Thursday, January 30, 2014

Super Bowl Sunday Trailers

Our last posting revealed a few of the trailers that will be shown during intervals of this Sunday's Super Bowl, including this new one from The Amazing Spider Man 2:
IF I MAY, I think the reason why Jamie Foxx has been cast as the villain is because, to so many conservatives, HE IS A VILLAIN. We might be seeing this same technique employed in Captain America: the Winter Soldier with Robert Redford's character (there is like 6 villains in the film!) (oh, and we will be seeing the second Captain America trailer during the Super Bowl; I will post it if it goes on line early!) (oh, and they have started work on Thor 3).
While we have all ready discussed the full movie of Noah in-depth at this link here, there is a brief spot for it being released during the Super Bowl; why? It is the most watched event, and I suspect film makers are all ready aware of wide-spread boycotting by the conservative Christians who were the "target audience" for the film and they hope to pull from a wider pool given that many Christians aren't likely to go see it when the "untold story" of Noah is revealed as the "Environmentalist propaganda" instead of the Biblical tale, especially when Noah decides to kill all his family to save the animals and earth:
Now, what I REALLY want to talk about is The Muppets Most Wanted (which is also releasing a new trailer during the Super Bowl). If we have discussed it, it's not sufficient, and if we have discussed it, I didn't have this trailer as proof of what I was talking about, that I don't think I have talked about yet. So now we are going to talk about it. Please, if you will, just watch this, it is very much worth it:
This is really funny.
This is really, really funny.
Why take the time to spend all this money, to make a trailer about an imaginary Twitter duel? And to mock "tweet slang?" Again, a lot of money has been spent to generate this ad, so we have to ask, what end does it achieve? They want us, the audience to know, that THEY KNOW what is going on in the world; they know the world has changed since we were little kids, growing up watching the Muppets and John Denver on TV and they want us to know this, so much so, they are willing to employ absurdity to drive home the point and make us remember. Now, having demonstrated their awareness of what takes place in the ridiculous arenas of the Internet, let's look at their first, full-length trailer released:
The reference to James Bond is intentional, because what does James Bond do (there was also that reference to James Bond in A Good Day to Die Hard with Bruce Willis)? So, putting our knowledge of the film makers' knowledge about what goes on in the real world to the test, we have to ask: Is there someone who is "good" that has been replaced by someone who is a criminal? Well, the answer is a very, very simple yes: the president of the United States. Of all the people they could have gotten, why put Ms. Liberal Tina Fey herself in a KGB uniform (a relic of the Soviet days) when they could have put Sarah Palin in it instead? Because Tina Fey "fits" the uniform, in culture and the mind of the audience. Please watch this trailer, especially at 0:55:
"You guys have all the freedom you want," Constantine tells the Muppets; the question is, when did they not have freedom? Did you notice, that "Badguy" says his name is "French?" Why? The French are socialists. Here is further proof: at 2:00, the "ridiculous" size match Ty Burrell's Interpol (International Police) agent has with the Muppet blue guy about their badges, isn't so much about badges, as authority and presence. Remember, Melanie Laurent's character in Now You See Me, she was an Interpol agent from France (and the bad guy runs off with her to France). The blue Muppet guy is trying to insure that he (as an American) has more and greater authority by the size of his badge than the Interpol agent has, so it's a highly politicized scene.
Luke Evans and Orlando Bloom in the upcoming The Hobbit: There and Back Again slated for release in December 2014.
I will be posting the newest trailers as they become available!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

 

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

X-Men Days Of Future Past, Super Bowl Trailers & RoboCop Viral Video

St Thomas Aquinas receiving the Mystical Belt of Chastity by Diego Velazquez, 1632. One of the reasons Aquinas is so powerful as a doctor of the Church is due to his chastity: while imprisoned by his family (to keep him from becoming a Dominican) his brother sent a prostitute to tempt Aquinas; taking up a red hot poker (in the image above, it's a smoldering piece of wood on the floor to his right), he ordered her out. It has often been speculated that she ran out because Aquinas threatened her with the poker, but personally, I believe he threatened to use the poker upon himself to insure his passion didn't rule over him, in the same vein as when St Francis, in the heat of lust, threw himself into a snow bank to cool down his desires. Mary rewarded Aquinas with a belt of purity around his waist that protected him from all such temptations ever again. Why? Why is that story tied to the great Doctor of the Church? Knowledge and wisdom are the greatest treasures there are, because it never betrays you, everyone benefits from it, and you can take it with you when you die, but it also illustrates the virtue of the person who holds it. We have love in direct proportion to how much wisdom we have, and our wisdom is directly proportionate to how much love we have: a person who has not much love, has not much wisdom. People might have great knowledge, but not great wisdom, or even any wisdom at that. The belt of chastity for St Thomas demonstrates that he had a proper love for himself in not abusing his body or abusing others to fulfill the lusts of his body, so he was full of love, so that he could become full of wisdom.
A most happy and blessed feast day to all of you! Today, the Church celebrates the Feast Day of St. Thomas Aquinas, my patron saint. In the Church, we say the feast day of our patron is our "name day," because when we are confirmed in the Church, we chose a patron saint to specially watch over us and depend upon for prayers and a model for our own life. Just as religious will "take a new name" when they enter their religious home, so each Catholic takes a "new name" when they enter the Church, so my Catholic name is Thomas Aquinas, which means he HAS to pray for me, ha ha. For all my brothers and sisters who also try to glorify Christ with our mentor St Thomas, I wish you a day of great joy and blessings!
One of many Sentinels that threaten the existence of both mutants and humans. Why is this a big deal? Why take the time to do this? Because each and every character, each and every gift is important. As we see the individual cover, for the individual character, we are reminded of their story, their struggle, their individuality and our bond to them is strengthened. This works on an individual level and with the group as a whole. Why is it important to do this? Sure, the film makers want to make money, but ultimately--what this strategy achieves--is to undermine the strategy that robots are trying to achieve: dehumanization. Seeing the uniqueness of the traits of the individual X-Men, we are reminded of our own individuality, our gifts and our purpose, and that builds up a resistance to Sentinels taking over the country and limits our dependence upon robots. This is a theme we are going to see again.
It's been haunting my thoughts but I haven't mentioned it until today, because today, it seems solidified: Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) will not be in X-Men Days Of Future Past. It's a little thing, but somehow, I was rooting for Wolverine, like maybe that would make things right, if he's all ready going back in time and things,.... well, like EVERYONE is going to be back, and each character gets their own Empire Magazine cover, for a grand total of 25. Yea, that's pretty huge. You can view a selection of the upcoming magazine covers at this link, and not only are all the old characters back, but there are some new ones as well, including Magneto's son, Quicksilver. Now, with a different actor, Quicksilver will also be appearing in The Avengers 2: the Age Of Ultron (along with Scarlet Witch) and--not knowing more regarding the comic universe--I know there is some controversy about this decision, but it's not such a big deal that I actually remember any of it,.... well, moving right along,....
Case in point: even Toad is coming back (played by a different actor) and how important was he? You know, the guy with the really, really, really, long and strong tongue? NONE of this is arbitrary, it has all been carefully choreographed and arranged, and film makers have promised that all our questions will be answered, so let's hold them to it.
EVEN IF you are not a sports fan, there might be plenty of reason to watch this year's Super Bowl on February 2: the 5 new trailers that will be debuted! Captain America: the Winter Soldier will get its second trailer, FINALLY! Expendables 3 with Sly Stallone and the crew will release a full-length trailer, Need For Speed, the first trailer for Transformers 4 with Mark Wahlberg and a new trailer from the soon-to-be-released Robocop. I've been planning on going to see Robocop when it comes out, but haven't given a whole lot of thought to it, until I saw these two promotional vides:
Everything about this video, including how the woman enters, acts and the words she says is intentional; so if you get frustrated, please, suffer through, this is going to be important:
Do these two videos remind you of anything you have seen? Maybe the Prometheus video with Guy Pearce introducing himself to the world as a businessman and innovator in science? It should also remind you of Guy Pearce's role in Iron Man 3 and the end-credit scene of Wolverine (as he walks through the airport, before he sees Magneto, Logan sees a commercial for Trask Industries on the television, which is similar to these two videos). It's not just that we are seeing the same theme, but these movies are invoking the same theme intentionally to draw our attention to the dialogue in which they want to engage us about our culture. So, what do all these films want us to talk about?
The line.
Yea, this is pretty much an epic moment in film: Gary Oldman and Michael Keaton.
There is a line, as we saw in Iron Man 3, with the wounded soldiers getting replacement limbs for lost limbs, but then being used as suicide bombers and weapons of destruction. There is a thin line, where something designed for our good, crosses over and becomes a means for our destruction. Samuel L Jackson stars in Robocop, is there another Jackson film where we see this issue? Yes, Jurassic Park, when Goldblum's character says, "Just because we can, doesn't mean we should." What about these two specific videos for Robocop? What do they contribute to the conversation?
There is a small branch of mathematics called catastrophe theory: which person running out of the burning theater created "a stampede," which hair did the man lose that makes him "bald?" We could apply such a theory to these issues being discussed: how much of our humanity can we "sacrifice" before we are no longer human? These are the issues being brought up (which would make for great discussion with the family or at work or with friends) but they are being brought up for a reason: there must be, somewhere in our society, the THREAT of this actually happening (and the great number of films engaging in this discussion makes it definite that this threat lurks somewhere) so the question we have to ask is, Where does the threat come from and why? Is there something "posing" as a great good for society that is actually going to be used against us?
The woman walking in, her loud footsteps echoing, suggests that she's alone. The sounds echoing through the room alerts us to how empty it is. When you are advertising something, at least in today's advertising theory, you want people to believe that everyone is "on board with this," and everyone loves whatever idea is being proposed. With her loud footsteps, it's like they are telling us before a word is ever spoken, what you are about to hear is a bad idea no one wants to be a part of. Around her neck is a single pearl; why? Pearls are usually the sign for wisdom, because wisdom does not come quickly, and a pearl is note developed quickly, but takes a long time of unseen interior observation, just like wisdom. There is, however, a pearl, so it's like they are saying, this is some wisdom in what she is saying (the help given to people to replace lost limbs), but only some, the rest is a bad idea. Her whole speech is basically "canned": it's a script, that has been formulized, and we can recognize elements of that speech because we have heard it numerous times (like the opening commercial in The East). These redundant clichés are meant to make us suspicious and not invest faith in them because the real dialogue we need to be listening to is what's not being said.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Sunday, January 26, 2014

UPDATE: ANOTHER Maleficent Trailer All Ready!

Lana Del Rey's Once Upon A Dream sounds like it belongs in a horror film, which this might end up being. There are only two points I am going to make right now, because--frankly--the more I see, the more I am stumped--but something to keep in mind is the headdress (the all-black skull-cap with the horns protruding upwards). Why is this important? Well, she doesn't always wear it, at some point, she puts it on; why (please recall, in Oz the Great and Powerful when Theodora [Mila Kunis] goes through her metamorphosis to become "the Wicked Witch of the West as we came to know her from the 1939 classic)? Well, it's black, so that means death, but we don't see any hair (it's free-flowing in her earlier life at various parts of the trailer), which symbolizes thoughts; ALSO, she has something black wrapped around her throat, so "death"--which black symbolizes--is leading/guiding her on (the throat is the area where a collar/leash is placed, so it's what easily holds our attention). Again, if this is death to the spirit--her heart has been hardened and her soul is in a state of death, instead of her being "dead to the world," as Christians are called to do so we can grow in the soul/spirit--than it makes sense to interpret her bright red lips as her appetites. But this leads us to the second point,...
The battle scene around 0:50, when some kind of,.... "earth dragon" comes up and the fierce looking tree men ride out, ready to battle the humans. Now we saw something similar to this in Snow White and the Huntsman with the bizarre black soldiers the Evil Queen (Charlize Theron) employed to do her bidding (and there will probably be room for a lot of comparisons between the two films), but this scene (what we have seen so far) makes me think of two things: first, as we can see in the image just above, whereas a younger Maleficent is amidst a verdant and green earth, the older Maleficent is among the barren and winter earth (did you catch that dead tree throne?). Secondly, who do we usually associate the environment with in our culture, especially someone who uses the environment to try and destroy their opposition? The liberals. They totally act like they own the environment, and use it "against" conservatives like a weapon whenever they can.
Again, we are seeing the color green usually associated with Maleficent, however, the purple "trimmings" of her costume are absent; why? The film makers want us to know that they know the story, and we know the story, and we the audience have certain expectations about how Maleficent should be (including her costume). I don't think this is an accident. Purple usually signifies both royalty--because in ancient Rome it was the most expensive color of fabric to buy, so only the royal house hold could afford it (and they banned anyone else from wearing it)--but purple also denotes suffering, because a good king suffers for their people, instead of making their people suffer for them (like paying high taxes). What we do have is that recurring "blue" overtone of the sequences, and it might be that it's especially associated with Aurora or part of the general look of the film. After the 2002 release of Jet Li's Hero, no one doubts the important role color plays in communicating and, given the emphasis they are placing upon the original story, the change is, I'm sure, significant. 
Back to the song, Once Upon A Dream: we know, from the 1959 version, that Aurora sings that to Prince Philip; given the prominence of the song playing constantly throughout the trailer, and such a well-known artist recording the wildly divergent "new" take on the original, I think our attention is supposed to be drawn to it; why? Well, what if, instead of it being a long song between Aurora and Philip, it's really a love song between the audience and Maleficent: "we know" her, we know what Maleficent will do, we know that look in her eye and that she's going to turn into a dragon and she has that pet raven and wears horns, etc., etc., and we love her for it! We are totally fascinated with that tone of Maleficent's voice, and how she seems not offended by not being invited to Aurora's christening, and even offers Aurora a gift of her own, then she turns evil and nasty. We know this about Maleficent, and we still "love her" the way we did once upon an animated story. I still can't say anything definite, but the more I see, the more excited I am to see more!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Fast & Furious 7: Poster & Latest News

The tagline reads, "This is where roads part." Prior to Paul Walker's death, had we seen something like this, we might have deduced that it was Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) who would be departing, but that the "family" of F & F would still be together for future adventures. Now, after Walker's death, and the use of the different cars to symbolize the characters--Brian O'Connor's love of imports, vs Dom's allegiance to American muscle cars--teases how the "exit" of O'Connor from the film will be achieved (particularly difficult because of O'Connor's relationship with Dom's sister, their new baby, and Dom's relationship with his sister). At this point, neither Michelle Rodriguez nor Jordana Brewster are listed as starring in the seventh installment; that doesn't mean they won't be back at all, but it does make you wonder how "divergent" these parting roads really are. Jason Statham is still slated to star as Ian Shaw, brother of the deceased Owen Shaw (Luke Evans) from F & F 6 (Kurt Russell plays a villain as well).
This is the official poster for the Fast and Furious film that will be released in April 2015. That isn't to say there won't be others, but this is a definite statement by the film makers of their intent with the next film. Brian O'Connor will be "retired," and the studio has specified he won't die, just that his character won't be back. Why is this important? I can easily see people thinking this is getting blown out of proportion, "It's just a movie," they probably say; F & F 6, however, was far more than that, having made definite statements about gun control, politics and even art itself. F & F 7, then, was going to be a super-charged vehicle (forgive the pun) to solidify that statement and even expand upon it (I realize I still haven't gotten the review up for F & F 6, so I do apologize, it was an amazing film). Exactly how the film will achieve this is being kept under a tight, tight lid. This is bound to be an emotional subject that could--if not properly handled--ruin the film before it's even released.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Friday, January 24, 2014

I, Frankenstein & News on X-Men Days Of Future Past

I can't wait to see I, Frankenstein again, and see it again in 3D, it was worth it! I can't believe such a "small film" is so philosophically AND theologically complex! I am quite impressed! The main clue to the film is eels. Okay, sure, the source of the energy, but more importantly, the spiritual identity of Frankenstein's creation. This was a great, in-depth film that was as good as it could possibly be! In other news, X-Men: Days Of Future Past has released this seven seconds worth of footage via Instagram; sure, it's not much, but we can still glean at least one important snippet from it:
You see Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), sinking in the water, bound; being "under water" is a financial term when one's debt is larger than the value of owned property/assets. In the film Wolverine, we saw how the artificial constrictions placed on Wolverine's heart were employed as a metaphor for restrictions placed on the American economy, keeping it from being able to rebound (men typically symbolize the active principle of the economy, so the alien leeches placed on his heart were keeping him from being able to "heal himself," just like Obama has induced numerous stimulus plans that all capitalists know are intentionally keeping the economy from being able to heal and rebound). Now, here is what is quite interesting indeed,...
X-Men Tweeted: "The first of its kind, a special reveal by @EmpireMagazine and the #XMen cast is coming up on January 27th! #Empire25." Why is this important? It's a capitalistic venture. "The first of its kind" is expanding the world of advertising and film, the way we saw with the mini-video about Magneto and JFK's assassination, and even the new "animated posters" from Star Trek Into Darkness. This is capitalism at work, finding new and better ways to utilize resources and sell a product. Did you see Hitchcock with Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren? That film was remembering how Psycho launched the modern-movie industry with advertising, and the one-man who did it single-handedly and, in essence, X-Men Days Of Future Past is paying homage to Hitchcock with their own publicity campaigns! Again, it's possible to look at this as just trying to make a buck, but at least they are trying instead of taking Obama food stamps.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
P.S.--I LOVED I, Frankenstein!!!!

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Signs Of Satan: Devil's Due & the Power of the Anti-Chirst

The trailer doesn't do the film justice.
It's an interesting situation: Christians believe in the "invisible world," where there are demons and angels, God and Satan, but it's predominantly fans of the horror genre who attend films such as Devil's Due, and get angry with any type of "moralizing" the film might embark upon, and even more angry when someone tries to point it out, believing--essentially--that you can have the devil and be friends with him, too. That's not what this film is about. Quite specifically, the film exists within a growing segment of Hollywood films exploring the dangerous consequences of sex: Nymphomaniac, Shame, Thanks For Sharing, and I believe solid arguments can be made for films such as The Cold Light Of Day and Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters sharing this agenda, since the lead females in both films are the lead male's sister--rather than a potential sex object--conveying a sense of protecting women rather than using women. Since Devil's Due takes up the theme of "protecting women," let's start with that angle.
Tagline: Fear is born. Remind you of anything you have heard lately, like maybe from Captain America: the Winter Soldier? "This isn't freedom, this is fear," Captain America says, looking at planes in a hanger. The plot line for Devil's Due goes: Zach and Samantha have just gotten married (a Catholic ceremony) and vacation in the Dominican Republic; while there, they visit a palm reader who tells Sam that "they have been waiting for her," and Sam and Zach freak out, leaving, but getting lost; a cab driver shows up and tells them he will take them to a fun party for a drink; they resist at first, but decide to go. He takes them to this place and they have quite a few drinks, then the camera Zach carries with him is put away into Sam's purse, which is left partially open and from that perspective, we see that at least Sam has passed out and is placed in a circle just like the circle seen throughout the film. It appears, then, that she becomes "mystically impregnated" by some demonic force. The couple don't remember anything about the night until later, as increasingly odd things have happened, Zach goes back through the camera files and sees the footage taken from inside Sam's purse and starts to realize what has happened. People from the Dominican Republic had moved into an abandoned house not far from Sam's and Zach's so they could keep watch on them, and when Sam's time to have the baby finally arrives, they show up, Sam having cut open her stomach and is bleeding to death, and they take the baby. So the question is: since the film continually makes reference to the "anti-Christ," who is the anti-Christ? The film tells us.
When the film first opens, we see events through the eyes of an unknown camera person, spying on Sam through the front window of the house, then climbing up to the second story to film her while she's getting out of the shower. The camera person goes into the bathroom where Sam wears only a towel and we hear a dog growl/bark and then it's revealed that it's her fiancée, Zach, that Sam is marrying the next day; they have a brief disagreement over whether or not Zach should see her before the wedding, but we know this is all ready irrelevant and this moment defines why what happens to Sam happens to her and Zach can't do anything to protect her.
A point that could be made--although not well made--is that this film presents a case for abortion: if the stingy Catholic Church permitted abortion, since Sam confesses she doesn't want the baby, she could get an abortion and the world would be saved from the anti-Christ. There are several problems with this "argument." First, had Sam and Zach been living out their Catholic faith as properly taught, they would not be in this position. Secondly, had Sam been practicing natural family planning instead of relying on the pill (NFP is 100% effective, whereas the pill is only 99% effective) she would have known her own body's chemistry better and would have known that something was terribly wrong--instead of depending on a doctor--and she could have gone to Father Thomas/the Church for an exorcism (now THAT would be an interesting film). Last, but not least, is not only the standard argument against abortion, but also against the anti-Christ: God is in control, and to demonstrate that, He permits such things to happen to achieve His will. It's through the activities that liberals participate in--such as drunkenness, taking the pill, promiscuous sex and not going to Church--that many anti-Christs are let loose in the world, not through devout Christians practicing their faith and living out the "call" of Christ (the name of Sam and Zach is McCall, so they have a "call" to be Catholic, but they don't answer it). God will permit the anti-Christ to fulfill all prophecies about himself because God has all ready defeated him.
Zach and Sam have all ready been having sex together. If they had not, I doubt Sam would have been so calm with Zach standing with a camera, filming her while she wore nothing but a towel, and the day after their marriage, they would have spent out sightseeing rather than getting to know each other in the Biblical sense (not to mention, Sam doesn't wear a veil over her face when they get married, a traditional symbol of the groom "breaking the hymen" in his lifting of the veil after they have been wed; the house where most of the film takes place, is where they were probably living together before the wedding). There is also the most interesting detail of the dog barking at Zach because the dog tends to bark at evil things throughout the film.
So, all put together, what does it mean?
Sam is not pregnant in this shot, it's just the way the dress hangs. In the background, above Zach's head, is Father Thomas who has an interesting role in the film later in this same church. Please note that Sam doesn't wear a veil. It's noted later in the film, as Zach talks to Dr. Dylan, who ends up being one of the disciples of the devil, that Sam doesn't have a family: her parents died in a car crash and Sam was cut out of her mother's womb.
Even though Zach records in a personal confession to the camera that he wants to love and protect Sam, he hasn't protected her from himself, from his own lust, and in failing to do this, he isn't capable of protecting her because he has used her for himself. IF Zach and Sam had waited until their wedding night, they would not have been out sight-seeing that night they were "kidnapped," they would have been back in the hotel making love; if they had lived up to their Catholic vows, they would not have gone to a fortune-teller/psychic, knowing that is a violation of the 1st Commandment, and if Zach had valued Sam, he wouldn't have let her get drunk, which is another sin against the virtue of temperance (because it suspends your ability to think, drunkenness is seen as a sin of self-abuse). Because of Zach's own personal sins, he can't know how to protect Sam against her sins--again, protecting her is what the film itself says, not me--and Zach certainly hasn't protected her from his own lust and the sign of Satan in the film verifies this for us.
This is the nursery; it had been Sam's office, where she did her college studies, but she "sacrificed" it for the baby because she did most of her studying on the couch anyway. Throughout the course of the film, beginning with on the wall where the cab driver takes Sam and Zach to the party in the Dominican Republic, we see the symbol etched on the floor in this picture. It's identified by Father Thomas as a sign used by enemies of the early church to try and undermine it, to bring it down, and it would be placed at entries and exits, along with piles of ash. Inside this symbol is where the "baby" will be born. In the scene described below, of the First Communion, it's important that Sam is 8 months pregnant because 8 is the number specifically allocated for Christ in Christian numerology (the way 3 denotes the Trinity, 6 the days of creation, 7 the virtues and deadly sins, etc.). Sam being 8 months pregnant with "the devil's child" particularly emphasizes how she is NOT pregnant with a child of Christ, i.e., giving birth to the Works of God, rather, giving birth to the works of the devil.
In one part of the film, Sam is eight months pregnant and she and Zach go to Zach's niece's First Communion, at the same church were they were married, and Sam sees Father Thomas and gives him a one-arm hug and he immediately starts coughing. As far as we the audience know, this is the first time Zach and Sam have been to church since their wedding (and probably not to Confession, either). As the ceremony begins, and Father Thomas tells the congregation of the importance of the First Communion, the Sacrament of receiving Jesus Christ, he becomes paralyzed, starts coughing up blood and then falls with a violent nose bleed, the ceremony ending. Father Thomas is then taken to the hospital and Zach visits him, asking him about the symbols, but--quite frankly--it's a symbol Zach should all ready know, because it's basically a portrait of him.

At the "party" where the cab driver takes Sam and Zach in the Dominican Republic, they are partying one second and then Sam tells Zach to put the camera in her bag; the bag gapes open at different intervals so we see part of the ceremony/impregnation of Sam through the camera in the bag, which, very interestingly enough, resembles the impregnation in and of itself (the camera being a phallic symbol and the purse--very often, in a number of contexts--symbolizes a woman's vagina because a purse is where a woman keeps many of her personal items, a woman's bag is off-limits to men, as is her sexual organs supposed to be), we could say this is a kind of sexual mysticism we also see in The Legend Of Hercules which just came out a couple of weeks ago. In that film, Queen Alcmene prays to Hera for a relief from her evil husband's curse upon the land, so Hera allows Zeus to impregnate Alcmene and beget Hercules (which means "Gift Of Hera"). The scene with Alcmene and Zeus is similar to the scene with Sam and,... whatever it is that "comes to her." Why would two films, released so closely together, and of such different time periods, basically be about the same thing, but on opposite ends of the discussion? The Legend Of Hercules is about a divinely appointed savior coming to rescue humanity, while Devil's Due is about a demonically appointed destroyer coming to annihilate humanity. The two films, we might deduce, are trying to remind us of the influence the "unseen" world has upon the world we see around us; why is that important? Well, to casually insert this as a possibility, most/all socialists are atheists, who do not believe in anything you can't shake a stick at, only the material world that can be seen with the eyes of the body. For such supernatural events to be important plot points of these two films (granted, films that haven't done well) is the case in point that these films DO believe in the unseen world, and that it also has influences upon our world.
Essentially, the "Satanic symbol" is a simplistic depiction of the sexual act: the two straight lines indicate the penis, and the round, feminine circle is the womb/uterus/vagina. This actually makes perfect sense as a "sign" that would have undermined the authority of the early church, because the teachings on both abstinence for those who were not wed, and for priestly celibacy, would not have been teachings popular with the potential converts, just as chastity and celibacy are not popular today, which leads us to the greatest oxymoron I have ever heard, spoken by Sam herself: "I took the pill religiously."
One review I read of the film said it was racist because all the disciples of Satan were black or Hispanic; the man wearing the doctor's suit in the image above "replaced" the black female doctor Sam and Zach originally had, and ends up being one of the disciples who cuts open Sam's stomach and brings out the baby and takes it away, so the racist charges against the film, as usual, really don't stand.
Most Feminists would easily site "The Pill" as the greatest invention that has ever helped women because it has allowed women to be sexually active without the fear of getting pregnant. In a study done by the University Of New Mexico, women who were on the pill had a decrease in their ability to smell, which helps women to successfully choose a mate with good genes, as opposed to women not on the pill, who had a better sense of smell for choosing a good mate; women on the pill had a decrease in sex drive while also experiencing a decrease in their inhibition about having sex; women not on the pill, however, had an increase in sex drive but also an increase in their inhibition; in other words, the pill turns women into whores, because they are not driven to find a steady mate with whom to raise children, rather, they just "exist" and engage in sex without thinking about it. This, then, describes what has happened to Sam, and how the film makers wanted to point out to us what has happened to Sam has happened because she "took the pill religiously." We are now in a position to understand who the anti-Christs are in the film: Sam and Zach.
Sam has just had her baby shower and received an anonymous gift, which is a silver,... thing. She will use it to slash open her stomach so the baby can be removed from it; why? She's "sacrificing herself" in an unholy way, for the birth of the demonic child that will continue her own life of sin, petty as some people might consider those sins. Why is the object silver? We have discussed this before regarding why silver bullets (or anything silver) is needed to kill a werewolf (a symbol of the sexually promiscuous male): in Hebrew, the word "silver" sounds like the word for "word," and Jesus is the "Word made Flesh," so the silver instrument reminds us how Sam has not been listening to the Word, or partaking Communion, and all the events of the film are because of what she has done and failed to do, that by NOT choosing Jesus Christ, she has chosen the anti-Christ.
Mother Theresa, a woman all know to be a good and faithful Catholic woman, would never have been in a position of giving birth to the anti-Chirst because she kept the teachings of the Church faithfully; Sam and Zach can give birth to the anti-Christ because they have NOT kept the teachings of the Church. They might think they are Catholic, but so do a lot of people, but all it takes to be an anti-Christ is not going to Church, not receiving Communion, not going to Confession, not waiting until your wedding night. That is why, in 1 John 2:18, it says there are "many" anti-Christs, because so many fail to live up to the Teachings of Christ. This re-contextualizes the very beginning and very end of the film.
Everything Zach does in the film appears to be for Sam and the baby--which he is thrilled about--and so Zach appears to be a very good and loving father and husband; but in the opening and closing scenes, when Zach is in the detectives' office being interrogated, he turns his wedding band around on his finger, staring at it, claiming he didn't do it, but he did do it. Why is this important? It's a passive examination of what masculinity is. Feminism is a very strong, political presence in our culture, and in personal relationships, but how often is there really an examination of what it means to be masculine? Feminists would argue that all of Western Civilization is an exercise in understanding masculinity, but for men in a day-to-day routine, does that cut it? No, because films might offer role models of what masculine actions are, but not why those actions are particularly masculine and how that nurtures masculinity, which in turn nurtures femininity, and correct femininity nurtures correct masculinity. For example: culture says that promiscuity in men is acceptable, but as Devil's Due takes great pains to demonstrate, is that actually going to benefit Zach? Is that going to give Zach the things he wants in life? No.
At the start of the film, Zach sits in what appears to be a police interrogation office and two detectives question him, saying, "Why don't you tell us what really happened?" Why would they say this? Because Zach hasn't said, I killed by wife and sister by having sex with Sam before we were married, so we gave birth to an anti-Christ who we will raise to be just like us and who is going to bring down the Church and civilization with it, just like what we are doing. The cops don't believe Zach's story about the cult and circle symbols, but we do; why?
Because of distortion and noise.
Zach's sister's body lies in the corner, and Sam smears her bloody intestines on the floor, which is what we saw her doing earlier in the film when Sam had butchered a small family of deer. Early in Sam's pregnancy, she had seen the deer and called them "beautiful," then later she is found by some other people, bent over the deer, having cut them open and killed them, just like her sister-in-law. A woman who is sexually-active outside of marriage destroys the family, not only because she has turned her body away from the role of child-bearing and rearing, but because she would rather work outside the home then be a part of the home, just like Sam yells at Zach when revealing that she's horrified of becoming like Zach's sister and she doesn't want to take any time off from classes to spend with the baby. This is a perfect example of the film following the old rule, "Show, don't tell," because instead of just telling us that promiscuous women on the pill destroy the family, they are showing us that promiscuous women on the pill "gut" and murder the family because they are not fulfilling their natural role, they have taken on an unnatural role.
At certain times, usually when something "evil" is nearby, there is noticeable distortion and noise in the filming (which is all "found footage" and some surveillance cameras). When there is distortion in the filming, the audience "knows" through inter-acting with the plot (that is, by inserting our own experience or world views into the "missing" plot of why there is a pattern of noise and distortion at certain points) that something evil is interfering with the recording. Is this just a sign of the bad quality of the film? No, this is the application of a specific aesthetic, particularly through chaos theory. Noise and distortion--in various forms--is an aesthetic because even though we think the noise interferes with the information we are supposed to be taking in, the noise/distortion offers us it's own unique form of information; in other words, when the images we were just watching on the screen, suddenly go "snowy" or fill with lines, it's tempting to think that the scene is being ruined, but the timed-intervals when the interruptions leads the audience to deduce that some force in the scene causes the interruption, so that's how the noise/distortions become its own sense of information: there is a character/force in the scene we would not have been aware of had the distortion not revealed their presence. But there is another, more powerful way in which noise and distortion is used: Zach's entire story.
The ultra-sound taken of Sam's baby. This scene, when they get the picture--that ends up disappearing--is an example of noise, not only during the ultra-sound, but on Zach's camera.
It's very possible, given the reading detailed above about Zach and Sam being the anti-Christ, that the entire story we have watched is nothing but noise and distraction, and the police know that. The party in the Dominican Republic could be distortion; the strange people watching them, also distortion; Sam's bizarre behavior, all of this might be distortion and noise to cover up the real message that Sam and Zach were together before their wedding night, Sam was taking the pill religiously, rather than receiving Communion religiously, and Zach getting her pregnant (not some cult) gave birth to a child that was born outside of the Church and who helps to bring down civilization is all simply because they have been living like pagans, rather than the Children of God. In other words, the noise and distraction acts to "encode" and "embed" the real message that we know every movie all ready contains and just has to be skillfully extracted.
One of the people who watches their house; again, another white person, not a black or Hispanic person like some reviews have charged. The "distortion" in not being able to clearly make out their features verifies the different levels of that particular aesthetic being employed throughout the film (which we also witnessed in The Dark Knight Rises with Bane's speech patterns). What about the very last scene with the "new couple" in Paris, when the same cab driver pulls up and wants to take them "to a party" and they go with him? Technically, this offers us an example of redundancy, so we see a pattern being established and that communicates to us it's on-going. In a different view, it could communicate that this happens in First World countries (France) just as readily as Third World countries (the Dominican Republic). I could offer another reading, but I think I will skip it, at least for now.
To conclude, there is much more we could examine in the film, so this is only the scratching of the surface. Like many horror films, it's showing us the horror "within ourselves" and the horror our own abuse of free will brings about. This might be a little film that gets no attention, but I hope it's part of a growing trend to teach people about the consequences of their actions and the reality of sexual consequences.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Monday, January 20, 2014

300: Rise Of An Empire Trailer #3 & Lego Movie

This is going to be sooooooo good, I am really looking forward to this one.
Ok, we haven't talked about this movie--I don't think we have--but I can't help but laugh whenever I accidentally watch these, so here are the trailers for the Lego Movie, not necessarily in the order in which they have been released:
And this one:
Why am I interested? It's business. But it's more than that, it's how business effects our lives. It reminds me of Wreck-It Ralph, of which I am a big fan, but I do plan on seeing this, in spite of Will Ferrell being in it, who, consequently, plays the evil villain who is going to "glue the universe together," or at least the universe of Legos. Why is that so evil? Consider this: what would life be like for you if you were "glued" to your job? If you were glued to your house? Your city? If you were glued to your friends and couldn't ever change or get new ones? If you were glued to your clothes? To your diet and routine? That is what socialism is and does: it glues you to whatever someone decides to glue you to.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
P.S.--Devil's Due was quite interesting. I am not going to try and force a capitalist/socialist interpretation on it, but if you are Catholic, this is a good film for us to see (they make a lot of devil films for Catholics, don't they?).

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Maleficient Trailer #2, Penny Dreadful, Devil's Due & Man Of Steel 2 News

What does this second trailer tell us?
First, film makers have gone to great lengths to make us believe (although this isn't necessarily true) that they wanted to retain as much as possible from Disney's original animated version (note the animated bits they included at various parts to remind us as much we liked the original; secondly, it tells us that it is different from the original. In the 1959 Disney version, Maleficent and Aurora never have any communication with each other; in the new film, they have all ready conversed quite a bit. These new details are what makes the film a film for our time (regardless of its quality).
We have discussed in length, at the link provided just below, why this Maleficent (which means "evil") looks so different than the 1959 version. Her cheeks, for example, achieved with prosthetics, are sharp to accentuate that, at the slightest insult, Maleficent doesn't "turn the other cheek" and allow herself to be humbled, rather, she repays in kind, and a hundredfold at that. We will see Maleficent at least as a young girl, so several stages of her life, and her total development, rather like the evil queen (Charlize Theron) in Snow White and the Huntsman.
We have all ready had significant discussion on the initial trailer, as well as images and Jolie's "look" as Maleficent; this is, however, our first look at the three fairy godmothers who bestow gifts upon Aurora and protect her (we will discuss this much more in-depth later). I am somewhat dismayed that the Prince (Brenton Thwaites) isn't more,.... masculine. He and Aurora (Elle Fanning) both leave a great deal to be desired, her not being very feminine, nor he very masculine (which were traits of the two in the original animated film); why am I harping on this detail? Because the left is trying to break-down distinguishes between male and female. I still don't know which direction this film will go and what Maleficent will symbolize, but I am mildly looking forward to it (by the way, there is still no second trailer for either Captain America: the Winter Soldier or X-Men: Days Of Future Past).
In other news, Man Of Steel 2 (also known as Batman vs Superman) was originally scheduled to hit theaters next summer, but for unknown reasons has been moved to summer 2016; film makers have said they want that time to realize their full vision for the film, but it might also have to do with a six-week filming delay resulting from Ben Affleck hurting his leg. The film getting the summer 2015 release spot is Peter Pan, which has both Javier Bardem and Hugh Jackman in talks to join the origin story of how Captain Hook became Captain Hook. Why these "origin stories" with famous villains? Because it's actually a great way of understanding the evil in our world without actually demonizing anyone in our hyper-politically correct world.
I saw Jack Ryan Shadow Recruit last night and it was very good. Chris Pine has a great way of handling action sequences, they aren't too smooth, but just rugged enough that you can tell it's demanding, and what I didn't realize is, not only is the great Kenneth Branaugh starring as the villain, but directing the film. Kevin Costner is very strong and likeable in the film, so if you need any reason to go and see it, these should offer you plenty, in addition to it being solidly patriotic.
You know I don't actually watch television (I just don't have the time), but if I did, I would be sure to catch the new Showtime series Penny Dreadful, premiering Sunday, May 11. It has been described as "Gothic psycho-sexual horror," which is all rather redundant, because horror usually involves the psychological world in which we live, and the psychological is usually our bundle of sexual repressions, and Gothic is all that still repressed and encoded. The series stars Eva Green (Casino Royale, Dark Shadows) and Josh Hartnett (40 Days, Black Hawk Down) and it's executive producer is Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Skyfall). I don't do this often, but I think this interview with the film maker is worthwhile, as I could tell you these things, but they are more convincing coming from his mouth:
So, what is this Penny Dreadful about? We have stolen quite a bit of the Victorian art all ready (like the plethora of Sherlock Holmes series running about, vampires fill the television weekly agenda and I, Frankenstein is coming out soon and The Woman In Black sequel is due out next month) but history films, as I have said, are never ever about history: they are always about us here and now, so this isn't about the Victorians--how boring, who cares about them?--rather, the Victorians are a vehicle for our own selves.
Eva Green plays the heroine, although I am not quite sure what that means.
It has been noted how similar Penny Dreadful is to other series on TV: that's good. What we see in one show is going to be validated as it repeats itself in another show, in one form or another. You can watch the main trailer for Penny Dreadful on Youtube at this link (I apologize: I prefer to post trailers directly so you don't have to travel, but it won't let me). Now, what "half-world" are we as Americans being invited to enter? What world is "what we know and what we fear?" Well, for me, as you have probably guesses, that world is socialism, because I see it as full of monsters and vampires, but that doesn't mean the series does. Here is a very tiny trailer that we may reference when I, Frankenstein comes out:
And then there is this brief, but powerful, trailer:
Here is an easy question to ask: why are we so much more focused on the devil, and evil, than God and good? I guess, for the vast droves of people--especially those in Hollywood making films--evil and bad are easier to see in the world around us, hence, it's easier to believe in it; the devil, so to speak, comes after us, but we have to make the effort to go to God, and most people just aren't interested in doing that, so they are left with the devil's courtship. Out this weekend is Devil's Due, which I am going to try and see tonight after getting a brief posting for Jack Ryan Shadow Recruit up in a few hours.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Friday, January 17, 2014

Oscar Nominations 2014: Why They Are Important

The complete list of Oscar Nominees can be found here. This is THE WORST list of awards I have ever seen, EVER.
In a word: liberal.
In another word: worst.
These are the MOST LIBERAL and WORST films I have EVER seen on an awards list, and not a single conservative film is listed as a runner for Best Picture. The other word that comes into my mind is: quality, as in, "lack of." Come on! The Great Gatsby and The Lone Ranger being nominated for Oscars? You have got to be kidding me! And American Hustle? When even Obama-supporter Jay Leno admits it's marketing Obamacare, you know it's a political vehicle.  The Book Thief should have been nominated, and Inside Llewyn Davis could have been nominated for several other categories; but my biggest disappointment is in the Animated Feature category,...
Why did Inside Llewyn Davis by Joel and Ethan Coen not pick up a better nominee chart? Because it is blatantly anti-abortion. It demonstrates what kind of man, and what kind of woman get abortions and the kind of person who forgoes getting an abortion. The film is a clear look at struggling artists and why so many artists are pro-socialist: they aren't good enough to make it, and want someone else to support them anyway. The Coens are diligent directors, incorporating layers of dialogue and text into their stories and their latest film is no exception. I would like to add that The Grudge Match, with Sylvester Stallone and Robert DeNiro, was also anti-abortion! That was a surprisingly well-done--and humorous--film although there are sexual situations and tons of profanity.
I cannot believe Monsters University was not nominated, I just can't believe it. As you know, animated features trouble me greatly because families often blindly go to them thinking that, since it's animated, it's a family film that will have my values; it might not have bad language and nudity, but that doesn't mean it isn't encoding liberal values, and Frozen is 100% pro-Obama. The films and film makers that win awards are going to be the standards of success by which Hollywood judges itself, the types of roles the "best" actors are going to seek out for themselves, and the storylines that will be advanced for future films, as well as the directors to make them. It's about the future of not only America's greatest and most important art form, but about our political future as well. Please, please boycott the Oscars, and do NOT go out and watch these films that have been nominated: do not fund the films seeking the downfall of this great country.
Case in point: Harvey Weinstein (right) has announced, in his own words on the Howard Stern show, his next picture with Meryl Streep (left) called the Senator's Wife about the National Rifle Association, is going to "wish they (NRA) weren't alive after I'm done with them." He adds, "It's going to be like crash and burn. I never want to have a gun. I don't think we need guns in this country, and I hate it. I think the NRA is a disaster area." Which is funny, because I thought Chicago and Detroit were the disaster areas. Supposedly, the film will be like Mr Smith Goes to Washington (the Frank Capra classic with Jimmy Stewart) but will focus on Streep and how the NRA has used its influence to derail the latest anti-gun laws. The funny-thing about movies though, Mr. Weinstein, is that people actually have to go see them to be influenced by them; people aren't nearly as dumb as he thinks us to be, and it's likely it won't even have a wide-opening.
I am going to see Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit tonight: because they were leaving my theater immediately, I went and saw The Book Thief (EXCELLENT!), Grudge Match (surprisingly good and conservative!) and Inside Llewyn Davis (the Coen Brothers, very anti-communist/socialist). I will go and see these films I am so far behind in seeing, but please, do NOT go and financially support them yourself.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Mustaches & Marriages: Watson in Sherlock & Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows



Martin Freeman stars as John Watson in Sherlock. There has been quite a bit of fuss made over Freeman's Watson growing a mustache in the two-year interlude from Sherlock's (Cumberbatch) suicide to when Sherlock produces himself again for Watson during a dinner; Holmes makes fun of the mustache and Watson punches him. This really tells us everything we need to understand why Watson grew the mustache: his intellectual appetites could no longer be served with his adventures with Holmes, so he has resorted to the regular sort of appetites, those provided by food and marriage. How can we deduce this? Hair usually symbolizes the thoughts--because hair grows on the head, where our thoughts are formulated, so however the hair looks, reveals what kind of thoughts that character has or how thoughts are formed by that character--so for the hair to be "transplanted" from Watson's head to his mouth, rather dramatically--because no one thinks he looks good with it, so it's not a matter of aesthetics--suggests that what was once the "intellectual pursuits" for Watson are, since Sherlock's death, "normal pursuits" of the appetites. In the picture below, we contrast this with Jude Law's portrayal of Watson.
I don't watch television generally speaking, in spite of its massive impact upon popular culture, I really just don't have the time; even I, however, have been bombarded with the international frenzy over the "return" of Benedict Cumberbatch's Holmes in the BBC production of Sherlock (available through Netflix as my "Cumber-struck" mother keeps reminding me). The season 3 of Sherlock has not aired on this side of the pond, so, if you don't want to know what happens, eek, I probably spilt all the beans in the caption above, but you should probably stop reading; for the rest of you, there are two matters of two Watsons requiring our attention: the mustache and the marriage,...
In comparison to Freeman's Watson, Jude Law's Dr. Watson (above) in the Guy Ritchie series of Sherlock Holmes also starring Robert Downey Jr., has sported a mustache from the beginning; meaning,...? This John Watson fully intends to indulge in both the intellectual adventures he shares with Holmes as well as the comforts enjoyed in the state of matrimony, and the betting at the gambling table (Watson's an energetic man, as Holmes' describes him when he first meets Mary at dinner in Sherlock Holmes). We were introduced to Mary Morstan in 2009 in Sherlock Holmes, and they marry in Sherlock Holmes A Game Of Shadows. Even while Watson insists he is finished with Holmes' adventures, he gets sucked in for one last time because Moriarty has targeted him and Mary. In the image above, we have the perfect portrait of Law's Watson: a man of all the appetites. He enjoys a good fight (the bruises and disshelved appearance), the lingering smells of alcohol from his drinking binge and hangover, and the woman at his side (please note, that Mary's veil is not down covering her face: the bride's veil traditionally symbolized the bride's virginity and the lifting of the veil was the foreshadowing of the breaking of the hymen during the consummation; since Mary's veil is all ready lifted, Watson has all ready "known her" which is substantiated by them having lived together, which would not have happened during Victorian times (when this Sherlock Holmes takes place); so using wardrobe and tradition to make a non-traditional statement is important because of what we are going to discuss in just a moment below.
Hopefully, you have read the captions in the pictures above; if you haven't, please do so. Now, we have explored Watson's mustache, why does Holmes NOT have a mustache (Downey's Holmes, above, clearly has more than a 5 o'clock shadow because of the night's adventure, but this isn't typical of Holmes, although we will discuss this below)? Holmes is the intellectual purist: he lives in his head, and that's where his ravenous appetites also live, in the realm of the mental, creating something of a vicious cycle: Holmes wants only intelligent food to keep himself nourished, but being nourished on the intellect alone, he has no taste for the comforts of "normalcy" which helps Watson keep his feet on the ground and his sanity (now, this would be an excellent place to mention in the original stories the occasional use of drugs by Holmes, which were legal during this time, and used when he lacked a stimulating case; as Holmes' "only vice," rather than visiting brothels or indulging in food/drink, even gambling like Dr. Edward Fitzgerald (Robbie Coltrane) in the UK TV series Cracker, the use of drugs to stimulate Holmes' mind when there wasn't a stimulating case for him to be working on verifies the quality and quantity of nourishing intellectualism Holmes' required for functioning). So, Holmes doesn't have a moustache because all his hair is on his head, or, in other words, Holmes doesn't have a moustache because all his appetites are in his head.

Why does Robert Downey Jr.'s Sherlock have a 5 o'clock shadow at Watson's marriage? Because of the usual interpretation of a man (in a work of art, not in daily life, my dear gentlemen) as being "barbaric" because the ancient Roman men always were clean-shaven, whereas the barbarians on the frontier grew their facial hair (I think some of the gypsies and anarchists also have facial hair). Why should the film makers want us to think of Holmes as being "barbaric?" Because of two other men who have facial hair in the film, Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris) and his lead henchman Colonel Moran (Paul Anderson). Why should the audience link Moran and Moriarty to Holmes at all (please remember, it's right after the Watson wedding that Moran tells Holmes Moriarty wants to meet with him that day)? Because, we can deduce, Holmes not getting married and begetting "little Holmeses" is as destructive for society as the barbaric Moriarty-Moran planning World War I for the sake of money. Which leads us to the really really really really important point all this is leading up to,....
Both Sherlock and Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows are supporting traditional marriage. As shocking as this is in today's society, there is not only the supporting of a man and a woman getting married, but of two men being friends and not having sex with each other. Both the traditional values of marriage (as opposed to just living together) and marriage between a man and a woman (not man and man, not woman and woman, not man and women) have been advanced. Further, the friendship of Watson and Holmes is upheld as both platonic--rather than sexual--and necessary to both of them for their happiness (which probably really upset feminists who hate "male bonding" and gay activists who insist that "everyone is gay").
Why is this important?
Art works for everyone, for any political agenda, for keeping or undermining any social injustice, for keeping norms or destroying them; these popular shows demonstrate that traditional values are still being supported by contemporary art intentionally because it would be easy to leave details or narrative developments like these out of the plot (even if individual actors/film makers support something non-traditional, they are just one small building block in the enormous film/television production and therefore can be dismissed outside of their personal appearances or politics) and these are the values being transmitted to the audiences when these shows are watched. Art has an enormous influence on life and people's perceptions of what is right and wrong, so we can hope that this is a good sign and take comfort in watching these programs.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
Claude Ravache in Sherlock Holmes a Game Of Shadows, the leader of the anarchists who agree to do Moriarty's dirty work. Claude enjoys his last meal before killing himself so this scene provides excellent opportunity to demonstrate my theory. Claude has a mustache and rather overgrown sideburns, so we could say he has "two appetites" since he has two areas of facial hair rather than big sideburns or a mustache. We see him thoroughly enjoying his meal and wine, so love of food is a legitimate appetite, but what do the sideburns symbolize? Probably his political aspirations which led him to make the greedy deal with Moriarty that now entails his suicide. What about the "wife and child" Claude mentions? An argument could be posed that had he not had a "hunger" for the wedded state, he wouldn't have to commit suicide because then Moriarty wouldn't have means of controlling Claude. I have two responses to that: first, if even an anarchist is getting married, that implies that marriage is a very natural state in which to be (accentuating the argument above regarding Holmes having the 5 o'clock shadow--remember, this film is called A Game Of Shadows, and part of the "game" is the word play on "shadows," including Holmes' facial hair--is a sign of his barbarism for not getting married because even anarchists get married even extreme anarchists (that was the reason Sim and her brother Renee left, Claude had become extreme).  Anarchists work against structured society, against the rules and norms, so that even an extreme anarchist is married proves the film validates traditional marriage. Secondly, if Claude were not married, Moriarty would find an alternative means of controlling Claude to get what he wants so I don't think the interpretation of the sideburn hair symbolizing the married state for this character is a legitimate interpretation. So Claude's appetites are such that he is willing to deal with the devil for what might be the realization of his political dreams, through committing suicide and the bomb that will kill countless people. Please remember, both Moran and Moriarty have full beards, opposed to Claude's moustache and sideburns.