Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Trailers & Misc News

You may remember, when Prometheus first came out, I was dreading it, but ended up really liking the film, and promising I wouldn't do that (jump to conclusions) about a Ridley Scott film again; the second trailer for Exodus: Gods and Kings has been released. I fully plan on going to see the film, however, I am concerned that the story line has been twisted to fit pro-socialist ends (I didn't realize until today that Scott is an atheist).
"After 400 years of slavery, things have gotten worse. You must set them free." "Is that a threat?" "Yes!" I don't want to jump to conclusions the way I did with Prometheus, but I am jumping to a conclusion. Like The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1, special emphasis has been placed upon 1 person (Katniss/Obama/Moses) and they are leading "slaves" to freedom (the people of Panem/people working for employers/the Hebrews) and it is possible that this is the direction the film will take (as with another atheist in Hollywood, Darren Aronofsky, who directed the so-called-for-lack-of-a-better-term "bibilically inspired" film Noah).  Slavery is a central part of the theme, it just is, and when Cecil B. DeMille made his original The Ten Commandments, there can be no doubt that was an anti-socialist film: released in 1956, the world had changed forever, just as they predict it will in Scott's Exodus: did Scott choose to make Exodus because The Ten Commandments is such an anti-socialist film, people fleeing the strong arms of the government (the Pharaoh) to  live in freedom and worship God (socialism is against God, you worship the government which supplies everything for you)?
IF--and I am still trying to be open-minded here--Scott is presenting us with a pro-socialist film, Ramses will be portrayed like an employer and the slaves as employees, and Moses (like Abe in Steven Spielberg's Lincoln) will become a twisted symbol of socialism; why are they doing this? The socialists cannot make films glorifying Stalin, or Lenin, Pol Pott, or Hitler, Che or Mao; they know they can't; they can't even make a film about Marx himself, so they are trying (i.e., putting out propaganda) to try and make the world believe that all the men we honor and look up to were socialists all along, and so we need to be, too. Again, I am acknowledging that I could be wrong--I HOPE I am! I want it to be a good, Christian film--but I am pretty disheartened about it all.
This is how the doll looks in The Conjuring, however, the real Annabelle doll that was possessed and "captured" by Ed and Lorraine Warren looked more like a Raggity Ann doll, not this blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryan with the exaggerated facial features. If you will recall, in our discussion, The Conjuring--by using a doll that looks like this--wanted to make it look as if we put unfair expectations on people's physical appearance (which we do, but no one gets killed for not looking like Gwyneth Paltrow); in socialism, however, we know that people were killed for not being Aryan, people being Jews and Gypsies and anyone else Hitler didn't like. So, how the doll looks is going to play a big role in the film.
Opening this weekend is Annabelle, the story of a doll. This is the pre-quel to The Conjuring, the huge block-buster from last year involving the family that moved into a possessed house. If you will recall, the family became "possessed" because they wanted to "possess" the house (the only thing which connected all the former owners together was, that ultimate evil in the eyes of socialism,... home ownership. That's right. Bathsheba was an evil witch because she owned a home!!!!!!) so it is by "possessing" possessions that we ourselves become possessed but, also, thinking that our kids are our possessions (the problem that Lorraine had with her daughter, I mean, the "state's daughter").
So, the film opens this weekend; I hoped it would open in my area Thursday night, but I will have to go see it Friday afternoon; it's been quite awhile since I saw a film opening weekend, so I promise to go and I will be tweeting my initial reaction to the film for you. On a more optimistic note, the last trailer for Christopher Nolan's Interstellar was just released today, and it looks incredible!
It's my theory that Interstellar will prove to be the exact opposite of everything that is Gravity; we'll go into more depth with that closer to the November opening, but think about it. The newest Keanu Reeves film, opening in just a couple of weeks, has dropped its first trailer that is more in-depth than what it appears:
Okay, when was the last time we saw someone bury a dog? Margin Call, the Kevin Spacey character who sold his soul for money but the money couldn't keep the dog from death, so he buried it at the ex-wife's house at the end. Think of the big symbols here: what do men symbolize? What do women symbolize? What do cars symbolize? Just break it down into pieces. In this next trailer, the side Samuel L Jackson's character belongs to is everything (pay attention to the part about, "It sounds like a lot of people are going to die,").
This is it for the moment, but after I catch Annabelle tomorrow, I am going to see Guardians of the Galaxy one more time before posting my very happy post about it (there's just a few things I want to check on it, one more time).
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner