Friday, September 4, 2015

3 Blondes: Transporter Refueled & Robbery

This is the first of the Transporter films I have seen, and it had great action, good car stunts and Ed Skrein who plays the Transporter Frank Martin Jr is well-cast and does a good job, in both his lines and action sequences; Ray Stevenson (Thor & Divergent) is most likeable as Frank Jr's father, Frank Sr. The poster is interesting for two reasons: first, the action sequence taking place "within" Frank Jr reveals that the action of racing and "being" the Transporter is what "being" Frank Jr is all about. The second feature is his partially turned face, giving us just over half a profile view, suggesting that there is a part of him we won't see in the film, but that he keeps hidden. 
"What's mine is mine,... and what's yours is mine," How would you feel if someone said that to you? That's what Transporter: Refueled is saying. While they attempt to make a case for wealth re-distribution based on "social justice," with a feminist bent, the narrative accidentally reveals the problems with its own position, and that position begins with the introduction to Frank, which is also the opening scene of this trailer, when some thugs attempt to steal the famed Audi S8:
The first problem is: there is no difference between what the thugs are trying to do to steal his car, then there is with Anna and her friends robbing Karasov. The second problem is, it's due to the brilliant technology in the car and his smartphone that Frank's car isn't stolen, and that technology comes from the free market, which the film is supposedly blasting. In the opening scene of the film, we see a Toulouse-Lautrec paining, in glass in a safe box, on a street corner in the French Riviera; why? Lautrec was painting a house of prostitution, which is what that street corner is, run by an all-black gang. A group of vehicles pulls up and shoots all the black pimps and announces that it's now the white pimps who are taking over prostitution, and that's when we meet Anna. This manner of introducing yourself into a new market isn't capitalist, and it certainly isn't good business; that's how socialists run a market: end all competition, whereas with capitalism, there is lots of competition. But this is just the beginning of the film's moral dilemmas.
This is, to me, the most damaging aspect of the film: the lack of individuality which socialists always embrace (they deny it when they are pressed about it, but they always go for everyone being as similar as possible). The three blondes from the Transporter: Refueled on top, can be compared to another pro-socialist film, In Time (Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried) with a mother, wife and daughter on the bottom picture. Why do socialists not like individuality? This was explored in X-Men Days Of Future Past: individuals can be smart enough to overthrow the system, they can lead others to revolt, they demonstrate the terrible holes in socialism and why it will never work. It's not that everyone gets to be equal in socialism, it's that everyone has to be equal in socialism.
Frank Sr., Frank's father who is a retired,... "ambassador" of sorts (British spy,... who isn't capable of defending himself) is allotted only 791 Euros a month for his retirement, which he complains about. He's saved enough money to buy a boat for himself, but he believes he should be receiving more, then he goes out and buys a bottle of wine costing 900 Euros. Yes, that's right. It's the system's fault, he complains to his son, why he now has time to enjoy life, but no money to do it, and the system should be fixed. Enter Anna and her three friends who are going to fix the system the way they see fit.
When we first meet Frank Sr, he mentions that his wife, Frank Jr's mom, is dead, she was a good Catholic who was buried, but he had to get away from where they lived because it had become a cemetery to him: "Burn me up or dump me with the fishes," he tells his son, but don't bury him; why not? This is a further lack of respect for the individual, our bodies and our identities. One can argue that it's the soul which is important, not the body, and that's a viable argument on its own; when it's in the context of socialism, however, it means that we are just animals and no type of reverence should be shown to our memory because our bodies are not going to be raised again. One might argue, correctly, that Frank Sr works hard to save Maria when she's hit by a bullet, and he's genuinely upset when Gina dies; yea, sure, because socialists stick together and they believe they have the right to have feelings and possessions that others do not. Seriously. No one is as righteous as socialists, and they will never stop reminding us of that. Later, in the scene above, Frank Sr tries to make a cup of coffee using the little k-cup pods and he complains, "I need a woman around here," because socialists aren't really for women's equal rights, just when it's necessary to get feminist votes; it ends up, Frank Sr was putting the coffee pod in the juicer, not the coffee maker. 
Anna's "back story" is really important because it reveals the impoverished mind of the writers (there are several of them): Anna lived in an impoverished village, and she had to work in the factory when she was 12 years old; when she came home one day, her mother sold her for $500 dollars to Karasov her put her into prostitution, so she's going to get even with him.
What's wrong with this?
Why does the Transporter hate to be late? Do you remember Owen Shaw (Luke Evans) in Fast and Furious 6? His personal motto was "Precision," which is quite like not being late; how? It's the exact opposite of chaos theory, which means, things happen that we can't control (obviously a simplification, but acceptable for now) whereas never being late assumes that all events and occurrences can be controlled. The lack of respect for the human body and identity, clearly places the film on the side of  "Darwinism" (or what is left of it) and the idea that people are nothing but animals; unless you are a socialist, and then you practically view yourself as a god, but you're the only one, no one else. So, the idea of never being late is a terribly pretentious one because it assumes that all obstacles don't exist or won't exist and his will dominates reality.
Well, it's obviously wrong that this would happen to anyone, the problem is this happened in some third, fourth or fifth world country, but the film makers are trying to get you to believe that because it happened there, socialism and wealth redistribution should happen in first world countries like Britain and the US. This is typical of socialists: they are prostituting the people who are genuinely poor in the world--people who live in extreme poverty in reality--but offer NO SOLUTIONS to helping them, but demand that the 1% be stripped of everything they have and it be given to them, socialists, while nothing is still done about those living in extreme poverty elsewhere, so it's even more selfish, base and self-serving than those horrible 1%-ers the socialists target.
The beautiful woman in this shot, Maissa, was a prostitute and working for the black pimps when Karasova came in and shot of them up; he asked her if she wanted to work for him and she said yes, so she became his private whore (and never became very intelligent). During the film, I kept expecting that she would side with Anna and her friends at some point, but she didn't, she said firmly on the side of her sugar-daddy, which is an implication of employees. Basically, socialists view humanity in one of two camps: if you have a business, you are a vampire who sucks the blood of your hard-working employees; if you are an employee, you are virtuous beyond virtue and you should murder your boss and take over whatever he has for yourself. People like Maissa, above, are bourgeois pigs and should be killed just like the bosses and that's what happens to her. There were several close-up shots of Maissa's eyes, which had a lot of make-up on, and that was to suggest her materialism and artificiality; Anna and her friends, on the other hand, had very little make-up on. Maissa's outfit in this is interesting: the top straps across her breasts act as a standard of how low-cut the dress should be, whereas the actual hemline of the breasts is much lower, demonstrating that she's loose, whereas Anna and her friends are supposedly virtuous whores. On another note, when the four girls have put their plan into motion, they use the body of a woman who overdosed on heroine and put a necklace on her (the "dog tag" of Karasov's gang's mark) so she will be bait for their plan, and then they burn her body and two gangsters to ash. So, Anna has just treated someone else like trash (the woman who overdosed) because she had been treated like trash. There is no moral superiority in socialist/communist circles; they think they are, because all their arguments are the low-lying fruit kind, but there is no righteousness to these Machiavellian acts. On still another note, the last shot of the film leaves the viewer undecidable as to whether Anna deposits $10 million Euros into Frank Sr's and Frank Jr's accounts; does she transfer money to them? Yes, it's almost certain, that will probably come out in the next film, and she wants to see him again, even if he's going to be angry with her. She is buying friendship the way men have bought sex from her.
The last point I will make about this is the "slippery slope" of lawfulness and morality that occurs when one adopts this line of thinking. Before Frank Sr. is kidnapped the second time, he accuses Frank Jr. of not "doing the right thing" in helping the girls rob a Russian mob boss. When did "doing the right thing" become not following the law? The mob boss is a mob boss because he doesn't follow the law, so in order to bring justice to the mob boss, you break the law like he does? This is an imperative point because heroes like Batman (Christian Bale) and Superman (Henry Cavill) won't kill people who are bad (or at least try not to) because order and law must be preserved. With socialism, there is an automatic break-down of law for "wealth re-distribution" to take place, which leads us to the last point I'm going to make.
Even though her friends die, we see Anna depositing millions into the accounts of their family members so they have the funds the other girls would have had if they had lived: sure, that money is going to change their lives for ever, but it's also going to make them a target for people just like these film makers who want to take that money and give it to other people they decide are "more deserving," because that's what socialists do. Further, it demonstrates that Anna isn't really interested in helping someone--think of how many people all those millions would help?--because she's keeping her money all to herself; so it's okay to take what belongs to someone else when they have wronged you, but don't you dare take money that belongs to a socialist and re-distribute it to others.
The "rules" of using Frank Martin as a Transporter are designed, like never being late, to insure he's in control of everything all of the time. As in game theory, rules are designed to benefit the one making the rules, in this case, Frank Martin, and he doesn't allow for any play, that is, anything creative or unexpected, because that's a sign of intelligence (like when Frank drives his car through the airport, that's intelligence in him and what he's doing, but he doesn't allow for it in others). 
What about the poison the girls supposedly gave to Frank Sr? The girls threaten Frank Jr that, if he doesn't help them finish their plan, their dad will die from poison he drank mixed in with his beer, but it ends up that the poison was actually water, they just had to threaten Frank Jr somehow. That's an important slip, because that's basically what all socialists are doing: they are threatening us that capitalism is a poison and society is going to die if we don't do what they want us to do, which is to switch to a socialist/communist society, but as the film reveals, it's all a lie, because that's what they do to get their way.
The purpose of their thefts is to access the fingerprints of the bosses, then use their fingerprints to open their checking accounts and rob them. Why is this important? This is the kind of thing the government wants to do. Socialist governments don't believe you have any individuality (again) and your fingerprints are just something to be stolen and manipulated. Additionally from this scene is that the gas used to make everyone pass out could have been released and then the girls go into the club, instead, like in The Collection, we get a look at the decadence taking place within the club that the girls are participating in as two of them make out with each other. 
In conclusion, Transporter: Refueled had great action, good acting and great car stunts, it just has the typical moral black holes that all socialist theory suffers from, even though the narrative might have been a convincing one had the writers not introduced their half-thought out, greedy and self-serving political agendas. By the way, an Audi S8 starts at $115,000.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner