Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Frozen & Liberal Political Agendas

There is an important note to be made: Elsa (the blonde girl on the left side of the snowman) was supposed to be a villain, until the film makers heard the song Let It Go, deducing that a character who would sing a song that "self-affirming" could not possibly be a villain, so they adjusted the story line so she wasn't a villain in the strictest sense of the word. Now, there is a philosophical problem with adopting a value or set of beliefs just because someone who espouses them is "self-affirming" because this is an appeal to the emotions of an individual (how the film makers felt and how an animated character feels) versus the laws of society, nature and logic, i.e., this exemplifies the crumbling foundation upon which the entire liberal agenda is built. By continuously appealing to the emotions, at every single turn of the film, they are trying to make logic and the faculty of reason "obsolete"; why? Liberals can't argue. They have absolutely no facts to support anything they hold to be true, or anything to support why their beliefs are superior to anyone else's, so what they are trying to do is make people who can think and reason look bad and inferior with their constant elevation of emotions and feelings, because with emotions--which are very human and we need to exercise them, but we shouldn't be led by them--they don't ever have to be justified, they just exist, and all anyone has to do is appeal to the emotions, or tap into the emotions of their audience; nothing has to make sense or be moral or ethical, as long as it's "emotional."  
Cartoons and other animated works are, by definition, "abstract," they are images more or less realistic (depending upon the style of the animators) and we, the audience, engage our imagination with the images and sounds to enable the story to be told; more than in any other genre, even Fantasy and horror films, animated tales require a willing suspension of disbelief. When we begin to watch the story, we make an agreement with the film makers that we will suspend our doubts and knowledge of the world in exchange for the story they want to tell us and we will not hold them accountable to reality (this is the reason why so many are so hyper-critical of horror films: they want to see a horror film, but refuse to suspend their disbelief).  In the clip below, which is not in the film, but was released as the first trailer for Disney's Frozen, which won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature of 2014, we see ample demonstrations of both the need for us to willingly suspend our disbelief and,... something else.
A talking snowman doesn't bother me at all; a talking snowman who loses his nose doesn't bother me; a talking snowman who disembodies himself and drags himself across the ice doesn't bother me, and neither does a snowman who sneezes and his head shoots off; those are all aspects of the comical. What does bother me is the element of the "unnatural," that which goes against the principles of nature. This is where it gets tricky, and this is why liberals scored so high with their policies in this area: there is a difference between nature and reality, our willingness to suspend our disbelief, and the subversion of our beliefs, the "play of the comical" and the slow propagandizing of forcing us to accept that which goes against nature, namely, a snowman living in the tropics.
"Reality" would dictate that a snowman cannot walk, talk, see, taste, smell, feel nor think; the willing suspension of disbelief allows all these things to happen. The flower growing in the thick snow, however, is the unnatural (just wait, let me finish). Why, do you ask, is the flower "unnatural" and the animated snowman just unrealistic? In and of itself, the flower isn't an assault on my beliefs of what is "natural," but--in the long-line of unnaturalness the film presents throughout its narrative--the flower growing in the temperatures so cold that the trees are buried under frost and snow shows a determined assault on nature, just as, at the end of the film, there is another assault on nature in the snowman living in heat and not melting. What this is teaching is, first of all, that our emotions are more important than our rational faculties: I like Olaf, I have identified with him as a viewer and I don't want him to melt. So, the film provides the answer with him being able to artificially live in a warm climate and enjoy pleasures (like flowers and heat) that he--BY NATURE--would not be able to enjoy otherwise. There is the same situation with the trolls: trolls are bad, mean, they are the monsters of society but in Frozen, they are cute and adorable. The power of art is its power to hypnotize the viewer and entice them into entering the world that has been created, where all manner of things are possible. When we are suddenly being told that "Trolls are good," these are the same arguments that are basically being used by Satanists to introduce humanity's greatest enemy in an "humanist" light, but the erosion of these symbols which communicate evil and danger are, one, causing our ability to express evil and danger to disappear and, two, putting the Left in control of the vocabulary so they can change words and their meanings as they please, just as we see in George Orwell's 1984.
(This is very unprofessional of me, and I do apologize: the text above this point is all that I had completed on this film. One of The Fine Art Diner readers, Taylor, wrote me and asked me about Frozen, which has of this weekend, become the fifth highest grossing film of all time, which is regrettable. Not being able to get more done, I wrote out a response to Taylor, and the response is what follows: it is not nearly as long-winded as my usual posts, which many readers might enjoy, but it is a very quick look at a serious work of liberal ideology that deserves more time than I have to devote to it. Again, I do apologize this is not more complete, however, I do hope you will find some nugget worth your while! As always, thank you for reading! God bless!).
A Christian pastor charged that the film promotes bestiality and homosexuality. First, I disagree with the Reverend about the charges of "bestiality" in the film: he contends that the relationship between Kristoff and his moose Sven was a sexual one. I didn't find any basis for this charge in the film. However, I do absolutely agree with him about the end credit scene with the masculine abominable snow man character finds the tiara/crown in the snow and puts it on himself: the Reverend charged that this was promoting homosexuality, and I agree with his view (it does something else, but we'll discuss that below).
Another aspect the Christian pastor was concerned about is that Anna has a suitor, but Elsa doesn't, and the pastor saw that as a sign that she's a lesbian. I am a Catholic, so the idea of being single isn't scandalous to me the way it is to Protestants; Catholics have monasteries and convents, there are still hermits--my family would probably call me one--so Elsa's solitude is a perfect legitimate choice according to my religion: I will argue about Anna below, because there are problems with that, but as far as Elsa's isolation goes, I truly don't see anything wrong with that. I do understand how a male Protestant minister could be upset that Elsa hasn't chosen a man to share her life with, and the reason for this is that, as we have said and demonstrated numerous times, white men are under venomous attack in America today because they are the dominant power holders in the country so, in order to take over the country, white males have to be disposed of and vilified.
We have two clear-cut examples from other animated films promoting homosexuality: Paranorman (at the end, we find out the big blond-headed brother is gay) and the upcoming How To Train Your Dragon 2, one of the characters is going to confess to being gay; there is also the cross-dressing female pirate in Pirates! Band Of Misfits!. I don't know how many of the Ice Age films you have seen, however, they promote the idea of the "non-traditional herd" which is being held up as a metaphor of a non-traditional family, and the proof of this lies in the cross-breeding of different species of animals, analogous to the same-sex breeding in homosexuality. So, the charges of homosexuality in animated films isn't something being imagined, we are seeing this more and more, not in isolated contexts, but in greater doses, aimed at ever-younger audiences (not to mention that Common Core education wants children to embrace homosexuality).
To me, this is perhaps the most important moment of the film (a number of films have employed important works of art to advance their narrative, such as Skyfall, which had two, Oblivion and X-Men Days Of Future Past). Please click on the image to enlarge it, even save it to your computer so you can really examine it. On the left is the "source painting" from which Frozen did their mock-up: The Swing, by Jean-Honore Fragonard, of 1767. Although it was completed years before the French Revolution, this, I would like to argue (and will if I ever get caught up on the posts for this poor blog), is the first paining forewarning that a horrible revolution was coming, which is also why it has been included in Frozen. I can't go into much detail here--I could go on about this painting for days--but here are just a couple of important notes. First, the woman in the swing symbolizes France, the "motherland." Secondly, the swing symbolizes time itself, like the pendulum on a clock keeping track of time. Thirdly, "underwear," in any form that we know it today, had not been invented by this time; in other words, under the volumes of her dress, she's wearing absolutely nothing. The saying, "I see Paris, I see France, I see someone's underpants," isn't accidental: it's a celebration that the French finally started wearing underpants (part of the reason for not wearing them is that there were no toilets: people, even in the palace of Versailles, would literally urinate or defecate wherever they were, right on the floor, in front of the king or queen, and just leave it, because there were no bathrooms, so the halls of Versailles were basically a public sewer,... anyway,...). The young man in front is an aristocrat--we can tell by his manner of dress--but he's something else, as well: a rake. If you look closely in the foreground, there are a couple of rakes in the bottom, center of the painting, right beside him; although the garden is overgrown, and even though the tools for cleaning and pruning are there, he prefers to enjoy himself. About the garden, please note how overgrown it is even though most of it is in the shade (which is the purpose of the sunlight upper-left portion, to make us take note of the darkness), so, gardens are usually symbols for the soul, and this garden is overgrown with the "dark sins" of vice, specifically, promiscuity. How do we know that? From looking at the young man looking up the dress of the young woman, who wears the hat of the shepherdess, a sign of her innocence and country-ways; the shoe, as we know, is a symbol for the will, so her careless loss of the shoe in mid-air suggests she no longer has the will to protect her innocence she so easily displays to the young man in the foreground. It's the older man in the background, however, who is important. The woman in the swing has reached the "climax" of the energy in going forward, in other words, she has climbed as high as she will; it's the man in the shadows who will now start to pull her back towards him, and herein is the charge of prophecy about the French Revolution: the older man can be seen as "Father Time," or even a "founding father" of the traditions of France and its laws, and his pulling the young female--a symbol of the motherland--away from the younger aristocrat, suggests that Fragonard wanted to communicate to his upper-class patrons that their time of robbing the innocence of France was over, too many weeds had grown-up in the garden of the country's soul and reparation time had come (or was coming). Now, how does Frozen "fit in" to this scenario? Anna literally "fits herself into" the painting. She's daydreaming about love, but she's part of a revolution, and her love affair is actually to be propelled forward with a "push" from Hans and her refusal of marrying nobility. Now, please remember: we are not dealing with real people, Kristoff and Hans have been intentionally created with various characteristics to evoke emotional responses from the audience in the direction the film makers want. Kristoff, as an orphaned and unemployed, is espoused by Anna, whereas the Hans is nobility and Catholic--please don't forget, that in this very same song pictured above, Anna mentions Joan of Arc, and Hans being from a family of 12 suggests a large Catholic family--so his being "exposed" as a fraud and impostor, who was only after Anna's money and position, works well for the film makers because it, of course, makes Catholics look really bad not only as immoral beings, but also because of their belief against birth control ("If they didn't have so many children, Hans wouldn't have had to cheat Anna to make a living for himself," the audience thinks to their self). Additionally, however, the film makers have taken the people accusing Obama of being an impostor and reversed the charges to make them the impostors. In the image above, Anna isn't just looking for a boyfriend, she's dreaming of "something to happen" because nothing favorable has happened for socialists for so long, so, like the girl on the swing, she needs a push to be launched forward. There are, according to the film, two types of socialists: those like Elsa (Obama) who live in a ivory tower (ice tower, in this case) and who are happy to be alone with themselves, while the other socialists are like Anna, young and naive, full of emotion without any wisdom, who have lost their memory of the harm and damage socialism has done (when Elsa hits her with the ice and her memory is erased, because of the trolls, remember?). Anna's dress is green, not a particularly good color choice, given how completely she blends in with the green of the painting, but that's because this is a symbolic dress she wears: green is the color of hope, and on the day of Elsa's coronation, just like on the day of Obama's inauguration, being compared to Woodstock,  Anna is "full of hope," that Elsa will become queen and things are going to change, and they will change, just like they have changed under Obama.
My second problem with Frozen is the ice monster finding the tiara and putting it on: Elsa has thrown away the dignity that she was born with, and a monster has taken it up for himself. Elsewhere, we discover in the film that Kristoff was raised by trolls, which are also monsters, but have been made to look cute and loving--which they are not, that's why they are trolls, like the trolls we also see in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey--but in bestowing Elsa's crown upon the monster, and even our willingness to "identify" and "enjoy" the trolls trying to wed Anna and Kristoff, our awareness of what trolls are, and what they symbolize in our society, breaks down further and further. Shrek is a perfect example (it's a commentary on abortion and how it's effected our society and ourselves; please see Abortion & Fairy Tales: Shrek for more). Harvard allowing the Black Mass to be celebrated (and Johnny Depp doing a movie by that name, although it doesn't have anything to do with Satanism, as I understand, the idea of "Black Mass" is being used more to desensitize us to its inherently evil meaning) is undermining our ability to identify evil and our desire to separate ourselves from it, like the state of Satan that some Satanists are trying to get put up at the Oklahoma Capitol building by the Ten Commandments. All of this is slowly working against society, like water eroding the stones. Our value and dignity as the Children of God is just tossed away, like Elsa's crown, and those monsters who symbolize sin and the fears of the civilized have taken "the crown of dignity" for themselves.
Another area of complaint the Christian had was a part in the film when Kristoff comes to the trolls and says, "Hi, family," and there is another male there and infant trolls; the pastor contends this scene suggests that the male troll and Kristoff "beget" the baby trolls together, which I disagree with. Kristoff was adopted by the trolls, as I understand the story to go, and so those trolls would have been his "adoptive" family as they took him in. 
Now, what is the highpoint of the film? The part people claim to like the best of the show is the song, Let It Go. First of all, Elsa singing this validates that she isn't going to discipline herself anymore; she's going to let it all out, which goes against Christianity and our generally held belief that we have to discipline ourselves so sin doesn't overtake our souls; Elsa is blatantly refuting that: whatever you are, whatever you do, it's okay, just let it go and make people deal with it. The second reason the song is disturbing, at least to me is, who is it, that is a leader in our society, like Elsa, who has been hiding their identity and the destructive forces they are "letting go" onto American society? 
To me, that's Obama, who has spent millions having all his records sealed and is intent on destroying the American economy--just like Elsa has frozen the town so nothing can grow, nor can any trade take place, and the "weasel" guy, they are quick to point out, is from the town's biggest trading partner, and he's totally un-likeable, so trade itself must be un-likeable, so let's not trade or have any economic growth, let's have an ice rink instead!--and, just like the town being frozen, the American economy is frozen as well (like the parasites put into Wolverine's heart so he can't regenerate in The Wolverine from last year). So, Frozen and the song Let It Go is an invitation to Obama to "let it go" and freeze the economy to reveal who he really is (a socialist). Just like the other contestants in the Hunger Games sacrificing themselves for Katniss, their "beacon of hope" (which is what the socialists and liberals call Obama), so Anna willingly sacrifices herself for Elsa (it does make it more difficult to see it because they are sisters, however, this is a ploy to prey upon our emotions--they can't attack our logic, so they seduce our emotions and feelings--and make us "feel" rather than "think") so we, too, are supposed to willingly sacrifice ourselves for Obama because,.... because,... because,.... 
This "romance" between Hans and Anna is meant to discourage women from falling in love: it's better to be self-sufficient than to risk falling in love with a devious person who lies about everything to you and only wants to be in power for himself and will kill anyone to get what he wants and lie about anything to get what he wants, and he won't hesitate to throw a woman under the bus if it means he can advance his own career. Does that sound like anyone in America today? Again, Hans represents two or three of the characteristics of the conservative political Americans: he's a white male, he's Catholic and his from the upper-class; so the Left has taken all of Obama's bad qualities and projected them onto Obama's enemies in hopes that Obama's enemies will suffer for what Obama does. Yes, it is rather like Voodoo.
Remember Kristoff's sleigh that he had just paid off? The sleigh Kristoff earned for himself cannot be the vehicle of his "new life," the vehicle of his new life must be paid for and supplied by the government, Anna; yes, I agree, if someone wrecked their car helping you or I out, of course we would help them get it fixed, that's responsibility, but the film isn't concerned with responsibility, it's concerned with elevating Elsa and destroying the town and Kristoff's ability to provide for himself, rather than be dependent upon the government. Anna's bad run-in with Hans is one more bit in the propaganda machine trying to get women to avoid getting married (The Heat with Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy was the BIGGEST piece of propaganda aimed at women that I have ever seen, and it was exactly the same!). Anna supplying Kristoff with the new sleigh is, essentially, (in the painting from above) Kristoff being on the swing--swinging from being in business for himself to being dependent upon the government--and Anna is the old man giving him the push from behind.
The animated films are the hardest to decode because we want to just sit back and enjoy them, but because we are just "enjoying them," film makers with liberal agendas have infiltrated this genre and are using it as their platform because our guard is usually down when being entertained with animated figures and their comical skits, but hidden therein is quite the dangerous poison.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner