV, with an image of a school bus driving through flood waters like this one in the image; seeing the TV, this is exactly what I thought of; why would We Are What We Are reference Man Of Steel? Remember what Mr. Kent (Kevin Costner) said to Clark when Clark asked, "What was I supposed to do, let them die?" Mr. Kent said, "Maybe." Would a conservative have even begun to entertain the idea of letting those children die, just so others wouldn't know how great his own kid is? No, that is another form of socialism the film was exploring in addition to the others symbolized by General Zod (Michael Shannon). So, why is We Are What We Are quoting Man Of Steel in this scene? Because they would have let all the children die. You bet they would; why? Because that would prove that Liberals are victims, the most "holy" think in all of Liberalism, is to be a VICTIM and anyone who doesn't let them be a victim is a racist and a bigot and a, etc., etc., etc. Liberals have to demonstrate that they are victims, otherwise, their shanty view of reality shatters and there is no justification for the government taking care of them and taking control of their lives. The two most evil people to a socialist are people who do not want them to be victims or save them from being victims, and people who refuse to identify their own selves as victims (as in the awesome film Beasts Of the Southern Wild, where, in spite of the big storm, they take care of themselves and each other; the government is clearly interfering in their lives). Again, this is a sour break-down in liberal logic, between them wanting to be victims, but wanting to blame conservatives/capitalists for making them victims. When someone like Al Sharpton screams, "You're a racist!" he is really saying, "I am a victim!" and he loves it! That's why they yell it as often as they possibly can. This is inconceivable to conservatives, and someone like Clark Kent, who is above so much--even when he himself is the victim of being bullied--is a true "horror film" for socialists.
The obvious religious extremism practiced in the film isn't something any Christian would recognize, except in the grossest of terms. At the start of the film, the title card FRIDAY is displayed, and the kids abstaining from food until Sunday, in a sick, Liberal interpretation of Good Friday and Easter Sunday, is, of course, misinterpreted and intentionally so. When Iris goes to warn people at the trailer park of the flooding creek, Rose puts a light in the window; yes, you guessed it, it's a reference to "One if by land, two if by sea," at the start of the American Revolution. This sequence of events is important because it reveals how liberals bind Christianity and the American Revolution together: to do away with one, will be the successful doing away with the other.
The film opened in a very limited number of theaters and went straight to disc, but taking place in Delaware allows the film to accomplish two things: first, Delaware is a Democrat-run state, so it's population is liberal, and will mostly agree with the images they see in the film as applying to Republicans, Christians and anyone else they deem a threat to their agenda. The second advantage is, Delaware was the first state to ratify the Constitution, earning it the nickname of "The First State," so people who still believe in the importance of the Constitution, like myself, see themselves in the Parker family and we know that we are being targeted. The watch that Frank repairs when we first meet him, and he's in  the shed, is synonymous with the "historical account" that Iris and Rose read aloud from the book Frank gives to Iris; why? Watches and clocks symbolize history, and Time in general. Frank has made himself the "keeper of Time" in the family by insisting on the family tradition continuing to be practiced and upheld by the members of the family. This is being mocked because socialists don't like history, so the history of the US has to be made "unpalatable" so the history of socialism doesn't look as bad in comparison to this fabricated history of Christianity and the US.
As Iris and Rose go through old photographs, and Iris reveals that she is ready to "take care of them," i.e., the victims for their ritual, Rose says, "What if we refused? What if we just stopped?" and that's a fairly typical kind of socialist query. The point is, in the US, socialists are free to go and start their little communes, and keep them going as long as they possibly can; as we saw in Martha, Marcy May, Marlene, they can't. Someone doesn't work enough, someone takes too much, and at some point, they resort to crime, on the small, individual level, or on the larger, national level. But in socialist societies, people are not free to practice their religion or capitalism if they want, so it's not a reciprocated system. Rose saying, "What if we just refused?" is fine: you have that freedom in America to refuse to participate in capitalism, but--as we know--Liberals don't want their own way in their own life, they are intent on forcing it upon everyone else, also.
Rory, pictured above, isn't just hungry from the fast: he's hungry because he's a "consumer." Rory is the sign of hunger in the film, from wanting his Snap Pops cereal, spitting out some bean or something his father made him spit out, to breaking their fast to have Rose put some Snap Pops in his milk and take a handful for herself and then sucking and biting the hand of the neighbor Marge (Kelly McGillis, Top Gun). This isn't the first time we have seen "cannibalism" in films for the last couple of years: in The Lone Ranger, Tonto (Johnny Depp) has been grilling some rabbit meat; he takes some and throws it to the rabbits, who transform into something out of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and the rabbits fight each other to devour the rabbit. Also in The Lone Ranger, the villain of the film eats the organs of those he has killed. In Jack the Giant Slayer, the giants eat the people; now bring in all the zombie films, such as Warm Bodies and World War Z (which shows the Constitution being taken away, and never brought back) and there is a growing "body" of work the Left is putting together about how Americans are cannibals.
When Iris begins reading the book, the date is December 24, 1781, and within the writing, she reads, Papa has brought us to "a land that knows not the industry of men": why would that be important? The Industrial Revolution was in full swing, and with the boom in industry, there came a boom in capitalism. The colonies became an important source of raw materials for the British industry that was erupting, and a source of wealth for those living here and trading their goods. The "diary" Iris and Rose read, beginning on Christmas Eve, is meant, like the film beginning on Good Friday, to "expose" Christians as actually being demonic... which is weird, because liberals don't believe in demons.
Um, yea. The three of them are not only in strange situations like this, that are obviously,.... unnatural, but make them awkward around everyone else as well. What's the point of this? Well, probably that you shouldn't have more than one child. The Kimble girl died in the flood, but at least she wasn't eaten like poor Mrs. Stratton! The more kids you have, the more likely they are to grow up and be cannibals. That's the kind of logic this film proposes. Now, please recall, in The Conjuring, Mr. Perron has six girls, so that's eight of the them, and when Ed Warren asks him if there's any place they can go so they don't have to stay in the house, Mr. Perron says they don't know anyone with enough room for eight extra people, meaning, big families are a burden, so don't have big families, and, in World War Z, Brad Pitt's character obviously struggles with his asthmatic daughter, his wife that calls him and wakes the zombies, leading lots of men to be killed. Socialists want you to believe that families are bad, that is why abortion is so important to socialists, is to keep family size down.
When Marge tells Frank that Rory might need a doctor, he replies that it costs money they don't have, and they aren't used to sickness in the house. Then, like Alyce at the start of the film, his nose starts bleeding out of nowhere, and he interprets that as the Maker telling us "it's time." We know that Frank does have money, because we saw the poor man pay him earlier for his trailer rent before he left the county; so not only is Frank lying, but it appears he is greedy as well. This is supposed to be juxtaposed against the next part of the narrative we hear from the book Rose and Iris have been reading.
When Iris knocks the head off of Mrs. Stratton, she bleeds from the throat like a slaughtered pig; again, this is intentional, because the film makers want to equate the eating of any meat with an act of cannibalism, hence, why Marge brings over her vegetarian lasagna right before their "ritual meal." Don't forget, Marga named her dog, Kidd, as in, "human child."
When we see the young girl being given a knife to butcher the woman tied up, we hear, "I do what I do out of love. Alyce Parker." But wasn't Alyce Parker the mother who died in the beginning? Yes, but the connection the film makers want to establish is that "Alyce Parker" isn't a real person, but a type, a symbol for America, the "motherland," and what America has done and teaches Americans to do in their own turn. What socialists REALLY want to communicate through this Donnor-Party style history lesson that they have fabricated, is that, while Americans might have felt they had to become capitalists in the beginning to survive, because there wasn't an adequate government system to take care of them, since we are now enlightened and civilized, we should stop being barbaric capitalists and let the government take care of us. But, as we know, history is never the strong lesson of socialists, accidentally, or intentionally,...
Frank Parker, i.e., for "Park-inson's disease," is a white male, and hence, as we have discussed before, the ultimate evil enemy of socialists in America. Why? Because white men are the dominant power holders in America, the ones that socialist want minorities to perceive as cheating them out of their due, so films such as We Are What We Are serve two purposes. First, it tries to make white people ashamed of being white; secondly, it dehumanizes white people, so minorities will gladly rise up in revolt against them and kill them in a massive, socialist revolution, which is what a film like Django Unchained is calling for. Even though director Jim Mickle is a white guy, like director Quentin Tarantino of Django Unchained, they somehow think confessing their "white guilt" publicly absolves them of wrongdoing and they will be allowed to live in the bloody revolution against white people they are calling for, with Al Sharpton. Think I am wrong? The manner in which Frank finally dies is an apt description of what is happening to America: several factors are bringing him down, but it's ultimately that his own children turn against him (revolution) that kills him, and that's exactly what socialists want (remember what Valentine [Samuel L Jackson] was wanting to do in The Kingsman: the Secret Service?).
Those who came to settle in America came for economic freedom and prosperity; those who wanted to continue to be taken care of by "masters," stayed in Britain and Europe. Most of the earlier settlers were bound to the land and their landlords in England and other parts of Europe--the way the film depicts Mr. Parker being a landlord for the trailer park tenants--and those coming here wanted to risk everything to get out of that system and be free of economic restraints. In the film's depiction of Alyce Parker, they want to make us believe that they were worthless and completely helpless, and had to result to cannibalism, i.e., capitalism, because the government was too far away. Never, ever, trust the "history lesson" that comes from a socialist. But speaking of "history lessons,..."
Anders asks, "Does your dad own all this land?" Did Iris know her father was following them and planning on killing Anders? It's undecidable, really: if she didn't know, when they hear a twig break and Anders looks behind him (the moment pictured above) then why does Iris take his arm and lead him on, instead of questioning if they are in danger? If she did know, they why did she engage him in sex, only to then be discovered by her father "in the act?" I think she knew, which is why she took the knife with her, that either her or her father was going to have to kill Anders; so why did she start to have sex with him? Sigmund Freud postulated that the inherent life and death drives struggling within us lead us to having sex (preserving life) when we sense death is close by, but there is also a drive towards death in the sex act. With Iris, the mental stress she has been under, could answer why she engages Anders in sex so suddenly: she wants a new beginning. Taking Anders in sex is like taking a husband so she is no longer at the mercy of her father, but is independent of him and can make her own decisions now. That obviously doesn't happen. The blood spilling from Anders head mirrors the blood from the breaking of Iris' hymen (assuming she is a virgin, I don't know why we wouldn't) and that is meant to be the real "horror" for socialists: if you don't break free of Christianity, your father won't let you have sex whenever you want to! 
The tree toppling over at the start of the film, we know that is some kind of condemnation of the Tree of the Cross; later, when Frank sees all the bones that the uprooted tree has exposed, he knows they are going to be "found out" and it's supposed to symbolize all the people that Christianity has killed in the name of religion; why do they want to bring that up? Remember, socialists are desperate to disassociate themselves from the Holocaust, so any crimes they can accuse others of, they believe, absolves them of the millions who have been killed because of socialism.
Now, the very last point,...
We know that hair symbolizes thoughts, and Iris and Rose "switch" hairstyles as they switch roles in the film. Rose, above, wears her hair tightly braided until the last quarter of the film; after Anders' death, she pulls Iris' hair back in a clip, one that Doc Barrows' gave to his daughter. What does this symbolize? They are beginning to identify (empathize, think of) their victims, rather than their family.  Rose's extremely curly/frizzy hair, once she lets it down, becomes so frizzy because she has repressed so much for so long, she can no longer control what she thinks and feels. This is actually dangerous, because socialists don't want people to think rationally, rational thinkers are dangerous thinkers; they want people to think with their emotions because emotions are so easily manipulated, just as Frank manipulates Rose's emotions to get her to come home with him because Iris needs her. 
Frank dies in a most deliberate fashion. He could have died, like his wife, after hitting his head on the corner; no, that wasn't good enough. He could have been killed by Marge (her death is a warning to liberals that, if they don't kill the capitalists first, the capitalists will kill them, that's why she's killed on the glass of her window, the window symbolizes reflection, i.e., socialists need to "reflect" on what capitalists will do to them if they don't do it to capitalists first). Doc Barrow could have shot Frank, but no, that might have given glory and justification to guns, and heaven forbid that should happen. Rose turning on her father, and leading the other children to do so as well, in a graphic act of vampirism and cannibalism, is justified by the film makers: what Frank did was wrong, but what the children do against their father is right and commendable, because that is justice. How can we say that?  They drive off. Doc Barrow could have stopped them, but the "balance" was made even. So why does Rose have the book with her?
Saturn Devouoring His Children by Peter Paul Reubens. The graphic image illustrates the ancient call to revolution; why bring this up? Both Wrath Of the Titans and Percy Jackson: Sea Of Monsters dealt with the "resurrection of Cronos" who ate his children, but Zeus, Hades and Poseidon overthrew him and buried him so order would reign over the earth. For capitalists, we, too, have used the imagery of cannibalism to illustrate socialism, but not of the children devouring the parents, as in, We Are What We Are, rather, what socialists do to the young people who join the Party: there aren't any young people in the Democratic Party who can run for office in 2016, they are all the same old people we have seen, because all the up and coming Democrats have sacrificed their careers to save the old Democrats who commit all the crimes and sins. 
Knowing socialism, that book--the story of the first Alyce Parker--is going to form the basis of their "new life" that isn't new at all. They are going to do exactly what they have been taught, but do it against those who taught it to them. The lastest of the last note: why Parkinson's disease? As mentioned above, the Park-er family suggests they have always had it, but it's relationship to the Kuru disease mentioned in the film is a larger issue that America itself is showing signs of Parkinson's disease as we fail in "flexing out muscle" to put a stop to terrorists groups such as ISIS. In the end, We Are What We Are is a socialist statement mocking capitalists who argue, "We have always been capitalists, that is what we are, if you don't like it, move somewhere else." But socialists, as we know, won't accept that, so, they do what they do best: lie.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Friday, February 20, 2015

The Man From U.N.C.L.E.

Originally, David Croenberg was set to direct the remake of the TV series, and Tom Cruise was set to star opposite Armie Hammer; after Cruise dropped out to focus on a little film called Mission Impossible 5 (for which a trailer should be coming out any week now) Croenberg followed; the film languished, sitting on a shelf, and then something magical happened: Guy Ritchie picked it up in between filming Sherlock Holmes. Ritchie has given the same attention to the brief few minutes we see in this trailer as to his other films, so it's worth our time to focus in on some of these juicy details:
Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill) in the backseat of the car is important for two reasons, the second reasons we will discuss later. First, however, he is interpreting the situation--the situation being whether or not there is an assassin after them--much the same way Sherlock Holmes interprets a crime scene; this is in the film because we, too, are being asked to interpret what we see. Using his foot, he rolls down the window: translation: he consciously decides (his feet symbolize his will) that he is not going to reflect (the window) on who it is he is about to kill because the girl driving is more important than the driver of the car. Solo fires two gun shots from the back seat (again, that's important, we'll discuss it below) and, at 0:34, you see the two bullet holes where Illya Kuryakin (Armie Hammer) would have been. The first bullet hole is Kuryakin's cheek--as in "turn the other cheek," which he is not likely to do--and the other is the ear, as in, "turn a deaf ear," which he is not likely to do either (Solo, in aiming for the cheek and ear, is telling the mysterious follower not to retaliate at him for trying to shoo him away, and forget anything he has heard about the case).
Yellow is an interesting color: it symbolizes kings--because yellow is the color of gold, and only kings can afford gold/gold is the only present worthy to give kings, or yellow symbolizes a coward, as in, a king is supposed to be king by virtue of his bravery on and off the battlefield, but running from or cheating in battle is unfit behavior for a king. The tagline, "A higher class of hero," suggests that Ritchie consciously invests the film with class conflict--isn't that what we are seeing the most of in America today?--but while both men carry guns, both guns have silencers on them, suggesting the film's message will also have a "silencer" on it, and both men look to their left, as in, The Left, because that is where the threat comes from.
At 0:39, the two cars making the turn in unison foreshadows what we see with Gaby Teller (Alicia Vikander) "wrestling" Kuryakin to the ground later in the trailer; both her first name "Gaby" and last name "Teller" suggests she has a exceedingly difficult time keeping information confident ("to gab" means to talk alot, and "Teller" is either a person who works at a bank--a "bank teller," for example--or it can be deconstructed as a "person who tells," a teller of tales). Gaby leading Kuryakin to get his car stuck in the narrow stairway probably foreshadows that she will do that to him on another level as well. At 1:06 and following, when Kuryakin tells Solo what he knows about Solo, we are seeing an homage to the 1977 James Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me with Sir Roger Moore. Please note, Kuryakin says that Solo is "The CIA's most effective agent," not "the best," because in socialist countries--and Kuryakin is from Soviet Russia in the film--there is no "best," everyone is equal, even if they aren't. At 1:16, we see Solo call Kuryakin "their best," but we also see something else: his hair.
We have no idea at what point in the film this is taking place, however, I have a feeling the green you see behind them is the real point of the scene; why? Green either symbolizes that something is rotten (like the green mold growing on food in your fridge) or hope, like the cliche "new life" during spring when the world turns green after the long winter. The "hope" is going to be that these two can work together and save the world, and that is what is most important. 
I know it's probably a small detail, but things like this separate mere film makers from the artists. As we know, hair symbolizes "the thoughts," and we have regularly seen Solo wearing his hair like Superman, the Man of Steel. Cavill naturally has a lighter, browner hair shade, and it tends to be quite curly, so the black, slicked-back look was a conscious decision that was made. At 1:16, when Solo is telling Kuryakin what he knows about him, we see a few hairs hanging down: this could have two interpretations. First, the hairs cover the forehead, which can also be implemented as a symbol of thought: to cover the symbol of thought with another symbol of thought suggests that Solo is deciding that he is not going to tell Kuryakin everything that he knows/share all the information with him. A second interpretation, and one not mutually exclusive to the first, is the idea that Solo thinks working with the Soviets is crazy. The slicked-back hair demonstrates a very disciplined mind, but hairs that have become loose, like Solo's, suggests he isn't keeping his thoughts under control.
This scene might not actually be in the film, but what is important is the green door/wall on Cavill's left; it's the same green we see in the image above and, I have an idea, we will be seeing it elsewhere (Gaby wears a green and white dress at 1:20, she's also barefoot). 
At 1:38, the woman wearing black and white asks Solo, "How did you get the invitation to my party?" and Solo replies, "I stole it." What does this suggest? Bilbo Baggins, the thief who stole the Arkenstone from the dragon Smaug. We will need to watch for references such as these in the film. Next, at 1:40, we see Solo's hair appear to be coming loose again as he talks to this woman; why? Please note her eye make-up: the dark lines on her eye creases make it look like she has two sets of eyebrows (Gaby wears white sunglasses that are double-rimmed, suggesting she "sees" more than she lets on, and this woman Solo talks to in this scene echoes that). The woman in black and white is also a hint taller than Solo, which is highly unusual: men, especially the hero, is usually taller than the women (this will be something to keep an eye on and how she plays into the plot). Please note about her costume that her collar has gemstones--obviously fake, but big and gaudy--and those "gems" suggest, as well as her huge earrings, suggests money and luxury is what drives her.
We have all ready discussed the costumes and body language of the characters at this link here. I would like to point out, however, the white, double-rimmed glasses Gaby is wearing, and how they echo the eye make-up of the woman in the trailer.
Solo grabbing the red cloth from the table MIGHT indicate that he has figured out the woman's appetites (red is the color of appetites: either we hunger for love, and that which will benefit us in life, or we hunger for revenge/wrath and that which will destroy us in life). It's likely that this gesture, too, metaphorically foreshadows what Solo will do at some point in the movie. These observations are validated at 1:44 when Solo punches the man in the throat without even looking at him: the throat, again, symbolizes what leads us in life, like a leash/collar, so punching the man there suggests Solo is familiar with the concept. At 2:21, we see the other important reason for Solo using his foot to roll down the car window at the start of the trailer: "Do these belong to you or me?" Solo asks, holding up a pair of women's shoes. Solo is asking, because feet symbolize the will, "Did this situation happen because you willed it, or because I willed it?"
I can hardly wait!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

'Pirates of the Caribbean 5: Dead Men Tell No Tales' News & Updates

Pirates of the Caribbean 5: Dead Men Tell No Tales is under production and plot details have been released. Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) battles ghost pirates, led by an old nemesis, Captain Salazar (or possibly Captain Brand is his name), played by Javier Bardem (who was the most excellent villain Silva in Skyfall). Salazar has a rather interesting back story: he has escaped from the Devil's Triangle (like the Bermuda Triangle, maybe?) and is "dead set" on killing every living pirate. In order to escape a fate damnation (again), Captain Jack Sparrow must seek out the legendary Poseidon's Trident, Whoever holds Poseidon's Trident (which we learned in the last Wrath Of the Titans) has total control over the seas. The great Geoffrey Rush (who plays Barbossa) will be returning as will Kevin McNally (Gibbs) and Steven Graham (Scrum) while Brendan Thwaites will be introduced as Henry.
Now, the rumor is,....
Two pictures of the stages released: the top image is of a village in Queensland, Australia, being built for the film, and the bottom is part of a boat going into the film, possibly the Black Pearl?
Orlando Bloom will be returning to this episode (as Will Turner/Davy Jones) in a major plot twist involving the son of Will Turner, which may be the role Brandon Thwaites will be occupying as Henry. Speaking of Javier Bardem, his wife, Penelope Cruz was in the last Pirates film, On Stranger Tides; will she be playing a role in the latest (she was stuck on the beach, then the Jack Sparrow voodoo doll washed up on shore)? Mrs. Bardem, recently voted Esquire's Sexiest Woman of 2014, was supposed to have been the "oldest" Bond girl ever, but for some reason ended up not being in the new James Bond film, Spectre. But, this leads us to another question,...
Bardem, on the left, Bloom in the middle and Brandon Thwaites on the right. Jeff Nathanson penned the final screenplay, so, since Nathanson also did Catch M e If You Can and Tower Heist, we can say this will most likely be a pro-socialist film, with Bardem's character playing a kind of "reincarnated" version of a capitalist figure. 
Sam Claflin, now much better known as Finnick Odair in The Hunger Games, was last seen in Pirates 4 in the arms of a mermaid, swimming off towards her,... lair? They were supposed to have been a major part of the plot for the fifth installment, but so far, no word on either character. Pirates of the Caribbean 5: Dead Men Tell No Tales will be released July 7, 2017.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Sunday, February 15, 2015

This Isn't That Kind Of Movie: Kingsman the Secret Service: Manners Maketh Man

Three features of the film directly identify the political side it chooses to expose, including the controversial ending with the bare butt of the Swedish princess being exposed: first, "Free cell phones, free internet, forever," should spell s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m to you, especially--this is number two--when the film's villain, Valentine (Samuel L Jackson) takes his diabolical plan to the White House and they agree to be a part of it; thirdly, when Valentine says, "Humanity is a virus and I am the cure," that should alert you to the foundations of the New World Order; "conspiracy theory" or not, The Kingsmen: the Secret Service is at least the second major film to directly allude to mass deaths inflicted upon civilization by a secret organization (Captain America: the Winter Soldier was the first). So, how does The Kingsmen accomplish its goals? Before we can answer that, we need to address the most obvious question the film poses.
The Kingsman organization calls themselves "knights," (a designation we also saw in Transformers IV: Age Of Extinction and the upcoming film with Clive Owen and Morgan Freeman, Last Knights) and model themselves directly upon King Arthur's Camelot; why? The organization, Harry relays to Eggsy, was founded in 1919 when the men of Britain realized all their heirs had died in the Great War; wanting to do something good for humanity, they pooled their vast fortunes together and created The Kingsman to serve and protect humanity. Arthur and Camelot, then, are not only the models of protectors the agents model themselves upon, but also as individuals using all they have towards the greater good, and that is nowhere more evident than in Harry, aka, Galahad.
A great question to ask yourself after watching any film is, "What other films does this film remind me of?" You might have caught the reference to The Breakfast Club, when Dean says, "Two hits. Me hitting you, and you hitting the floor," or the reference to Get Smart when Harry mentions that the heels of their shoes used to have telephones.  We also can't mistake the intentional references to, basically, every single spy film we have ever seen, including the newest James Bond film Spectre, out in November, and Guy Ritchie's Man From U.N.C.L.E., which is coming out later this summer. As we know, a film that draws attention to itself being a film, especially a certain type of film, as The Kingsman draws attention to itself as a spy film, wants you to know that it knows it is a film and you, the viewer, have seen lots of spy films. That means, first and foremost, that spy films are valued by society: if society didn't value spy films, we wouldn't keep going to see them, and if we stopped going to see them, Hollywood would stop making them; but that's not the case. So, why do we value spy films? At some level, we validate the hero's struggle against the villain. Even, as Harry tells Valentine, when they are "far-fetched theatrical plots," they still entertain because, in one way or another, they reflect the real world that we live in; we see the villains and we hope for the heroes. "Self-awareness" in films signals the viewer that the film makers know we are watching, and we have choose to watch their film for a particular reason; when they let us know they they know who we the viewers are, and that we are watching, they want to let us know that they are going to make it worth our while, but also, that there is something they want to tell us, and they are going to use a variety of "devices" to do so, just like all the "devices" for killing that Harry introduces to Eggsy. 
For each individual Kingsman, their code name is a personal standard of morality and responsibility to which he/she must live up to: Harry as Galahad, then, is meant to live up to the virtues of purity: we see this when Harry goes to Mrs. Unwin and tells her about her husband's death, and how he wants to do something "concrete" to help her out. Harry isn't trying to assuage himself of guilt, because Eggsy's father did exactly what they were trained to do (you might argue he feels guilty about not having caught that the man they were interrogating was a human bomb, but we will discuss that below). But, as we always say, a character doesn't die in a film unless that character is all ready dead in some sense, so, how is Harry "dead?"
This is an excellent use of symbols that becomes inverted. Valentine uses his hand to unlock the noise that will make everyone start killing themselves, whereas Harry uses his hand on the mirror to unlock the tests that will help Eggsy become the man he is meant to be. What Harry chooses to do with his identity makes him a gentleman, a real man; what Valentine chooses to do with his identity makes him a megalomaniac, a real villain. Harry is proud to look himself in the mirror and ask himself what he sees, the way he challenges Eggsy to look at himself and really see what he is. When Valentine looks into the mirror--specifically, the deed of killing Harry in cold blood outside the church--Valentine can't face it because he sees himself as a genius, not a murderer, as a gentleman, not a villain, but that image has a thin facade and easily scratches off. 
When Harry and Eggsy go to the Black Prince pub, and Rottweiler (Morgan Watkins) approaches and wants to beat up Eggsy for stealing his car, Harry tries to diffuse the situation but then gets up and walks towards the door. It's uncertain whether Harry decided to go ahead and leave Eggsy to Rottweiler and his gang, and just the parting insult from one of the thugs caused Harry to come back and engage them in a fight, or if Harry intended to engage them all along, but there is one action that speaks volumes in this clip, see if you can find it:
At 1:05 in the clip above, Harry asks, "Do you know what that means?" and then looks into the Guinness plaque on the wall and sees his reflection. It's likely you will say that Harry only looks at the plaque because he wants to see where his assailants are located so he knows how best to defend himself, however, I would like to suggest that Harry is actually "reflecting" on what it is he is about to do, engaging in unnecessary violence, and we can say it is unnecessary because Kingsmen operate at the "highest level of discretion" and getting into a bar brawl isn't very discreet (he has to put a tranquilizer in the barman's neck as he dials for the police).  When Harry returns to Eggsy at the end of the fight, he tells Eggsy, "Sorry about that. Needed to let off a little steam." So it's not, I was afraid they were going to kill you, or I wanted to help you out, or even, I wanted to show you how cool it is to go downt he path I have taken so you will choose it too. Harry leads us to believe he beat up the boys because he could which leads us to the next scene, at the church.
This is the scene when Eggsy steals Rottweiler's car keys, but Eggsy has provoked a fight with Rottweiler, but Eggsy allows his two friends to talk him out of getting into a fight with the bully. This is a sign, as well as not getting into fights with his mother's boyfriend Dean, that Eggsy has a pure heart, even when he's stealing car keys. Because Eggsy steals something in this scene, and the scene where Arthur tries to turn Eggsy to "the dark side" with him, we can compare the two (the film makers WANT us to compare these two scenes). Eggsy knows something has to be done to protect himself in both scenes, but he doesn't inflict violence, the way, for example, Harry inflicts violence, but instead finds an alternative route; that ability is what reveals, through action, that Eggsy (the "egg" part symbolizing new birth and transformation) has a pure heart and can become Galahad. Likewise, it reveals how Arthur, who is being compared to Rottweiler, is a bully, and subscribes to Valentine's horrible "reason" because, as Harry accused Arthur, he's an aristocrat with a "weak chin."
Because we have all ready seen Harry get violent with the gang of boys in the pub, we aren't all that shocked when Harry participates in the horrific violence at the Church which Valentine unleashes. When Harry is ready to get up and leave, a blonde woman stops him and asks him why and he tells her a long explanation of his identity that is supposed to make her realize that Harry is everything she hates (it's quite possible that everything Harry rattles off in his description is true, that he is gay and has a Jewish boyfriend, etc.). Even though Harry doesn't have an implant device, he is still effected by Valentine's signal, and enjoyed killing all those people; Valentine then kills Harry. Harry tells Eggsy that he shot Mr. Pickle, the dog he had to adopt through training, but then nursed Mr. Pickle back to health and cared for him eleven years before the dog died. This disparity between Eggsy not wanting to kill J.B. and Harry's ease of killing all the people in the church (and shooting Mr. Pickle, even though he cared enough for the dog to nurse him), and even just beating the sense out of those boys in the pub, reveals a not-so-pure Galahad.
In the church, Harry--waiting for Valentine to act--hears a sermon from an FBI identified group of Christians that has been labeled a "hate group," but which most Christians would probably identify. What's the purpose of this? To antagonize Christians? To make everyone think that Christians are, in fact, a hate group? Remember, Harry joins in the fight, so even though he identifies himself as a Roman Catholic--which plenty of Protestants are against, as my own family testifies--Harry is, literally, one with them even without the implant. The preacher in this scene identifies the anti-Christ as a living person, but remember, when Valentine is ready to launch "V-Day," he compares the people he has chosen to save as the survivors of Noah's Ark, which is a not-so-veiled reference to the Darren Aronofsky film Noah that is a exact call for the New World Order, and the mass murder of billions of people (like also what we see in World War Z). In other words, Harry may seem to be "enjoying" killing these people, but he believes the same thing they do, and separating the group as a "hate group" is something the American government (remember, the FBI labeled them a "hate group") has done in order to marginalize them and make them seem extreme so that others in society won't listen to them. Why are they the first to be tested with Valentine's chaos? Because the NWO supporters want to get rid of Christians asap, as Christians pose the greatest threat to the world-wide socialist regime. Now, let's bring in the very first scene, when Harry interrogates the Middle Easterner who has a bomb on him (probably a reference to The Hurt Locker); why did Harry NOT catch that the man had a bomb? Because Harry also has a bomb in him, and it goes off in the church scene. Some of the greatest screenwriters will have a "foreshadowing" device included in the scene when a character is first introduced (it was wildly popular in the late 1960s) and we can say that about Harry. Harry in that church is like a bomb going off because he kills so many people; at this point in the film, Harry promises to go back to Eggsy and sort things out (because Eggsy didn't kill the dog) because Harry has become a father-figure to Eggsy, and just as Eggsy's real-dad died in the opening bomb-scene, so, too, does Eggsy's surrogate father, Harry, die in the church scene (had Harry NOT stayed, Valentine probably wouldn't have had a chance to kill him). 
Eggsy in-training-to-become Galahad (even though none of them realize it yet) is also meant to live up to the virtue of purity, which brings us to the question, "Why does Eggsy not kill J.B. (the pug) when Arthur tells him to?" J.B., named for (not James Bond, nor Jason Bourne) Jack Bauer of 24 (another strong indication of The Kingsman's conservative leanings) hasn't done anything wrong, he hasn't committed a crime or hurt anyone, so how can Eggsy kill him? Arthur, we discover, can kill J.B., and three-quarters of the human population, because he looks at everyone as being an animal and beneath him, whereas Eggsy, in the purity of his heart, looks at the justice or injustice of a situation. We saw this, in a sense, in Skyfall, when Bond--being tested to see if he is or is not fit to return to the field--can't hit a target: Bond doesn't have his skills, in a metaphysical sense, to boast or brag about himself, but to do the job that has to be done.
There is another James Bond element to The Kingsman: the bulldog. In Skyfall, M (Judi Dench) has a plaster bulldog wrapped in the Union Jack which survives the bombing of MI6 and which she passes onto Bond at the end of the film. When Eggsy chose J.B., Eggsy thought he was getting a bulldog, not a pug. Why? In choosing an English bulldog, it might make Eggsy look like he only cares about protecting British interests; the pug has Chinese origins, so in choosing it (and not being able to kill it) we know that Eggsy will protect everyone, not just his own country. Why does Arthur give Eggsy such a hard time about not shooting J.B.? Because Arthur, like Valentine, doesn't see people as people, but as viruses, and  basically animals. Arthur is able to "see the sense" in killing off the world's population, because life is cheap and has no meaning to him, like Valentine; to Eggsy, life has value, even the life of a little puppy. What about Roxy shooting her poodle, does that mean she's not a good person? Roxy goes onto replace Lancelot, the brave, so Roxy has to exhibit above all others, the marks of bravery, which she does in overcoming her fear of heights to shoot down the satellite. No one is perfect, even the Knights of the Round Table, but each agent is called to be perfect in at least one area. 
The film opens with the year 1997, a year that has been featured in other films (for example, The Queen, about the death of Princess Diana, the events of Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters invoke this year {women killing children were prevalent in 1997} and Gravity, the year Matt [George Clooney] lost his wife to a philandering lawyer, i.e., Bill Clinton; please see Gravity: Buddha & Da Vinci for more) and Dire Straits hit song Money For Nothing (I Want My MTV) is playing; why? The song was a hit in 1985, so in 1997 (when it's playing in the film) it's an "oldie." Of all the songs they could have picked, they choose Money For Nothing for at least two reasons.
Why was Mark Hamill cast as Professor Arnold in this film? It may be that this has more to do with Star Wars VII the Force Awakens than what we can, at this point, properly speculate upon, however, this is too good of a case of Reader Response theory to pass up. When the public film viewing audience sees Mark Hamill, we instinctively think of Luke Skywalker, we can't help it, it's the role that will always be associated with him. Film makers know this, so they intentionally cast actors who will make the audience think of other films/characters so the film makers can expand their film's visual vocabulary. For example, there is a lot of fighting in the scene that takes place above--all the sheets on the floor are covering up dead bodies--and the whole time, Professor Arnold has just been sitting in that chair, watching and horrified; that's not what we expect from Luke Skywalker, who would have been the Jedi knight (again, The Kingsman call themselves "knights" just like the Jedi) and defending the poor, innocent and helpless from the likes of Valentine who takes on the role of the Emperor. That is exactly the purpose of casting Hamill in the film, so we see Luke "joining" the Dark Side of this NWO via Valentine and realize how terrible Valentine's scheme is. "Luke Skywalker has joined the evil Emperor!" That is a far greater shock to an audience member than just another "professor" agreeing to the mass destruction of humanity.
First, the MTV pop culture created a type of consumer, the type who would want to read headlines like, "Brad Pitt Ate My Sandwich," featured in Harry's office he displays to Eggsy: consumed with celebrity news and not much else. Secondly, whether you like it or not, the song depicts a working class guy in a hardware store wishing he was a millionaire rock star. Eggsy definitely comes from the rough side of the tracks, and takes cracks at Harry, accusing him of having a silver spoon shoved up his arse; class plays a role in the film also because it's the aristocracy, celebrities, politicians and world leaders who are going to be saved in "Noah's Ark," (a reference to Darrn Aronofsky's film) and the poor and middle-class who will be given over to a moral-less civil war of self-purgation (as in the film The Purge and even World War Z). So, what is the conflict of the film?
Richmond Valentine, a cross between Al Sharpton and Mark Zuckerburg. Why is he named "Valentine?" That's easy. In a little seen film called The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, Valentine Morgenstern (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) wanted to purify the bloodline of warriors, and his daughter (Lily Collins) told him, I don't know how much you know about human history, but anytime someone tries killing a lot of people, it ends badly (as a direct reference to the Holocaust and Hitler purifying the German bloodline).  The two "Valentines" are directly related, as both want to decide who will be killed and who will live so that they can control the population and shape it in their own image. Being released on Valentine's Day weekend, we can say that The Kingsman is making a statement about, not just romantic love, but brotherly love for all humanity and wanting to do some good. This leads us to an important point about Valentine's character: why does he get sick at the sight of blood? We see Valentine kill one person in the film, Harry (Firth) and it makes him sick and upset. Seeing blood is seeing his murderous deeds for what they really are, instead of hiding his treachery and criminality behind "theories" and "ideas," the spilled blood is a statement about his guilt being as deep as Cain's who was the first murderer. What about how Valentine dresses? He wears expensive clothes, but dresses like he's still "from the hood" which is a calculated image-enhancer. What's most revealing are his ball caps that he wears side-ways. First, they are baseball hats, meaning, they are hats that baseball players wear. Why is this important? It means that Valentine looks at his "plan" to kill humanity as a game he must win, and people like Harry are just more obstacles, in other words, Valentine has no conscious, because he just wants to win. Secondly, the way Valentine wears his hat demonstrates that his thinking is "skewed." Hats symbolize our thoughts, because our thoughts originate in our mind, so hats and hair become tangible manifestations of what a character is thinking or how they are thinking. Seeing Valentine wear his hat slightly cocked to the side, demonstrates that his thoughts aren't "straight," his ideas are taking a left turn. Contrariwise, Eggsy, like Valentine, also wears a ball cap, linking the two, and this is imperative: Eggsy would have ended up like his mother, with the implant, had Harry not stepped in; like Valentine, Eggsy has some of the same ideas, or at least has the potential to develop the same ideas about humanity as Valentine. What happens is, Eggsy exchanges his Valentine ball cap for Harry glasses, and disciplines his thoughts (he wears his hair slicked back, showing discipline and self-respect) and chooses to see the world as a Kingsman sees the world (the glasses they wear).
It takes a rather bold stance, calling global warming a "red herring," but that doesn't change the facade for villains like Valentine and the Swedish politician who are only concerned with saving their own skin, or the members of the White House who sell out the rest of the country. Valentine and his group of corrupt elitists believe all of us commoners have to be killed off in order to save the world and they are happy to do it. There is a definite conflict established between the ruling class--including those who don't really rule, like The Queen of England, the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince of Wales, etc., who are implicated in agreeing to a New World Order--and those who, like the Swedish politician, see it as their "heavy burden" to agree with the "reasonableness" of Valentine's theory and kill off humanity. But not everyone agrees,....
Gazelle is not only Valentine's primary henchman, but the brains of his operation as well. This female "blade runner" plays an important, symbolic role in the film. Legs, as we know, symbolize our "standing" in society, so what kind of standing does Gazelle have? As a woman, she would be considered a minority, but we have to ask, is that valid? Women make up half the population--I know feminists would say that Gazelle is a minority in the professional field, but I think this is that self-victimization-mentality that prompts people to telling others they have made the choices they have made because they are a victim of white men, and I think The Kingsman: the Secret Service agrees with this position--so her "standing" on artificial legs symbols a "false standing" in society. In the scene depicted above, Gazelle--named after an animal because Valentine and her both believe that people are, literally, nothing but animals, which is why they are so easy to kill--battles against Eggsy, who has had challenges growing up but has finally made a decision that is going to do him, and the world, good; Gazelle, like other feminists, believe that only the wiping out of society and the re-distribution of wealth will end her victimization; how can I say that? Please look at the image above: she's jumping through a glass window (meditation and reflection) firing a gun at a white male who has done nothing to her but is trying to stop the world from being annihilated. The brutal battle the two of them have finally end when,...? When Eggsy uses the poison blade hidden in his shoe--symbolizing his will--to kill Gazelle, then uses Gazelle's false leg to break through the glass (again, reflection and meditation) to stab Valentine in the back with it. What does that mean? Those whom people like Valentine have given a false "standing" to (minorities as victims) are going to be destroyed by that, just as the rich and beautiful are destroyed by the implants they think are going to save them but destroy them instead. Gazelle's false leg also becomes a phallic symbol, getting Valentine "in the back" the way Eggsy is invited to take Princess Tilda "in the back" at the end. When Valentine sees his blood on his hand, and projectile vomits, we could say that is a graphic reproduction of the sex act: the blood symbolizing the breaking of the hymen, and the vomit replicating the semen. Why do this? Because it's what politicians and world leaders are trying to do to the masses, ("f**k us over") and any of them who may see this film should be warned of what is going to happen should they attempt to carry out a scheme like this.
For example, rapper/hip-hop artist Iggy Azalea is reported as missing, as well as the Swedish princess, Tilda. Why would Iggy be singled out as "missing," and, therefore, not participating in Valentine's evil plot? Ms. Azalea worked her way up and has earned every success she has had (and she sings The Kingsman theme song Heavy Crown). Remember, the main key to Valentine being able to implement his evil scheme is, "Free internet, free phones, forever!" That's a lot like the free cell phones and food stamps the Obama Administration has given away, but it's also a lot like the Nordic welfare state model of which Sweden is one of the participants, which leads us to the controversial ending,...
Just as the film uses "Oxfords, not Brogues," as a code word, meaning, "I'm in trouble and because my dad died to serve the Kingsman, you owe me and have to get me out," so the newspaper headlines Harry has collected in his office also act as a code he knows well. When he details to Eggsy what really happened on the days those headlines ran, the headlines serve as a form of erasure, erasing out the real, dirty world politics that are taking place, and putting trivial and meaningless "news" in its place. Why is this important? The whole films acts on this level. Dean, Mrs. Unwin's boyfriend, is every bit a Valentine and living off Mrs. Unwin and her is ready to drag others down to his level, rather than raise someone up. The headlines in Harry's office, then, are one of many devices the film utilizes in order to alert the audience to the "real headlines" and news taking place beneath the surface of the film.
As we know, Princess Tilda promises Eggsy "more than a kiss" and says, "We can do it in the asshole," if he saves the world and gets her out; why does she do this? Because that is the "welfare mentality."  To be fair, because I know a lot of people will disagree with me on this, and that's fine for both of us, the director said he had that ending because he felt it was an appropriate Bond sex joke (and the article is interesting in that it reveals--at least in this film--how other films were influencing his decisions). Because Valentine represents the socialist state and a NWO, exactly what World War II was fighting against, which is the real reason why Valentine calls his "launching" "V-Day," as a insult and re-writing of history about the Allied Victory (Victory Day) in Europe, anyone falling for the socialist "gimmicks" will get "screwed up the ass" if they trade in their freedom for the false freedom of socialism. All Eggsy wants is a kiss, and that's all he asks for; Tilda offers to make herself his degraded sex object because he has "freed her," because being from a semi-socialist state, she believes she has to enslave herself in some way for what she is getting. Which means that, after being in a socialist state for so long, no one there really wants to be free, they want to remain in that state of "slavery," (to one degree or another).
It's not "Manners maketh the man," rather, "Manners maketh man." This is utterly important; why? First, if you are not a man, you are an animal, and that's what socialists what people to become: animals, like Gazelle and Rottweiler, and why the Kingsman organization models itself on Camelot, the highest possible virtue, sacrifice and service possible, that is, the very best people can become. Manners, then, are a way of insuring that we don't slip into that "animal" category. Secondly, Harry  is a white male, and who is it that has been so heavily targeted as of late in films and politics? White men. The so-called "Progressive Party" in America is more aptly described as the "Digressive Party" because they seek an end to the free market and all technological advances; literally, want to see everyone living in a village, with no communication with anyone outside that village, and each village controlled by a local party member (why, yes, it was called feudalism in the Middle Ages, and that's exactly what they want to bring back). The Kingsman; the Secret Service, then, is--like nearly all spy films-- an unabashed celebration of "the white male," the greatest enemy of Western liberalism. 
It's likely that you have never heard of the great Busby Berkeley, one of THE GREATEST CHOREOGRAPHERS of all Hollywood history, but if you noticed the highly stylized "heads exploding" death scene at the end of the film, when Merlin activates all the implants of those who are supposed to be saved, then you have an idea of what Berkeley's work looks like because it was directly copied to make the exploding heads their own "talking point." Just as Valentine was "erasing" massive genocide on a global scale by "hiding" it in his "reasonableness" and "climate change" wording, the death of all these politicians, artists, leaders, aristocrats and American presidential cabinet members becomes "erased" in the kaleidoscope of death and exploding heads; why? We are being tempted to look at their deaths the same way they wanted to look at our deaths: dehumanizing.
Will we?
I hope not.
Then, we become like them and nothing has been solved.
We know that many of the items in this wardrobe--if not all of them--double as weapons, and that's because the suit and accessory itself is the weaponIt's not just that a knife blade comes out of the toe of the well-crafted shoe, but that the well-crafted shoe must be polished and cared for, and that, in turn, is a sign you care about yourself: that "caring for yourself" is a weapon for the young, white men in today's world who need strong male examples of what it means to respect yourself and why you are worth fighting for. As touched upon previously, The bespoke suit makes a man "blend in" with every other man, the business suit almost becoming a mask, and yet, no other man can wear another man's custom tailored suit, so it's highly individual, and remembering that one is an individual is itself a weapon. For more conversation on the topic of the suit and  political role of costumes in the film, please see The Kingsman & a Great Suit for more. 
On the very last note, The Kingsman consciously mimics and employs traditional motifs from spy thrillers, whether James Bond or other recognized heroes, the film absorbs their traits and wants you to know it (again, this is a film that is about patterns in spy films, not originality). Why? When Valentine is about to shoot Harry, Valentine says, is this the part where I tell you all my plans to destroy the world and set-up some convuluted way for you to die, so you can figure out a convuluted way to escape and stop me? Harry replies, "It works for me." Valentine replies, "Well, this isn't that kind of movie." This is repeated after Eggsy has killed Valentine and Valentine expects some parting jab, like, "Last rat standing," and Eggsy replies, "This isn't that kind of movie." Well, is it that kind of movie?
Yes, it is.
The "old Bond movies," were ALL ABOUT Bond fighting socialism/communism and the spread of a one-government world, which is exactly what The Kingsman is about. (Why, just before the scene above takes place, does Valentine serve his "billionaire" guest (Harry's undercover) McDonald's? You may recall that the very pro-socialist president Franklin D. Roosevelt served the King of England hot dogs when he visited America at the on the dawn of World War II and Valentine serving the "common fare" of McDonald's Big Mac and fries echoes that sentiment). There is, however, a new element that had to be added to this generation of spy movies: the Millennials. Not knowing what socialism/communism actually entails--because they didn't grow up in the Cold War, like some of us--they have to be educated on the world-level scheme that is taking place, and their brainwashing from their teachers at school must be overcome. Please note, when Eggsy relays to Harry and Merlin what Valentine is doing by giving away free phones and internet forever, he says that Valentine is "a genius." Isn't that what most Millennials are being led to believe about Obama?
Just before this scene, they were at the taylor's shop on Savile Row and had started going down; Eggsy asked, "How far does this go?" and Harry replies, "Far enough." That tunnel or mine shaft the room starts descending into is a symbol for the inner-transformation Eggsy will go through. Mines or wells symbolize the deep interior life of self-reflection by acting as a metaphor for "going deep into one's self" and exploring one's real identity. To Eggsy's credit, when Harry lists off films that Harry thinks Eggsy would be familiar with, such as Trading Places and Pretty Woman, Eggsy hadn't seen those films, but was familiar with the great classic, My Fair Lady with Rex Harrison and Audrey Hepburn. In the film, Eliza Doolittle goes to Professor Higgins and he uses his skills to help her raise herself up from being a lowly peddler of flowers to "the flower" of high society. Why would Eggsy mention this film in The Kingsman? For at least two reasons. First, Eliza learning to speak is Eliza learning to "love" herself and find her own self worth, not the worth society puts on her, but the worth she has inherently as a person and which Higgins validates in his relationship with her (which is why it's so important to her that he loves her and not just considers her an experiment); we can say the same of the relationship between Eggsy and Harry, in Eggsy learning to love himself (because his mom obviously went downhill after her husband's death and didn't have much time for Eggsy). Secondly, Eggsy comparing himself to Eliza Doolittle creates a bridge between the Millennial generation he symbolizes and the generation "coming of age" in 1964 when My Fair Lady was released.  One of the "background events" in My Fair Lady is the Women's Right To Vote movement that we see briefly (and, consequently, was featured more prominently in another film that came out the same year, Mary Poppins). It's not just Eggsy finding his rightful place in society, where he becomes a productive member who can take care of himself and his family (as he tells his mom that he gets a house and wants her to come and live with him) but also the Millennial generation as keepers of the country and participating members of the future of the country and culture. When Harry talks to Eggsy about transforming himself to become something better, Eggsy goes back to a tumultuous time in history because he understands that the same world-changing events of 1964 are being mirrored in today's world.
When we see Harry talking to Mrs. Unwin about the death of her husband, little Eggsy plays with a snow globe, the mountain scene turning into the real scenery of part of the film. We have seen snow globes in both House At the End Of the Street and Red Dawn, standing in as a metaphor of the safe bubble the US has been able to live in for two hundred years; but just as the shields of Asgard in Thor the Dark World and Oz the Great and Powerful have been destroyed by enemies, so, too has America's "bubble" been burst by her enemies, and Millennials have to decide whether they will defend their country or sell out for free internet and phones.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner