Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Sherlock Extended Trailer, John Wick 2 & Misc News

Common, on the left, has been cast as the main villain for John Wick 2 which will see the same director return. As well as Reeves returning, it's being said that Ian McShane is also returning. 
I am sorry: we have had a death in the family, and there has been lots to do. If you will, please pray for the repose of the soul of Peggy Bass, and the consolation of her family. I am working on getting The Last Witch Hunter up, and then I am getting up Bridge Of Spies. An extended trailer for the Victorian Christmas special of Sherlock has been released and there is some interesting new footage:
The two films opening this weekend are Our Brand Is Crisis, with Sandra Bullock, and Scouts Guide To the Zombie Apocalypse, which looks okay. At my theater, Burnt, with Bradley Cooper is opening--it opened nationwide last week, but my theater showed that Steve Jobs film instead, so, since it did so bad, they are canning it and opening Burnt--so I am going to see that. For my dear readers in the UK, you get to see Spectre this weekend, and aren't you lucky? This gives the rest of us one more week to re-watch Skyfall; why would we want to do that? Well, the conversation Q and Bond have in the British museum is important, and I think it will jog our memory about a few things. Also, in Spectre, is the scene when Bond has tracked down Mr. White (who could re-define the term "grungy" with his appearance) and Bond wants to know, "Where is he?" and White says, "He's everywhere!" echoing, in a strange, twisted way, what happened in Quantum Of Solace: Bond and M (Judi Dench) interrogated White and White said, "To begin with, we have people everywhere. Isn't that right, Mitchell?" and M's bodyguard fires a shot at her and helps White escape. Now, I have read one review of Spectre, so if you would like to know what I think of it, WHICH CONTAINS SPOILERS, keep reading below the poster; if you don't, then stop now.
Elizabeth Banks is back to direct Pitch Perfect 3; Anna Kendrick and Rebel Wilson have all ready signed their contracts and will be back as well. 
IF you are still reading, it must be because you are wanting to know what has been said in reviews and you don't mind a spoiler. The reviewer I read, was most likely liberal, because you can tell he has no value on the traditional morality of personal privacy or governments spying on their citizens. This reviewer said it was a bad film, which is like me saying a socialist film is bad because it doesn't reflect my moral standing as a conservative. I have read the plot of Spectre and it seems perfectly conservative and traditional, which  I obviously appreciate. In the film, SPECTRE is after control over all the information on everyone in the world, "It's the future," one might say, and people like myself who don't believe in the government controlling people like animals on a farm "are the past." The reviewer I read said that, to believe that your information is secure after Wikileaks and Facebook, etc., is to be naive, therefore, he dissed the entire film as being ridiculous. Well, maybe, but that doesn't mean the government is, or has the right, to create a massive database of all the information pertaining to every single person, as one of the most corrupt members of Congress, Representative Maxine Waters described Barack Obama creating in the US Federal government. I am confident the film will be SPECTACULAR and one of the best Bond films ever made.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Sherlock Christmas Special: Title, Air Date & Images!

They look rather spiffy, don't they?
The singular Sherlock episode for fans of the Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman regular interlude special is titled, The Abominable Bride. Along with several new images, the air date has also been released and it's an awesome date if ever there was one,...
The show will air on January 1, 2016 for UK fans on the BBC and, for us blokes here in the States,.. IT WILL ALSO AIR ON JANUARY 1, 2016!!! We don't have to be bloody behind this time! This first simultaneous debut is a first for the series, which will be available on PBS.
In some terribly depressing news, the great Maureen O'Hara has passed away at the age of 95. The Irish actress was best known for her roles opposite American actor John Wayne, perhaps the only woman with enough strength, intelligence and will to stand up to such a larger-than life man in his own right. The beloved actress passed away quietly in her sleep, surrounded by her family and friends. Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon her. May she rest in peace. Amen.
A famous moment for O'Hara from The Quiet Man; she was also in such acclaimed films as Miracle On 34th Street, How Green Was My Valley, Hitchcock's Jamaica Inn (one of her very first films), The Hunchback Of Notre Dame, The Parent Trap and at least a dozen other films.
Will be finished with the post for The Last Witch Hunter today.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Friday, October 23, 2015

Random Thoughts Round-Up: The Last Witch Hunter, Spectre Clips, JJ Abrams & Kylo Ren

I have got to tell you, this was a well-conceived film and we all ready know they are making a sequel (there is, however, no post-credits scene). 
I was expecting Vin Diesel's newest film The Last Witch Hunter would be good with about a "B" rating; after seeing it today,... I would give it an "A-": it's not The Avengers, or Skyfall, or like an "A+" film, but it had good solid pacing, well-placed special effects that were great and good characters. Diesel and Michael Caine worked well off one another and the story line didn't try to be something that it wasn't: it's an action film and that's what we got, with some good characters to boot. Here is the last trailer for it (I haven't had much chance to talk about it) with Ciara's rendition of Paint It, Black by the Rolling Stones:
Even though I don't particularly like Elijah Wood, when you see the film, it's obvious that he was well-cast for the role. Rose Leslie's character makes an important feminist statement against feminism and false femininity that was rather a challenge for liberal women in today's world. Yea, there is quite a bit for us to discuss with this, but, there are a few odds and ends that I just want to throw out. So, Regarding the discussion we had on JJ Abrams being or not being a socialist, there is an important point to consider for that,...
Annabelle 2 is being made and, fortunately, it will be the same writer who did the first film.
It might not seem like a big deal for someone to "not get to make movies anymore": some people may find it's more important for someone like Abrams to take a stand and sacrifice his career so as not to be seen as a liberal stooge; I understand this position thoroughly. However, there is something more serious to consider, and that is warfare. When a enemy seeks to take over a people, it will destroy its art, in all forms, because that is the people's identity and collective conscious, it's what brings them together and unites them (consider how the English treated the Scots, Irish and Welsh in forging the UK). Liberals are doing this in Hollywood: icons like The Lone Ranger and Peter Pan have been turned into symbols of meaning they have not always had, and that's brainwashing and indoctrination. When someone like Abrams directs Star Wars and Star Trek, he's not just preserving those films and the history which gave birth to them, but reminding us of who we are and why. Without these, ties to bind us, we don't have a voice, a rally point, an ideal against which to measure ourselves, our actions or our values. Abrams is in an important position and he needs to stay there. On another note,...
The first clip of Spectre that has been released: I didn't finish my thoughts. We know that M (Ralph Fiennes) gets mad at Bond for acting without authority in Mexico City and supposedly fires him; I think this is a farce to protect Bond. M knows what kind of man Bond is, and knows that Bond was chasing something important; if he keeps Bond close to the office, he knows Bond won't be able to do what he needs to do, so he's letting Bond loose intentionally so Bond can do what needs to be done. Here is another clip which has been released (is it just my computer? I'm having a hard time understanding what they are saying):
She's not up against a rock and a hard spot, she's up against a mirror, so she's reflecting, and so is Bond. Each of them knows exactly what they are doing in this moment and by the way her hair is styled--all of it on her left side--she is thinking one way and one way only; her hair is also down, as opposed to up and in a bun as it was at the funeral, so even though Bond mentions her "instincts," it's really more of pre-meditated and calculated risk BOTH have decided to take in this scene. Because Bond says his name in this scene, that means he is also "living up to" his name, this is WHO James Bond is, this is WHAT he does and this is HOW he does it.
Now, I think it would be a good idea for us to watch Skyfall again before November 6 (next weekend for you lucky Brits!) because I think--especially between Bond and Q--there are going to be references made and it will be fresh in our mind. For example, the gun Q gives Bond in the art museum which can only be activated with his palm print so the killing becomes a "personal statement." If you have the time, I think it would be time well-invested.
"It was this or the priesthood," and, if you will recall from Skyfall, we know that, following the death of his parents, Bond spent several days in a priest hole before coming out. I think it's safe to assume that this clip below follows the dinner conversation the two above have:
Ouch!
Oh! Ah!
No! Oh, that's going to hurt tomorrow! Bond doesn't get it kicked out of him very often, but this looks rather brutal. I think this brutal fight scene is going to be about whatever was brought up during that conversation: Dave Bautista's character isn't a villain, neither is Obermann (Christoph Waltz), but both are a part of Bond which he has to overcome within himself in order to go onto the next adventure, so there is something that will be "fighting" within Bond during the dinner conversation he has with Swann and Bautista's character is the materialization of that inner-conflict. Speaking of inner-conflict, there is a bit of Star Wars news: if you like spoilers and knowing what will happen, or thinking you know what will happen, then keep reading; if you don't like knowing what will happen, just stop reading now, there is nothing else in this post that you need info on; I am working on The Last Witch Hunter and will get it up asap (I also wanted to see Burnt this weekend with Bradley Cooper, but it's not opening in my city this weekend; pooh).
This is the main poster for the film, and fans have pointed out that neither Driver nor Mark Hamill appear anywhere on the poster,... unless they do. Hamill is listed second in the credits, and what he's not appearing on the poster for the most important film of the decade? The hooded figure in the upper-left corner with the shiny silver face is being rumored to be Hamill as Kylo Ren ("Ren" is an order of Knights, and a title, "Kylo" is the singular name of the character) but there is also the metallic figure in the lower-center, between the "T" and "R" of  "STAR" and flanked by two storm troopers. That could be Driver as Kylo Ren, and the larger hooded figure in the corner could be Hamill as Luke Skywalker gone rogue. On a different note, with the anti-white propaganda boycott someone dumb is trying to launch, remember, to who are socialists trying to appeal? Women and minorities, specifically, black minorities, so with Rey and Finn having such large images, and basically being the main characters, this is an appeal to them to fight against socialism rather than get sucked into it for their own good as well as that of the world.  
Okay, if you are still reading, then you want to hear this theory, so here it is: many are speculating, and I think there is legitimate cause to, that Kylo Ren, who has been identified as THE villain of the Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens film, is actually Luke Skywalker. For one, fans have pointed out, we haven't seen Luke in any of the trailers (we think we have seen his hand, but it's a mechanical hand, as in, Darth Vader mechanical, unlike the hand he received that looked human and normal; did he upgrade or what, if that is Luke in that part of the trailer); we also haven't seen any images of Luke in spite of seeing images of the other humans; besides like one image, we haven't seen Adam Driver as Kylo Ren,... or have we? Now, there are two theories about the film: first, that Luke went into self-exile to keep himself from unduly influencing events in the universe and he comes back when he's needed, and he's needed because Han's and Leia's son, played by Driver, has resurrected the Nazis, uh, I mean, First Order, and has to be stopped; this new theory would be something like, Luke has overestimated his ability to control the Force and has decided he knows what is best for the universe and has set about, with the help of his nephew, in establishing the First Order that will govern the universe. I actually think it's highly plausible. It's also perfectly plausible that Luke is in exile, kind of like Yoda, and just meditating and doing internal battle, gathering his strength and, I don't know, listening for a disturbance in the Force? There it is. I have my ticket for the Friday, December 18 show in IMAX 3D and I can't wait!!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

SPECTRE: First Clip

The first clip for the Bond film has been released and it has Moriarty in it! Hooray!
Just a quick note: M (Fiennes) interprets what Denbigh (Andrew Scott) is saying, closing down the 00 program is going to be a bad idea; then Denbigh interprets M calling him a cocky little bastard as a compliment then M tells him his interpretation is incorrect. Now, when interpretation, and false and accurate interpretations have been introduced into a narrative, as above, then we are meant to do interpreting as well; one interpretation, in other words, means there are more interpretations which need to be made. M being told that he is not part of the future is also what happened to Judi Dench's M in Skyfall (if you will recall the conversation about the painting of the ship in the museum between Q and Bond). Since we don't have much of a context for this clip, I don't think we should waste time peering too deeply for the moment, however, it IS an invitation to peer,..
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

JJ Abrams, Star Wars VII, Socialism, Communism & Anti-White Propaganda

Tickets have gone on sale and have crashed every site carrying them, including many theater sites that will be showing the film; that seems so '90s, doesn't it? Anyway, after all the showings for the first day and midnight screenings are sold out for the IMAX 3D (which I have every intention of taking advantage of) I'm going to be seeing it Friday, at the noon showing. Here is the last trailer that has been released and it's nearly all new footage:
This is a good time to discuss something which greatly upset my mom, who is a big JJ Abrams fan, and that is, he hosted a fundraising dinner for Obama and Obama gave a passionate speech against guns and got like $700,000 during the dinner before racing off to get handouts from some other celebrities. To begin with, anyone who knows anything about how Hollywood works knows that in order to work, you have to belong to the guild: the Directors' guild, the Screenwriters' Guild, the Actors' Guild, the Prop Buyer's Guild, the Coffee Cup Runners' Guild, etc., and each of these guilds are a union; if you don't belong to the union in Hollywood, you don't work, and if you don't do what the guild tells you to do, when they tell you to do it, they kick you out and no one will take you in. For years, Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland dictated who could belong and who couldn't belong, as well as who would be eligible to get work and who wouldn't, and things haven't changed much. To summarize: I have a difficult time driving down the road and seeing someone with a Bernie Sanders 2016 sticker on their car and not pulling out a bazooka and blowing them to bits before proceeding on with my day; I can't imagine what it must be like to be a conservative in Hollywood and have to be around so many willfully ignorant liberals who can basically destroy your entire career just because you weren't as enthusiastic about Obamacare as they thought you should be (which, you may recall, is something that happens in 1984). Given the ridiculous atmosphere of Hollywood, JJ Abrams' incredible success as a producer, director and writer, and that his films obviously tend to NOT be liberal, he was probably "made an offer he couldn't refuse," in true Godfather terms, and I don't blame him one bit; I'm sure he suffered tremendously having that free-loading socialist at his house, knowing how much I suffer when I have to listen to Obama say even three words. I have two pieces of substantiating evidence for this.
So, I saw Bridge Of Spies yesterday; as you may recall, I had serious hopes for this film, but, alas, they were dashed in the opening scene. This is every bit as Constitutionally subversive as Lincoln was, because Bridge of Spies isn't about history or the Cold War, it's about illegal immigrants and today. I can't believe what a terrible film it was. I'm getting this up asap.
First of all, Abrams has done nothing but consistently and thoroughly conservative films and TV shows; that speaks volumes. Secondly, Obama only raised between seven and eight hundred thousand dollars; usually, a president wouldn't even bother to go to a fundraiser like that without being guaranteed of an easy five million for the night, so this is a paltry, pitiful amount, which means that what people donated, they were forced to, and did not give willingly. As the host of the party, Abrams would have been expected to have made at least a one million dollar contribution to kick start the night, and the total sum didn't come close to that, so, along with both these pieces of evidence, and the fact that Abrams has based the First Order on the Nazis who escaped into South America, no, I do not buy one iota that Abrams supports Obama in any way, shape or form. Now, what about the "anti-white propaganda" that some anonymous person on Twitter has started spewing?
You may recall that, when the first trailer came out, and audiences saw John Boyega take off the Storm Trooper helmet, the black community was screaming the film was racist because there was a black man serving the First Order. Well, we know the First Order is a metaphor of the Nazis, because Abrams told us so, and there are plenty of blacks serving the Nazis today, if you don't believe me, check out news coverage for Ferguson and Baltimore. 
Are white people going to start acting like the criminal rappers in Straight Otta Compton who claim NWA (No Whites Allowed)? No, we aren't, because we know what real racism is, we know that while it does exist, such as in Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained when Leonardo DiCaprio's character calls for blacks to kill all the whites, there is also a president and administration working to fuel flames that aren't really there, and it's all meant to destroy this country. No, there is no anti-white agenda in this film; it's the exact opposite, it's about how well people can get along, join a cause and fight for collective freedom.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Enola & 4th Dimension Illustrations: Crimson Peak

This may seem hypocritical of me, and if it does, it does, however, I do stand by what I am about to write. Have you ever been talking to someone and they quoted someone but tried to pass it off as their own thought? That is basically the difference between Pan, which we just saw last week and plagiarized nearly its entire film, and Crimson Peak. IF I didn't like Crimson Peak, I could make the argument that Guillermo del Toro (GDT hereafter) was copying the narratives of Notorious, The Innocents, The Shining, The Exorcist, etc., but because I like GDT, I instead say that he is "referencing the film" or quoting them, employing Reader Response theory, but never plagiarizing these other stories; Pan, because I don't like it, is a mindless copycat who doesn't have any original ideas of their own. In my defense, and to substantiate what I truly know and believe to be a legitimate position, I would like to draw your attention to the quote from William Butler Yeats at the top of this blog: "Supreme art is a traditional statement of certain heroic and religious truth, passed on from age to age, modified by individual genius, but never abandoned." Pan did not advocate heroic qualities, but cowardice and lying; it did not support the virtues traditionally held by Americans, such as intelligence and literacy, but instead, perverted heroes and classic films to its own non-traditional theories, and tried to pass it off as core American values; this is known as indoctrination. GDT, on the other hand, supports those values and morals which the Western world has upheld for more than a hundred years, and in the films and history he incorporates into the film, it's clear that he not only understands and accepts the lessons of the past, but possess the individual genius to modify works of  "supreme art" before him to remind us of how those values are still important today and a part of who we are, which is why you can either watch the film without any knowledge of any other films or the historical record and enjoy it, or have total knowledge of the horror genre and history and marvel at its incredible articulation of the modern threats facing the world today as depicted in the struggle of Edith Cushing.  
(PLEASE NOTE: I HAVE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE, HOWEVER, I STILL HAVE CONSIDERABLE COMMENTARY TO ADD TO MANY OF THE IMAGES BELOW AND WILL GET TO THAT WITHIN THE NEXT 24 HOURS, BUT I WANTED TO GET UP WHAT I HAD DONE). Great directors and film makers want to communicate with their audiences, which is why they make films: it's the art form which reaches the greatest number of people. When a director is desperate, even really desperate, for audiences to interpret their work and enter into the narrative, they "drop clues," even decoding some of the symbols and metaphors for the audience in hopes they will "take the hint" and interpret aspects of the film on their own; Guillermo del Toro (GDT hereafter) does that for us in Crimson Peak, even on a massive scale and, besides making this horror film frightening, it makes it clever and brimming over with smarts; NOTE this does have spoilers, so if you enjoy a good scare, as always, go see the film (which has received a 5-star rating) and come back later. Another note: if you have seen the film, and you notice I have missed something, be not surprised, good reader, the film is loaded with symbols and I have only seen it once. It doesn't mean that your interpretation isn't valid, just that i didn't catch it.
Now,on with the show,....
After Edith has arrived at Allerdale Hall, Lucille shows her the library and the rarer books they have collected, including one with, what she calls, a "fourth dimensional illustration": showing Edith the edge of the pages, turned slightly, they reveal some Asian erotica. There are three important cultural references which themselves act as "Fourth dimensional illustrations" to the film's narrative that GDT shows us, like Lucille showing Edith the erotica: Arthur Conan Doyle, Notorious, and Enola. Dr. Alan McMichael (Charlie Hunnam) has just set up his medical office and Edith visits him there, noticing the books on his shelves are mostly medical, and then there is also Arthur Conan Doyle among the books; why, she asks? Besides also being entertaining, the creator of Sherlock Holmes was also an Ophthalmologist like McMichael. Like Sherlock Holmes, we, too, are supposed to be looking for clues throughout the film, just as McMichael does to the real identity of Lord and Lady Sharpe. Their real identity, if we are looking, is revealed by Alfred Hitchcock.
Just as GDT introduces Sherlock Holmes into the narrative, inviting us to behave like Holmes and look for clues ourselves, the images McMichael shows Edith with ghosts is a clue that there are more ghosts than just the ones we will actually see in the film. Please take note of the slide machine in this scene: McMichael knows how to use the machine appropriately, for the advancement of knowledge and study. In the next scene, we will see Edith typing on a typewriter, not to make her manuscript look more professional, rather, to hide her feminine writing, and that is an abuse of the machine (more on this discussion with Thomas and his mining machine and Lucille and her piano below). Hair is an important symbol is this film, for the moment, please note that McMichael and Edith have the same, light-colored hair, as Thomas and Lucille have the same dark-colored hair. What about Edith's gowns, with those tight sleeves and billowing shoulders as the one above? Arms symbolize strength whereas shoulders indicate the burdens we bear. Beginning on the night of her mother's death, Edith carries a burden of not having a mother; in the scene above, she still carries that burden, but it's multiplied with the dire warning about Crimson Peak, which is why she has the opulent shoulders on her outfits, they express what Edith will not discuss with anyone. Her tight sleeves, however, reveal how small and lacking muscle she is, but it also hides the true strength she does posses to defend herself.  
In 1946, Alfred Hitchcock released Notorious starring Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman and Claude Rains. The film's plot involves Bergman being sent by US government agent Grant to infiltrate his Nazi father's group of friends led by Rains who are all still active in trying to bring down the US (which is one of the famous, opening lines of all films, Bergman's father ranting about "Next time" the Nazis will win). What on earth does this have to do with Crimson Peak?
Everything.
This is the second most important image of the film (even though it's not actually in the film). The wings we see on McMichael invokes him to be like the archangel Michael, whose name in Hebrew means, "Who can compare to God?" Towards the end of the film, after Edith discovers Thomas and Lucille's incest, and Edith falls backwards, over the stair railway, McMichael arrives at the house, rather like Dick Hallorunn in The Shining (which GDT wants to invoke). Even Lucille says it's a miracle that he has arrived because Edith has broken her leg and McMichael has to set it (Lucille obviously doesn't want McMichael there, however, she's putting on a front). McMichael's character, then, is a symbol of the Hand of God or even the Wrath of God (please note his fists in a clenched, fighting position in this poster). Lucille tells Edith how Mr. Sharpe snapped the leg of their mother in two and Lucille nursed her back to health; McMichael, we know, set Edith's leg so she could get out of the house. Legs symbolize our standing in society, and with Mrs. Sharpe's leg broken, that means that, in the socialist-style household of the Sharpes' which feminists think is a safe haven for women, women are actually put down and abused, whereas women are given a new standing when they trust in God. McMichael, in setting Edith's leg, demonstrates that he has forgiven her of choosing Thomas over himself, and wants her to be truly free and truly independent, an argument which most feminists can't stomach in the modern world. 
GDT's employment of two aspects of Hitchcock's film are meant to invoke Notorious in the minds of audience members (Reader Response Theory): Edith's tea being poisoned and the key Edith takes from Lucille's key ring that has Enola's name on it, then puts it back on the ring. Both of these events happen in Notorious, and Bergman's character having the stolen key to the basement wine cellar, where they discover the Nazis have been transporting uranium ore to make a bomb, then being poisoned to get rid of her, is meant to align both Lucille and Thomas with, yes, you guess it: the Nazis. BUT, there is another, even more significant clue of who Lord and Lady Sharpe really are, and that is Enola.
This is the first shot we see of Lady Lucille Sharpe (Jessica Chastain) as she plays the piano at a party. There are three important details about her costume: first, it's red, second, the opening at the back of the dress, and thirdly, the sleeves which cover her hands. First, we know that the color red symbolizes blood: either a person loves someone enough to spill their own (red) blood for love of that person, or someone hates someone enough to spill that person's (red) blood to appease their own wrath and anger against them. We know that Lucille and Thomas symbolize socialism because they manage to make Edith completely dependent upon them with no resources of Edith's own to take care of herself. Red is also the international color of socialism (socialists like to think it's because they are angry with the established business owners and upper-classes, but it's really because of their commitment to killing anyone who stands in their way). This red dress, then, connects Lucille to Crimson Peak but the back of the dress also reveals something Lucille would rather keep hidden: her sexuality. The gaping folds of the cloth resemble a vagina, and just as one would never expose one's sexual organs in public, so one would never commit incest (unless one were insane). The sleeves of Lucille's dress are also interesting: when she's done playing the piano in this scene, she turns the cuffs down to cover her hands again. Hands usually symbolize our nobility, our word of honor because we use a handshake to assure others that we are going to stick by our word; when a person has "dirty hands" or hands they cover, it usually indicates they have done a "dirty deed," or something dishonorable they don't want anyone to discover, like Lucille prostituting her brother-lover to rich young women. (Notes on Lucille playing the piano are below).
The moment (most) Americans hear the name "Enola," there is one and only one Enola they think of: the Enola Gay, the B-29 airplane which dropped the "Little Boy" atomic bomb on Hiroshima and helped to finally end World War II (after Nagasaki as well). The plane was named after the pilot's mother. Why on earth should we connect the World War II bomber plane with the ghost of a Victorian horror film? Because, like the trunk marked E.S. that is locked away in the basement and forbidden, so is the real history of World War II and what we were fighting for and against and why the Allies won. Like the erotica Lucille shows to Edith, these three clues--Arthur Conan Doyle, Notorious and Enola--are prompts to investigate what is really going on beneath the surface, just like Edith taking the iron bar and mixing up the blood red liquid in the basement vat that yields a skeleton. Now, we are in a position to discuss the ghosts.
The house. Allerdale Hall is itself an institution, as old as it is and as many souls have come and gone from beneath its roof. Think of the house in Freudian terms: the attic as the super-ego, the main floors as the ego and the basement as the id. The staircase, then, along with the elevator (discussed in more details below) are the means of consciously and unconsciously moving between those levels or the mind, heart and soul. When characters ascend the stairs, they are entering a higher-level or state of consciousness; when they descend, they are going deeper into the unconscious or sub-conscious, the lower, more animal self and appetites, the part of us we repress and don't want anyone to know about. "Never go below this level," Thomas tells Edith, because it's dangerous, and the house is sinking, i.e., the whole house is becoming base and animalistic. Later in the film, when Lucille pushes Edith over the banister and she falls to the main level, landing back first on the banister and breaking her leg as McMichael knocks anxiously on the door, the sudden drop from a higher level (where she saw Thomas and Lucille sexually active with one another) is Edith's ability to correlate violently the two levels: the higher level that has suddenly realized what is really going on, and the appearance (the main level) of them being siblings. 
"Ghosts are real, this much I know," the first sentence of the film opens, and we learn that Edith's mother has just passed away from "black cholera," and, therefore, Edith's father wanted a closed casket; (PLEASE NOTE: when Edith takes her manuscript to be considered for publication, she tells her critic that the ghost doesn't make it a horror story, the "ghost is a metaphor for the past," which is GDT telling us, the audience, that the ghosts in the film are also metaphors for the past, and we have to figure out which part of the past they represent); then Mrs. Cushing came to see Edith the night of her burial, and told her, "Beware the Crimson Peak." Now, before we get to the obvious question of why didn't Mrs. Cushing say, "Beware Allerdale Hall," "Beware Thomas Sharpe," "Beware the smoldering, dark looks of romantic barons," etc., THE most important detail in understanding her mother's death is "black cholera," because, quite frankly, it should never have happened.
This is imperative: even as Edith mourns her mother's death, and not getting to say good-bye, or have a last kiss farewell, Edith is terrified by her mother's ghost (and she does know it is her mother). Why? Distress over what the black cholera has done to her mother, and the foreboding her mother gives her: is her mother cursing her or protecting her? The ghost coming down the hallway, as one of the women's ghost crawls up out of the floor at Allerdale Hall, signifies a connection, because hallways connect different parts of a house. Edith, in this scene, is too young to make any "connections," and even when she has arrived at Allerdale, she doesn't make the connection to her mother's ghost until Thomas casually mentions the coming winter and snow. 
"Black cholera," the culprit which killed Mrs. Cushing, is caused by sewage-contaminated drinking water, a regrettable disease which effected more people in poorer, rural communities where safety was not considered, rather than the wealthy, upper-classes of cities like Buffalo where the Cushings reside. "Black cholera" is so named because the symptoms are more misleading, but just as violent as regular cholera, however, the body turns black as the person dies, which is why, as in the image above, Mrs. Cushing appears to little Edith as a black ghost. Why is this detail important? Because Mrs. Cushing must have gotten the painful disease from contaminated water; where else is there contaminated water in the film? Crimson Peak, when, as Thomas explains to Edith, the water runs red because of the clay, but then it clears. So, let's talk about the role of water in the film.
One of the last shots of the film, it's Lucille's ghost, still playing the piano, and she's as black as Mrs. Cushing's ghost who died of black cholera; Thomas, in contrast, is much paler; so why the difference? Lucille has black cholera of the soul, whereas Thomas used his free will to cure himself of his terrible impulses to use others. The first scene of Lucille and the last scene of Lucille is her at the piano; why? Lucille plays everyone just as she plays the piano, knowing what to say in order to hit the right notes, so to speak, as when Thomas asks her why they can't stop and if they have to go through with killing Edith. Thomas, likewise, treats everyone like a toy, something with which to amuse himself (which is probably how he and Lucille started messing around with each other) but also his machine is a mining machine, so he's "mining" the women for all they are worth, literally. Earlier, when Edith was meeting Thomas for the first time, she was typing her manuscript on a typewriter instead of using the gold pen her father had given her because she didn't want her feminine writing to give her away, which was an abuse of the typewriter the way Lucille abuses the piano and Thomas abuses the mining machine. There are many interpretations possible for this, however, I would like to suggest that the reason Edith signs her name on the asset papers, then uses the gold pen to stab Lucille in the shoulder, is because Edith realizes that she herself is more than her assets, 
Water.
Water, fog and snow.
All three of the forms water takes are in the film because, among other things (such as baptism, sex, The Flood, cleansing, etc.) water also symbolizes--when present in two or more forms, the process of consciousness. "Water" in liquid form (ponds, streams, running water, rain, bath tubs, etc) symbolizes the first stage of reflection upon something because you can look at the surface and see yourself (like Narcissus). Fog, vapor, clouds, dew, hoarfrost, etc., symbolizes the second stage of consciousness, because you have entered into a deeper state where the boundaries between yourself (which you clearly saw in the first stage of the watery reflection) and something or someone else, have become blurred, mixed or ambiguous.
Snow, the final state, is when the thoughts have become solidified, the person knows what they think about something, they aren't confused (like the fog) anymore, they have arrived at their conclusion; this doesn't mean they are all right and everything is okay, there is still healing to achieve but at least the lesson the character was intended to learn has been learned, understood and made a part of the character's innermost being, which is why we are now in a position to address Mrs. Cushing's warning to her daughter, "Beware the Crimson Peak."
The obvies: Why didn't Mrs. Cushing provide a more straight-forward warning to her daughter that would have prevented her from going to Allerdale Hall to begin with? Because Edith had to go to Allerdale Hall. The warning wasn't to prevent Edith from going, it was to help her protect herself once she got there. What am I talking about? The opening scene of the film (below). A parent does their child a great disservice when they don't teach them how to defend themselves, and Mrs. Cushing, from the death she just experienced (I'll elaborate below) knew her daughter would face a similar trial and so came to strengthen her daughter for the lesson she would have to learn. Remember what Edith's father said to Thomas Sharpe when Thomas was trying to get the men to invest in the clay mine? All of our hands have built something, but you have the softest hands I have ever touched. When we first see Edith as the film opens, she is looking at her blood-stained hands, because she has protected what her father (a symbol for the Founding Fathers) has built, and being able to protect is just as important as being able to build. THAT IS WHY Edith had to go to Crimson Peak and her mother wasn't clearer so Edith would marry Thomas Sharpe and learn the lessons of socialism and wealth re-distribution for herself, because that's the only way to do it.
How does Mrs. Cushing's death by black cholera tie in with Edith's experience at Crimson Peak? Mrs. Cushing, even though the film doesn't go into this, would have had to intentionally been given the contaminated water in order for her to die, just as Edith was intentionally given the poisoned tea; no, I am not suggesting that the Sharpes killed Edith's mother, but Mrs. Cushing was murdered; why? As an older woman who has born a child, Mrs. Cushing symbolizes "the motherland," America, and the US has been forced to "drink sewage" by the liberal party; remember, "Ghosts are a metaphor of the past," and Mrs. Cushing is a metaphor of the past of the US being poisoned by liberals tainting the history of this country and its purpose. Likewise, we can say the same of Enola: the Sharpes burying her, her dead baby (symbolic of the "fruits" of the Allied victory of World War II that were destroyed by liberals who wanted the Nazis to win) mirrors the work of professors and teachers through the US who have falsely instructed and indoctrinated Americans with values that have not been traditionally our own. What about Mr. Cushing and his death?
Like most horror films, Crimson Peak is predominantly about women; that doesn't mean the men don't play important roles, but they are somewhat,... "supporting roles." Mr. Cushing, rather than being "his own character," is a mirror image of his (largely) absent wife, Mrs. Cushing. Like the ghost of his wife who gives Edith her apparition so she has writing material, so Mr. Cushing gives Edith the pen (which is, I daresay, a reminder to audience members about another Mia Wasikowska film, Stoker, a brilliantly anti-socialist film with some similar themes to Crimson Peak). As Mrs. Cushing's death is caused by water (contaminated), water is overflowing the sinks when Mr. Cushing dies; the smoky, black, long appendages of the ghost of Mrs. Cushing is echoed in the shower stall marble as Mr. Cushing looks around to locate the source of the ominous noise he heard.
The corpses of both parents are terribly disfigured in death, Mrs. Cushing by the ravages of the black cholera and Mr. Cushing by the massive trauma inflicted to his skull. When Edith is identifying his corpse, she mentions that he didn't want to look old and was concerned about how he dressed; is that his vanity? No, because he symbolize the Founding Fathers (as when he addresses Thomas Sharpe about his "toy" he is showing them, he acknowledges the other men in the room who are like him that helped to build the country with their own hands) it's important that we understand the Founding Fathers are not old, nor cold in their graves or outdated, rather, just as important, alive and valid as ever in our country's history. Why is it, then, that it's Lucille who kills Mr. Cushing?
Lucille kills Mr. Cushing for the same reason that Thomas thought Edith would be an easy victim: feminism (we are not talking about civil rights or civil liberties, but the Hillary Clinton kind of "I'm a feminist because I'm a victim" feminism). The women targeted by the Sharpes all were wealthy and had no other family; but they also had something else in common. At one point, Edith is in her bedroom and when her maid calls, we see that Edith had looked up Allerdale Hall and the Sharpes in a book; this is a direct reference to the 1956 film classic Giant, starring Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor and James Dean. Taylor's character also looks up Texas and Hudson's ranch in Giant, demonstrating she's "shopping" for a husband and is taken from the beautiful Maryland farm to the solitary Benedict mansion in a desert of grass. What's the point of this reference? To show that Edith wants a title, like the other women Thomas married, because Edith, like many modern women who support socialism has a sense of ENTITLEMENT.
Let's discuss an important issue which bothered me while I watched the film: the reception Thomas received in Cushing's office when he presented his ideas for mining the red clay. The proposals and investment all seemed sound and his working model demonstrated his concepts well; businessmen in Buffalo, New York are always interested in investment opportunities so why was Mr. Cushing so crushing to Thomas and his proposal? Intuition. As Cushing tells Thomas and Lucille when he presents them with the marriage certificate of the last woman Thomas married, Cushing knew he didn't like Thomas, but he didn't know why he didn't like him. What's the point of this? It validates intuition as a legitimate form of knowledge. "Intuition" is non-scientific, it generally can't be quantitative or proven, which is why GDT wants to elevate it: it exists, and systems of thought which deny non-scientific aspects of existence such as intuition, are themselves being deceived.  
"You have no where else to go now, this is your home," Lucille tells Edith after Edith has seen one of the women's ghost pulling herself up out of the floor. Just as Edith is suckered into making the Sharpes her complete and total protectors and family, so people signing up for socialism make the government, the State or Party their complete protectors and have no one else or no where else to turn when the State begins using that authority to their own ends, just like the Sharpes waiting for Edith's assets to arrive. In spite of having devoured the fortunes of four other women, Thomas and Lucille still have no money; why? Socialism has an insatiable appetite for money, but the money always runs out, which is why socialist countries are always so terribly, terribly poor and underdeveloped (like Allerdale Hall). The Sharpes choose women who, like them, have no family or anyone else, which leads us to the question, why did Lucille and Thomas kill their mother?
The nightgown Edith wears can be interpreted as a wedding gown: when she first sees a ghost (her mother's) she is wearing a nightgown, and most of the ghosts she sees thereafter she is also wearing a nightgown; why? She is becoming married to the real purpose of her existence which the ghosts of these women--her mother, Enola, Margaret, Pamela and Lady Sharpe--are all trying to "herd Edith" in the direction she needs to go in order to save herself, her fortune and make a career for herself, which, even though they are trying to help her, still scares the wits out of Edith, but that's why she's becoming "married" to her real purpose and her real self, the self of Edith that knows and understands the world (which is what Thomas accused her of not knowing when he had to thoroughly break her heart). Edith frequently carries the candles with her; why? Well, of course, yes, so she can see, but recall, the first candle she held was during the waltz with Thomas, and he danced it so well that it didn't go out, Edith had to blow it out once they were finished, and that is heavily symbolic. The light of the candle was supposed to illuminate what a good dancer Thomas was, and that was important in Victorian society as it demonstrated the good manners and upbringing one had; if you have read Jane Austen, you also know that whenever a man and woman dance together, it's symbolic of the mating dance of nature and they end up married. So, when Thomas says, "Will you be mine?" he does mean it, and after Edith blows out the candle, she is also willing to close her eyes to anything else that might attempt to change her mind about him (until he has to break her heart, but even then, she takes his apology letter at face value and runs off to basically marry him). Now, at Allerdale Hall, she has the lighted candles, that is, the candles are once again lit to "illuminate" the darkness of Thomas and the Sharpes in general, and that's why the candles are important. As we mentioned above with McMichael, hair in the film is important, since McMichael and Edith have the same color of hair, as do Thomas and Lucille. The lighter color of hair literally means they have "lighter" thoughts (as in, more light penetrates their being, light as coming from God, remember the name McMichael) whereas no light penetrates the thoughts of Lucille and Thomas, their thoughts being dark and perverse (take note, please, how much paler Thomas' ghost is at the end then his sister's ghost, meaning, that by his sacrifice and change of heart and will, he was able to erase a great deal of the darkness from his soul). 
Lucille goes into detail about how she nursed her mother back after her father's heavy boot snapped her mother's leg in two, but then, Lucille killed her with the meat cleaver later. The father symbolizes the founding father of socialism, either Mao, Lenin or Stalin, it doesn't matter, they all squashed everyone under their boots like they were nothing but bugs, and this is what Lucille learned to do herself: destroy. Lucille and Thomas killed their mother because socialism always purges the first ones (the mother and father), turning the children against the parents so the children--Lucille and Thomas--would become the "children of the State," socialism. This is the reason why Thomas and Lucille commit incest, the next imperative issue in the film.
Doors opening and closing,, or hands reaching through them, are prevalent throughout the film; why? For the same reason Thomas comes to Buffalo, the "door of opportunity," which is why the door opens and the handle begins shaking up and down when Mrs. Cushing visits Edith again warning her about Crimson Peak: it's the opportunity Edith needs, not only as a citizen of the country to realize the threats that face it, but as well, as an individual so she can become stronger and understand human nature better for her career as a writer. When Edith thinks the dog has gotten itself stuck in a room, and she opens the door and one of the red ghosts pushes it closed again, that's when Edith discovers the wax cylinders that will provide her with the story of what the Sharpes have been doing to the other women. In this scene above, opportunity is literally "grabbing" Edith and trying to get her to open the door so she can take advantage of what she needs.
Incest is sexual relations between people of the same family. When, however, the family is eradicated, then incest is also eradicated: if there isn't a father, because the state has become the father, then he can't molest his daughter/son, because he doesn't have children, they belong to the State, so he can do whatever he wants to them. When God is eradicated, morality ceases to exist. When murder becomes the law (Edith was brought to Allerdale Hall for the purpose of murdering once they received her inheritance), shame and the soul cease to exist. Lucille tells Edith that, as children, she and Thomas had to stay up in the attic and play, they weren't allowed downstairs; why not?
THIS is a fantastic scene: Lucille is desperately trying to kill Edith, and Edith has retreated into the elevator. The elevator appears to be a cage, as in, it traps Edith inside, however, as this scene illustrates, it is now protecting Edith; why is this important? Many people complain about things like the Constitution being such a cage and it holding the country back, or the Ten Commandments being so restrictive, but this scene illustrates how, if you take refuge in the Constitution or the Ten Commandments, it will protect you from those psychopathic demons trying to slash you to bits and tatters.
The house is a character in the film: a house this old, Thomas tells Edith, becomes a living thing all its own, and as such, we can say that the cellar is like the bowels: the dead the house has consumed and defecated out into the red vats of liquid clay, while the attic, the uppermost story of the house, would be like the head: the head is open to all the elements, and anything can get inside; this is the problem with being "open-minded": if people are too open-minded about things, they become like the Sharpes, insane with progressive views of incest, murder and their own entitlement. Having grown up exposed to all the elements in the attic, as well as the erotica in the books Lucille shows Edith, it's no wonder they experimented on each other and prostituted one another for their own sexual gratification. In other words, just like children growing up in socialist or communist societies, they are exposed to everything, but all the good things (God, morality, the natural order, the soul, etc.) is forbidden to them, so they grow up, as their mother said, like monsters.
Our last topic of discussion, even though there is a plethora of symbols and meanings still to explore in a well-crafted film such as this: why does Lucille stab Thomas in the face? I think there are two reasons. First, Thomas means "twin," and we have seen how Thomas has cultivated a "twin" throughout the film: even though he was a baron, he had to portray a business man, when he had to break Edith's heart for her father to give them the check, when he consoled Edith for the loss of her father even though he was a conspirator in his death, he was Edith's husband but Lucille's lover, etc. The face is the most potent place of our identity, people know who we are because of our facial features, and identify us as such: to be marred in the face, as Lucille also causes a deep gash on Edith's face, is to be "defaced," first of all and, secondly, as with Thomas, the knife Lucille implanted in his face is "pinning him down," pinning his identity (as she does with the hair of her victims) as HER LOVER and HER BROTHER, not the husband of Edith, or the inventor of the mining machine, but her possession. He can't be two things anymore, he has to choose, which is exactly what Edith foreshadowed when they spent the night at the depot and Thomas asked her about her character Cavendish and whether or not he would make it and Edith replies, "It's entirely up to him," and Thomas knew that was meant for himself, too.
Serious damage to skulls, as well as "bizarre injuries" as in this poster, is a theme throughout the film; why? Socialists don't look at humans as being humans, rather, as animals, and head trauma indicates more "butchering" (like their mother with the meat cleaver stuck in her head) than a suitable death for a person with a soul created in God's image. The massive cranial injury also indicates, however, possible brain damage for those who go along with the Sharpes. Wait, you might say, what about Mr. Cushing? He wasn't going along with them and Lucille utterly destroyed his skull when she killed him. Mr. Cushing, regrettably, went along with the Sharpes believing they would hold to the agreement he made with them when he wrote them the check, instead of saying, get out of town and I will forward the money once you have left. The skull of Enola, the ghost in the image above, shows her skeletal eye sockets missing, indicating that she "lost her head" because she didn't want to "see" the truth. The image created by the spears, or the "sharp points" is echoed throughout the hallway where Edith sees the ghosts most frequently and it forms the "negative image" of a person (that is, standing, the person's head and shoulders are fitted into the negative space, as we see with Enola's ghost above). That's because the Sharpes themselves don't see people as people, but as objects to be used for their own ends. 
We know this is a story about love, but whose love story is it? Is it between Edith and Thomas? Thomas and Lucille? McMichael and Edith? I would like to argue it's the love story of Mrs. Cushing and her daughter, because the mother loved her daughter enough to protect her, but also enough to let her learn for herself, the kind of tough-love that God distributes to those He Himself loves. It's also about Edith learning how to properly love herself, and know how to become self-sufficient and truly independent. In conclusion, this is one of those grand films which we can watch dozens of times and we will still be picking up on nuances and symbols, connections and references. GDT has created a masterful statement of why socialism has been kept at bay by the civilized world and why the youth and women especially, need to learn about the horrible evils awaiting them if they follow terrible trail which leads to nothing but bloodshed, immorality, deceit and death.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
This is a fantastic image in the film. Earlier, we have seen Edith wearing her eyeglasses, but she takes them off after she receives the letter of apology from Thomas and then doesn't put them back on until she finds the gramophone in Enola's trunk and she begins listening to the wax cylinders (I know there is another, fairly recent film which utilized the same technology, however, I can't for the life of me think of what that film was,... sorry). So, what is it Edith is doing? She's finally in a position to see "objectively" (the clear sight the glasses provides her) and understand the historical record of the photographs and the recordings so that she can understand the complete context of Lord and Lady Sharpe, something many in the US have yet to do with socialism. 

Sta Wars VII: The Force Awakens Tickets Go On Sale Monday!

The newest poster to be released for the film.
I PROMISE YOU, I have the post for Crimson Peak done, I am just finishing up some of the notes that go in the captions for images, so it will be up today, but this is hot news that I wanted you to have: Monday, tickets for Star Wars VII go on sale everywhere. If you can, I would highly recommend getting 3D tickets for the December 18 opening as this is going to make cinematic history; I think it would even be better to wait longer (if the shows are sold out) then to see it in just 2D at an earlier show. They will go fast! Also, Monday night on ESPN, during the Giants vs Eagles half-time show, a new trailer for Star Wars VII will also be shown!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Friday, October 16, 2015

Opening This Weekend: Crimson Peak, Bridge Of Spies, Goosebumps

Jessica Chastain as Lady Lucille Sharpe.
There are several films coming out this weekend, and I have just been to see Crimson Peak; it was EVEN BETTER than I anticipated, and I had high standards for this one! No matter how many times we see this film, we will still be catching new references and symbols, connections and metaphors. I loved it. DO NOT, however, take kids to see this film! This is an adult film, take the little ones to see another opener this weekend, like Goosebumps: after I get my post on Crimson Peak done, I will go see this; the theater was packed with families there to see the Jack Black film, so if you are going, get there early, I will probably go see Bridge of Spies Monday: yes, it's all ready being talked about as an Oscar contender, but what Tom Hanks film isn't? There is plenty of time to see that, but I think I am going to check out Sciaro as well: I have heard the film takes a very conservative approach to the illegal immigration issue, so much so that some are calling it "Trump's agenda," and one clip I have seen would certainly attest to that. I am wondering if someone realized the film could bolster Trump's ratings and that's why Emily Blunt made such derogatory statements, knowing conservatives would likely boycott if she did so. All of this is my personal conjecture, but I am interested in seeing it, it just might not be until Monday; then, next week, The Last Witch Hunter with Vin Diesel comes out and I am looking forward to that as well.
I will get Crimson Peak up asap!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Nirvana & Neverland: Pan & Socialist Utopia

There are some great special effects in the film, but even that isn't enough to save this horrible platform of liberal socialist agendas. More than anything, as I demonstrate below, the film makers took entire scenes from other films and just blatantly copies them into Pan. Why commit this act of plagiarism? I think there are at least two reasons. First, if people like THOSE films (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Mad Max, etc.) then copying scenes from those successful films will make Pan a success; secondly, because these film makers obviously have no understanding of anything of real depth, no life philosophy of their own, rather, just socialist concepts they repeat back like parrots, rather than "working in" and paying homage to these other great films, Pan film makers just stick it in and paste it together, relying on other great films to carry Pan, because that is the inherent nature of a parasite, which is what socialists are. 
Pan not only received bad critical reviews, but audiences didn't seem to enjoy it, either. As I was struggling to watch the film, something beneficial did strike me, and that is how I have often written, "We aren't so much interested in originality, as in the repeating of patterns and symbols"; I haven't really explained that, and in Pan, which basically lifts entire scenes from other films, we can do that. So, let's begin with Pan and the version most of us know, Disney's animated Peter Pan.
Amanda Seyfried portrays Peter's mother, Mary, and here she is, in the opening scene, dropping off her little Peter at the orphanage of Eternal Prudence. The importance of this cannot be overestimatedPan was the ancient Greek god of drunkenness, orgies and decadence in general; there is even a statue, at the link above, of Pan having sex with a goat. This is who Peter Pan is meant to convey, the god of debauchery. Why? Because we are all animals, and if socialists appeal to our animal instincts, then we will "naturally" become socialists so we can be "liberated" from the prudishness of Christianity and start having all the sex and orgies we want. Yes, the film is counting on that.  Socialism appeals to the base, animal instincts: look at the people who are liberals; Christianity holds out the hope that we can overcome our baseness and cultivate within ourselves the image of God our Father. What we have, then, is a war between the god Pan of decadence and Jesus the God of sacrifice, morality, justice and love. To emphasize this even further, we have a battle of the two Marys as well: Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, and Mary, the mother of Peter Pan (shown above). There is a statue of Mary in the orphanage office that Pan twists the nose on and the floor falls away and they discover a "treasure trove" of food and hoarded supplies, suggesting that the leaders in the Church and the Church itself, keeps everything for itself rather than distributing to the poor and unfortunate; it's important to note, however, Peter and his friend indulge in every jar they can open, but they never once think of saving any for anyone else, rather, they keep it all to themselves. This is just one of many examples, especially when we bring Hook into the equation, of socialists revealing what less-than-average people they are (and that's being charitable of me). One of the examples of how terrible and horrible these ugly, fat, mean nuns are is in them insisting that there is nothing special about Peter. That is a terrible and false depicting of Christianity (but what else would we expect from them?). Holding that each of us is created in the image of God makes each of us singular, special and with a unique destiny to be fulfilled, hence, why Christians are against abortion. Socialists, on the other hand, hold that each person is only an animal and to be used and put to work according to the dictates of the State and the Party. The State decides what a child's future will be, not the child or his/her parents, the way people get to decide today. When Peter gets to Neverland, Blackbeard asks Peter if he is "the messiah" of the boys and those he has oppressed, clearly a reference to Obama, as Barbara Walters referred to Obama as the messiah of the liberals even though he had disappointed them. This is also a reference to Darren Aronofsky's Noah. Peter replies that he doesn't believe in bedtime stories, but the film makers obviously expects the audience to.
When a film (like the recent and equally terrible Maleficent with Angelina Jolie) begins by stating that you know the story, but "now, I'm going to tell you the real story," there are two concepts at work, and even, in conflict: Reader Response theory and indoctrination. Just as most people know the story of Sleeping Beauty going into Maleficent, so most viewers know the story of Peter Pan going into Pan; this is a case of the "implied reader," and reader-response criticism. You all ready have knowledge of the story going into the story, and the film makers know that, which means, you have a relationship with the story and with the film makers, one based on your experience and even interpretation of the "original" animated films from Disney Studios.
After the disastrous singing of Smells Like Teen Spirit (discussed below), Blackbeard "welcomes" the new arrivals with his rules, of which, there are only two: first, work hard and your hard work will be rewarded; second, those who do not work hard will feel the sting of his displeasure. The "Protestant work ethic" of America being summarized by a pirate clearly marks Blackbeard as a capitalist (if there was any doubt by this point in the film what the film makers wanted to label as their primary narrative vehicles) while the mining pit the boys are working in is meant to symbolize any given job in America. Now, there are at least two other films which have all ready discussed "the pit": the first was Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises, when Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) was thrown into the pit by Tom Hardy's Bale and he had to get out (please see War and Revolution: the Dark Knight Rises for more); we also saw "the pit" in Divergent, because that is where Dauntless trains to become the best at protecting society. Whereas these two pro-capitalist films see the unfortunate circumstances in life as something to be overcome and to make us work harder to become better, socialists see it as making us into cheats and scoundrels but, given that Hook is a hero, I think that's more of what they as a political party hold up as "honorable" rather than it being a legitimate by-product of legitimate capitalism. 
As you watch the film(s), you are necessarily going to be drawing upon your memories and experiences of the original films and consciously or unconsciously, comparing to the newer version, and the film makers know this, which is why, in both Pan and Maleficent, they begin by making the claim that now, you are going to get the real story. What real story? The "real" story might be a claim to be closer to the original fairy tale or book, but that's not what either film meant; rather, the film makers want you to believe that you have been duped, all your life, by a "false" story of Sleeping Beauty, and who Peter Pan really is, which leads us to our second point: indoctrination.
I couldn't find exact images, however, this is one of many scenes in Pan (top image) that has been directly "lifted" from another film, in this case, the children working in the mines in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (bottom image). As in the Indiana Jones installment, Pan also has the kids being kidnapped to work their whole lives in a mine and never get to see the light of day. Have you ever noticed all those tapes and film clips of liberals like Hillary Clinton saying one thing, and then a couple of months later, she comes out and says the exact opposite? Liberals do that because that is how dumb they think everyone is. They think they are infinitely smarter than everyone else, and everyone else is utterly stupid, as with the film makers of Pan: they genuinely thought no one would notice all this plagiarism because people are so dumb. 
It's not just the story you are familiar with that the film makers want you to doubt, but also your experience and interpretation of that story. Coming out during the Cold War years (1953 and 1959), Peter Pan and Sleeping Beauty provided us with two enemies to the stability of society and our own lives. The dangers of utopia in Peter's Neverland revealed that socialism comes with its own life-threatening problems, while Aurora exploring her sexuality with the young man she meets in the forest (pricking her finger on the spindle of the spinning wheel is a metaphor of loosing her virginity to the young man she couldn't see again, and her falling asleep is the sleep of "death in sin") was to warn of what would happen to women if they became promiscuous (which they did during the so-called "sexual revolution" and which was a weapon of socialists to undermine American morality). Not only do the modern re-interpretations of the stories, Pan and Maleficent, want to mock the originals and their lessons (because that's what socialists do, they "degrade" their enemies), but now, they want to turn the tables and make capitalism the "enemy" and morality the bonds of slavery. How does Pan accomplish this?
Peter can't read.
Another scene directly lifted from another film, this one being Gladiator (bottom). This is perhaps the most shocking admittance of the film: Blackbeard--who is a symbol for capitalism--talks about how there is "no justice, there is no mercy, no second chances," and that's important because we have seen so many films that are about "second chances and people being able to redeem themselves. The problem is, how Pan defines what justice and mercy is. Why would a socialist claim there is no mercy in capitalism? Because when Hillary Clinton leaked the emails on her personal server, conservatives were pissed as hell; to liberals, that is a demonstration of capitalists not having any mercy, no sympathy, and that's not justice: even though she was Secretary of State, even though it's a felony, even though it's hundreds of thousands of emails and the names of important sources were hacked, anyone holding her accountable for that is inhuman and a pirate, just like Blackbeard, we need to forgive her and show her mercy so she can do it all over again on a higher and more destructive level and cause even more damage so we can continue demonstrating how tolerant and merciful we are. In other words, if my sarcasm is too thick, holding people accountable for their actions is not merciful nor just to socialists: after all, we are only animals, and we don't have any free will, it's all Bush's fault, and so we shouldn't have to pay the consequences for what a terrible president he was. Trust me, besides Hook lying, this is the worst message the film tries to get the audience to buy into. 
We first learn that Peter is illiterate when he and his friend have broken into the orphanage office and begin going through their files (didn't that happen in Girl Interrupted? This is important because the film suffers from severe plagiarism problems). Peter's mother left him a note which was kept in his file and Peter has to have his friend read it for him; why is this important? The film makers made Peter illiterate intentionally. People can say whatever they want about cruel Catholic nuns, but they can't deny that those nuns provide a stellar education (Catholics are the most educated religious group in the world, second only to the Jews).
Uh-ha. The bottom image is Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily, and the top image is yet another scene lifted directly out of Star Wars: Return Of the Jedi, as well as the entire village of the savages being shot like the ewok village of the same film. In this specific scene (top image, Mara is about in the middle), Tiger Lily is supposed to invoke Princess Leia tied to Jaba (not that the old man she's sitting by is supposed to be a bad guy in the film, but the film makers want to impress upon the audience that Tiger Lily is a warrior and cool rebel like Leia). Why do this? BECAUSE SOCIALISTS DON'T HAVE ANY HEROES OR HEROINES THEY CAN HOLD UP FOR THE AUDIENCE TO ADMIRE--THEY ARE ALL LIKE HITLER, STALIN, POL POTT, MAO, PINOCHET AND KIM JUONG, ETC.--AND NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND IS GOING TO ADMIRE THOSE BLOOD-THIRSTY, EVIL DEMONS. So, socialists take legitimate heroes, like Leia and Indiana Jones, and try to convince the audience, yea, they were totally socialists, you just didn't know it until now, but now we are telling you the real story, so the heroes you thought were demonstrating the values of capitalist societies were really demonstrating the values of socialism. Truly, that's what they are doing, they are re-writing films the exact same way they are re-writing the story of Peter Pan and history. 
Peter would have known how to read, having grown up in a Catholic orphanage, which is why his friend can read, so the illiteracy is an "image crafting" the film makers want to somehow enhance Peter's appeal; how can they do that? Peter lacks critical thinking skills, just like the film makers. Have you heard of Common Core education? Illiteracy and a lack of critical thinking is what this socialist program is going for, because when people can think for themselves, why on earth do they need a government run by a bunch of mediocrities?
The top image is Garret Hudland who plays Hook in the film that Pan meets while in the mines. His hat and sleeping style was meant to invoke Indiana Jones, the great intellectual and adventurer, who Hook definitely is not. Again, this is a socialist attempt to take heroes of Western civilization who embody American values and morals, and re-cast him in a socialist light because socialists don't have any heroes they can be proud of; not a single one.  Hook is concerned about getting home, and he tells Tiger Lily that, to which she responds, "Home is where you make it." Why would she say that? Because, as we saw in The Conjuring, socialists don't want people to have homes, private property and ownership must be banned, so this is instilling in the audience the idea that wherever the government tells you to live, is home, and that's where you should live. 
So, not being able to read isn't just about not being able to read the original fairy tale, or any other fairy tale, but also historical facts, like the Holocaust and and World War II, so that one knows the past and mistakes and consequences; this is how capitalism is made the enemy, because for people who know what happened historically, they know it was the capitalist Allies who stopped socialism from spreading and communism would have enslaved the whole world. Peter's illiteracy, then, is a counter-cultural move--meaning, indoctrination, because traditionally, Americans view illiteracy with horror, hence our public education program which receives hundreds of millions of dollars every year--because being able to read and explore ideas is necessary to develop critical, deep thinking skills. Dumbing down the population is a necessary agenda for socialists because they can't bear to have anyone smarter than them realizing how incompetent and unfair their policies are, which is why, in all socialist/communist revolutions, it's always the intelligentsia that the socialists kill first, so there won't be anyone smart left to stand in their way and lead a revolt, which leads us to the despicable "hero" Hook.
I don't know why the guy on top doesn't kill Blackbeard, because the only pre-requisite for killing the pirate seems to be that a male (not a female) can fly, which the guy above can surely do, as demonstrated. Again, this scene is lifted directly from Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome when Hook, like Max, has to fight in an "arena" in order to save his life, as Hook must do in Pan. Of all the terrible qualities of Hook, perhaps the worst is that he is a liar: "I'm a grown-up, I do that sometimes," he tells Pan, and we are just supposed to accept it at that, just like all of Obama's lies, Hillary's lies, and the lies of Obama's administration, because that's what socialists view as "mercy" and "justice." Lying, then, is a "value" that socialism is advocating, because one of the heroes, Hook, is a liar and he has a successful end in the film, so he hasn't been punished for anything bad he's done, just like all the crooks in the Obama Administration. These are their values they are trying to brainwash us into accepting. 
Yes, Hook is a hero, and friend to Peter, and the love of Tiger Lilly. You're not like the men in my tribe, Tiger Lily tells Hook, the men in my tribe are honest and brave, and Hook is neither of these, and yet, he's the hero and we are supposed to believe that Tiger Lily falls in love with him; why? This is another example of indoctrination. Socialists don't want white heterosexual males who are brave, strong, honest and morally upright, they don't want a real Indiana Jones, Hans Solo, Mad Max, etc., socialists, being mediocrities, want others to be mediocrities as well, and that begins with something as simple as having the courage to tell the truth, face up to the consequences and deal with the hand you have been dealt in life; all of these concepts are utterly foreign to socialists and you can tell by a film like Pan. None of these heroes are heroes who support and embody traditional American heroes and values because this is indoctrination, the intentional subversion or replacement of the moral norms of a society with a new set of norms so that society can be controlled more easily. Traditional white, heterosexual males will resist the socialists revolution, just as they did during World War II, so they must be demonized and made the enemy of people who now identify themselves as "minorities" and the "victims" of these white males. Now, we are in a position to discuss my real problem with this film,....
So, the main drive of the narrative is that Blackbeard (Jackman), is trying to stay young and uses the pixie dust as his fountain of youth, like Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) in Pirates Of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides tries to find the fountain of youth so he won't die either; and Ian McShane is also named Blackbeard in the film. Socialists just have no creative imagination of their own, do they?
As I was watching it, I couldn't help but feel that entire concepts and scenes had been lifted right out of other films: the first lines quoting (nearly) exactly the opening lines of Maleficent about hearing the "real story," orphans lined up getting a bowl of gruel was taken straight out of Oliver!, the boys breaking into the office as in Girl Interrupted, Peter unable to read the letter and the letters swirling around on the page as in Percy Jackson and the Olympians: the Lightening Thief, the children working in the mines like they did in Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom, the savages acting like compared to nature in Avatar (which many critics have pointed out), the village of the savages in Pan immediately made me think of the Ewok village in Return Of the Jedi as well as Hook threatening to go his own way and then showing up later during the fight to swoop in his ship and hit Blackbeard's like Han Solo in Star Wars, while Tiger Lily dressed in that bizarre outfit leaning on the "stage" was invoking Princess Leia from also from Return of the Jedi, the kids in the mine singing Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit (even though this is World War II) as the old men sang Like A Virgin in Moulin Rouge (more on Nirvana below), Blackbeard looking for something to help him live forever like Jack Sparrow's search for the Fountain of Youth in Pirates Of the Caribbean: On Stranger Shores, and trying to become the new Davy Jones in Dead Man's Chest, and Blackbeard putting his thumb up or down referenced Gladiator, just to name the scenes I recognized from one viewing. So, how is this different from "pattern recognition" that I am always promoting?
Understanding.
This is the third worst part of the film: in the original animated Disney version, Wendy, Michael and John go back home and grow up; in this version, they don't, they go to Neverland so they never have to grow up, and this running away to utopia to indulge all your childish, undisciplined fantasies is exactly the kind of "hook" socialists are betting people--especially young people--will buy into so socialists can stay in power. 
When House at the End Of the Street used a snow globe to convey the idea of the US having been in a protective bubble, and then we also saw a snow globe just as the US is being attacked in Red Dawn, those were connections, a narrative motif, a symbol that alerts the viewer to what is important but not being spoken so that, when the whole kingdom of Oz itself is in a protective bubble that gets burst by the Wicked Witch in Oz the Great and Powerful, or Asgard itself isn't able to get its protective shield up against the attack of the Dark Elves in Thor: the Dark World, pro-capitalist film makers have recognized the symbolic value of the snow globe and have incorporated that message into their own, larger narrative; with Pan, however, these images are taped together like a collage, because they are trying to replace Princess Leia with Tiger Lily, trying to replace Indiana Jones with Hook, and trying to replace the moral order (the Church and Christianity) with decadence and licentiousness (Pan and Neverland). The film maker's lack of understanding, because they have failed to develop their own critical thinking skills and think no one else should have them, either, is, effectively, what separates the incorporation of motifs and signs when considering pattern recognition, vs blatant plagiarism of Pan film makers taking scenes and ideas from films and stories they like but want to make socialist.
This is the thing: I am perfectly willing to allow for artistic license. Unlike other critics, I don't find an inherent problem with director Joe Wright having the miner kids singing Nirvana's 1991 hit Smells Like Teen Spirit which scientifically has been identified as THE MOST iconic song EVER. At the end of this post is a video of the soundtrack recording of the kids singing the song, and the man's voice that comes in around 1:24 is Blackbeard's (Jackman's). Even though the film takes place during World War II, if the song expands the film makers' ability to communicate to the audience what they are trying to discuss, I am perfectly willing to allow for it,... the problem I have with the song being included, that other critics seem to have missed, is that the song being placed here, and sung at this point, doesn't make any sense whatsoever; so, as a means of communicating with the audience, it doesn't, it just makes it look like Wright is, yet again, a copycat, this time, imitating (poorly) Moulin Rouge. This is why the song doesn't work: the boys, who we are made to believe have all been kidnapped, and are being forced to work for Blackbeard, in the mines looking for pixie dust, is an anti-capitalist song; when one boy tries to stop singing, one of Blackbeard's "managers" forces the boy to start singing the song again; the song is anti-capitalist, while Blackbeard is CLEARLY a symbol of capitalism, so why would Blackbeard have his forced labor camp workers singing a song of rebellion against capitalism? Wright would probably have some answer that, well, you're supposed to ignore that and focus on the song  being sung. Well, if a film maker fails to communicate something in the film, you can't blame the audience for his/her shortcomings; given that EVERYONE has complained about this song in the film, it's clear that Wright got it wrong. Again, if another song had been chosen, or Wright had written the script so that it was at a point where it made sense, then it very well could have worked and been quite successful. Now, why is Smells Like Teen Spirit an anti-capitalist song? Rock-n-Roll songs were an artistic weapon against the Soviet Union and communism: Rock allowed for individuality and freedom of expression, hope and the exaltation of the individual and relationships, especially romantic ones which doesn't have nearly the same status in socialist/communist societies as in the US (for example: at the end of Jurassic World, Chris Pratt's character tells Dallas Bryce Howard's character that they are going to stay together "for survival," and that's what socialists say, we are animals, and we are going to mate, but "love" doesn't exist, just sex and hormones) and we saw this in Rock Of Ages with Tom Cruise, Catherine Zeta-Jones and a whole massive supporting cast. By 1990, the US knew we had won the Cold War, and with that came the rise of Alternative music, clearly stating that relationships had become impossible, there was immense distances between men and women, many in Generation X had come from divorced households which caused a broken identity among us and led to anger and suppressed resentment against the dual-income households that had become standard in the US (you are more than welcome to disagree with me on this, but I have done a lot of research on the statistics and historical context, so I'm not saying this lightly). If Rock was an anthem of triumph and individuality, Alternative music became the anthem of defeat and dissolution of the individual. Now, however, we can say that the issues which Nirvana brings up in Smells Like Teen Spirit are characteristic of the "new" socialism threatening the world then the communism that was falling in the 1990s: "Turn the lights out, it's less dangerous," certainly applies to the opaque Obama administration which denies everything and uses any type of distraction in the media to draw attention away from whatever latest scandal has plagued the liberals; "I feel stupid, entertain us," socialists are intentionally dumbing down students and emphasizing "emotional responses" rather than critical thinking (like Peter's illiteracy); "entertain us" is clearly about the lack of informed voters and viewers who actually have any clue to what is going on or what the issues are, as they would much rather be entertained than have to exercise their brains that haven't been taught how to properly function. 
In conclusion, Pan is not only a poorly constructed film--reflecting the general lack of creativity and self-expression which is born of intelligence and hard work--it's a socially, politically, morally and economically devious narrative as well, meant to intentionally replace those symbols of greatness in our culture which we have always looked to for inspiration, as well as re-writing the very history of our battle against socialism in the make-believe version of Peter Pan's story they have dared to offer a sophisticated audience. Regretably, I fear there will be more of these films, rather than studios having learned their lessons from this massive flop, but audience members can at least be armed and prepared when we are being force-fed such ridiculous fairy tales of Karl Marx.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
P.S.--Here is the soundtrack cut for the mining boys singing Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit:
On the last note, there was a big stink about Rooney Mara, a white woman, portraying the Native American character Tiger Lily, rather like the pro-socialist film The Lone Ranger had Johnny Depp portray Tonto. What are we to make of this? That socialists invoke being the party of the minority, but when it comes right down to it, they are more interested in helping out the people they like, rather than the minorities they claim to speak for and represent.