Monday, June 26, 2017

YIKES! Pitch Perfect 3 Trailer

I have had the worst sinus infection of my life: for the past week, I have felt like I am under water in a swimming pool; I am so sorry, I haven't been able to get anything done. I WILL get the post for The Mummy up, I am just too sick to be able to finish it, I am so sorry. The first trailer for Pitch Perfect 3 has been released and it's going to be a massive liberal propaganda piece..., but wait, is it? That's the problem. Screenwriter Kay Cannon, who also penned Pitch Perfect and Pitch Perfect 2, writes like a capitalist, so we're going to see a good, solid capitalist foundation; director Trish Sie, however, is a liberal, which is why we're going to see some of the "cheap shots" that appear in the trailer; in other words, the film will be a "mixed bag," some good, but plenty of bad, too:
Cheap Shot #1 is when Flo (Chrissie Fit) has prepared a drink for a line of white women and mentions that the beverage has a shot of "white privilege,"  Cheap shot #2 is when we see Fat Amy (Rebel Wilson) at 1:27 wearing a red hat, saying, "MAKE AMERICA EAT AGAIN," which is an obvious attempt to slam the Donald Trump presidential campaign of "Make America Great Again." If we took out these two objectionable, superficial slurs, the trailer would suggest a film that will be highly pro-capitalist, as the Bellas use what skills they have (the signing and rhythm) to make their own way in the job force. But what about the characters of Gail (Elizabeth Banks) and John (John Michael Higgins)? Who are those two bizarre characters always showing up in Pitch Perfect films, and what's their purpose?
Gail and John are a peanut gallery, but because they reflect the peanut galleries existing all over the internet and modern society, they then become an important symbol, interacting with the events of the film. I could say much more about them, but I'm sick, so this is enough for the moment, sorry..
These are the people who the internet comment sections gave birth to who believe they have to comment on everything and who believe that people want to know what they think; but they don't have anything of their own to offer, only their miserable misspellings and in-cohesive fragments of thoughts which don't mean anything.
On a different note,...
Wow, there is a lot going on in this poster! This is your homework assignment,... I know, I know, you hate homework, but the whole purpose of this blog is to help you have your own thoughts and develop your own analytic skills, and you won't develop those skills if I just give you answers the whole time, and you set back and are content with those answers. Here is a hint to start you off: color. What colors do you see, and what do you know those colors symbolize? That's more than half of the problem right there.
The trailer for Kenneth Branaugh's Murder On the Orient Express has been released (a couple of weeks ago, actually, but I'm been slow) and I'm going to do a full write up of the trailer because it's so good. Here's the problem: in order to discuss the trailer, and the poster above, as well as all subsequent material, we will have to discuss the main plot spoilers, giving away the ending and the way to solve the case. If you haven't seen the 1974 film, or haven't read the book, then you will need to decide if you don't mind knowing what happens beforehand, or if you want to wait and let the film tell its tale (if you don't know, or have forgotten, here is the Wikipedia summary of the plot details so you can have an idea of what happens). If you ask me, given the complexity of the plot, I would rather know the generalities of what happens in the narrative so I can notice the particularities of Brannaugh's approach to the story which is being presented for us today, but that's my perspective. So, here is the first trailer, and we will delve into this ad infinitum after I am well:
"My name is Hercule Poirot, and I am probably the greatest detective in the world." Right there, we know where Branaugh stands: first, "Hercule," is "Hercules," the very standard of masculinity and manhood, so Hercule Poirot is his own standard of masculinity; secondly, he's the world's greatest detective, so there is nothing mediocre about him, nothing for the Left to champion and feel good that he is one of them. What about that obnoxious mustache and those electric blue eyes? You know what that symbolizes, so I will let you figure that out for the moment, while I try to get well and finish up The Mummy.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

John Wick: ORIGINS

John Wick Chapter 3 is definitely happening.
But something else is happening, too,....
There is going to be a comic book released that provides us with all the details of how John Wick came to be the John Wick we all know and fear.
From Cinemablend::

Written by Greg Pak and illustrated by Giovanni Valletta, the John Wick comic book series will begin with the main protagonist escaping from prison and embarking on his "first epic vendetta." During his journey, he'll cross paths with a shadowy community of assassins and master The Book of Rules that "guides their lethal business." John will also have to figure out what The Three Bills are and who the mysterious Calamity is. Serving as John Wick's official original story, fans of the movie will want to read this series to learn what he was like before he became the Baba Yaga. 

But folks, that's not all,....
Ian McShane's Winston, who owns and runs the Continental Hotel, and who has been a personal friend of Wick's, has not officially been announced as being in the TV series. We know that John Wick will not be the lead, however, Keanu Reeves may make occasional appearances.
There is a TV series being developed regarding the Continental Hotel. It's probably going to be something like ER, but in this case, the doctors are replaced with assassins, and instead of helping people, they are trying to kill them. Keanu Reeves is not expected to be the lead in the TV series, but might put in a cameo, especially since John Wick Chapter 3 went into production last fall, and what better way to advertise the next installment? There is certainly plenty of material to expand upon for Wick fans, not to mention an abundance of material that can set up future films, or at least provide us with "filler" of what Wick is going to go through in JWC3 (like details of what it means to be excommunicado, for example). My post on John Wick can be read here, and here is my post on John Wick: Chapter 2.
Really, The Mummy is almost done, really,...
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Friday, June 16, 2017

TRAILER: The Limehouse Golem

Given that the release date is in September, I'm rather surprised we haven't heard about the film before now (there were production problems, as the late Alan Rickman was cast to play the lead; after he retired from the film for his health, Bill Nighy signed on with Rickman later dying of cancer; the film has been dedicated to Rickman's memory). There are two major reasons we should at least be somewhat interested in this film: the first is in the title, and the second is in the name of a character who appears in the trailer below, so I will give you a sporting chance to find it:
Nighy's always good, and his lead in the film is case alone for watching The Limehouse Golem, but the appearance of Karl Marx as a character is intriguing beyond compare: no other film which I myself have come across the past couple of years has actually cast Marx as an explicit character, although we have certainly seen him referenced in spirit and ideology. Is Marx a good guy, or a villain? He appears to be on trial when we see his character at 0:47 (and a photograph of the character laid out on the desk at 0:23, second from the left, and again at 1:37), however, no one in the show's casting actual gets billing for playing Marx (and while the actor does look like Marx, it's possible Marx isn't actually in the film,.... which would be bizarre since they mention him,.....). Marx is being listed as "being there" on September 24, meaning, that Marx is a suspect for being the Limehouse Golem. Regardless of what the film does or does not do with Marx, there is another scrumptious detail, and that is the title,...
The Golem.
This is at least the third time now we have seen a "golem" invoked: the first was Warcraft, the wizard Medivh sculpted one, supposedly to help with the chores, but it ended up being a warrior to protect the treasonous activities of the wizard, and the second is Wonder Woman herself (her mother sculpted her from clay and then Zeus breathed life into her, so that counts). It's possible that we can even count the new Blade Runner 2049's Neander Wallace (Jared Leto) as a "golem producer" when he talks about producing a disposable workforce (you can watch the clip here). The consistent thesis is that God didn't create these beings (even though it supposedly requires the breath of God to bring it to life, but even in Wonder Woman, Zeus died after giving Diana Prince life) so God isn't needed in creation, and we should get used to that concept (such a "order" has been presented to us as characteristic of socialist countries in Man Of Steel [Superman's home of Krypton] and Oblivion with Tom Cruise; in Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2, however, James Gunn attempts to insist that "God-less creation" is a product of capitalist societies with the gold people and their programmed existence). I'm guessing that The Limehouse Golem is probably going to be pro-socialist and the "golem criminal" will also be a capitalist, and the Karl Marx figure is going to help Nighy's Kildare capture the blood-thirsty money-thief.
But I could be wrong.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Happy Birthday, Fine Art Diner!

Dear Readers,
This 6th Birthday of The Fine Art Diner is due to you. THANK YOU! Six years ago, I published my first post, which wasn't very good at all, and none of the posts of that year were,... or the next year, to be perfectly honest, but after about the fourth year, I started getting the hang of it, and pushing myself and learning more every day, and it's because of you. So many of you have been with me from the beginning, and so kindly and patiently waited during long absences due to illness and other obligations; if it were not for the kind emails and encouragement with which you have blessed me, I would not have kept going. With all my heart, thank you so much for your time to read my posts, and commitment to checking up on what's happening at this little corner of the internet.
Thank you!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
P.S.--Yea, the post is coming, just got to finish up those mini-novels that go in the caption areas!

Monday, June 12, 2017

TRAILER: Black Panther Marvel

According to the synopsis I have read, when King T'Challa returns to Wakanda from the events of Captain America Civil War, his sovereignty is being challenged by a faction within the kingdom, and he has to work with the CIA and his country's own special forces corps to stop the unrest. Martin Freeman portrays Everett K Ross, a member of the CIA special terrorism branch, so his role will likely be significant in the film. Andy Serkis is Ulysses Klaue, who we have seen before; he is in the black market, smuggling and somehow got a hold of a piece of advanced Wakandan mining equipment,... they might be wanting that back.
UPDATED: Ulysses' last name is pronounced "KLAW," and he gets a high-tech prosthetic, so it's the opposite of the "claws" of the Black Panther.
The body of The Mummy post is finished and I am just finishing up the captions; after that, I am binge watching all four of the Transformers films, and I should be able to get at least a short post up before next weekend when it opens; in-between then, we have some serious catching up on trailers to do, but Marvel's exceedingly early release of a Black Panther trailer (it doesn't hit theaters until February 2018) deserves its own spotlight:
The very first thing we see are the blinking lights; why? There is not only the buzzing noise we hear them making (almost like flies swarming) there is the "glitch" of the blinking light. Light symbolizes truth, our ability to see truth and truth that has been revealed to us; this isn't just the kind of truth that is the "cold light of day" truth, but includes spiritual truths as well, which any good film operates upon both levels. The feet are next: black shoes, handcuffed to the chair. The black means death, so the later shot of him shooting someone is probably a good indication that this gangster isn't a hero, at all. The handcuffs around his ankles are a nice touch, I applaud that little detail: this necessarily links the symbols of the hands and the feet together, so since the feet are our will, and the hands symbolize honor, there is nothing honorable about his will and what he wants to do in this world. The handcuffs suggests that even if he wanted to do something to change himself, he couldn't. He's "tied down," because of past mistakes and might not be able to successfully go through a conversion. He wears blue pants: blue symbolizes depression, while our legs symbolize our "standing" in society, how people view us; he has probably suffered (perhaps making him a bit mental, maybe it was the ordeal of losing his arm, or getting out of Wakanda alive, or something before that, but he had some hard knocks and they have effected him). Obviously, we can go on, like why his arm is gone, and why he has two things around his neck: the pale blue tie, and the necklace with a,... tooth, perhaps? But I am working on The Mummy and can't let my focus slip, so I will get that up asap!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Friday, June 9, 2017

1127 AD, The Crusades & The Mummy (2017)

I actually didn't realize what a genius poster this is; the analysis I did in my last post on the airplane was absolutely correct, but they take it even further. Also, keep in mind plays on the word "possession," even though the word isn't said often, "possession" is taking place (not just the demonic kind, but also sexual possession, and that is the gateway for demonic possession). There is a TON of glass in this film, so when glass shatters, remember that it means the ability to reflect upon what is happening being shattered, because at some point, our minds just can't comprehend the eternal. 
In the first few minutes of the film, an important date comes up on the screen:1127 AD, ENGLAND. Why? We see Crusaders burying one of their own with a large, rock-gem, and then we cut to today. Using the strategies of New Historicism, if we look up that date, William IX, Duke of Aquitaine stands out. Please take a moment to read his bio, because I will be writing a special section on him in the post; in other words, he's a very important detail.
This is the Book of Life (or maybe the Book Of Death) from the trilogy of The Mummy with Brendon Fraser from the 1990s, and there is a part where we see it in the film. Why? Well, that's a good question. Remember how we have been told that Dracula Untold isn't a part of the Dark Universe? Well, Dr. Jeckyll utters an important line from that film, suggesting that it could still be brought in, but also just that The Mummy exists in the REAL WORLD, the Dark Universe isn't just a cinematic experience, rather, it's a reflection of what takes place today. 
The Mummy was SO GOOD, I am going back tonight to see it again, in 3D this time! I loved it! It was well worth the wait! There is no end-credits scene, however, the "artistic" credits are worth watching, as they go back over some of the details you might have missed in the film and highlight little clues of other monsters which will be appearing in the Dark Universe. Definitely make plans to see it this weekend. I do have an important correction to make about things I have posted: Ahament's tomb was not "buried" in water, rather, she was buried in Mercury; I will talk more about it in my post, but you might glance through the article to give you some background on it, if you are not a chemist. (The trailers had scenes/dialogue that was "extra footage" they shot, so not all of it goes into the film exactly as it was presented to us, and I really hate that, it makes it difficult to keep things straight). Anyway, starting the post now and getting it up asap! Remember, there will be every spoiler in my post, so if you want to read it, please, please go see the film first, I don't want to ruin it for you!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Analysis & Symbols: The Mummy (2017)

There are four dominant traits of Princess Ahmanet: first, she's female, second are the double-pupil-ed eyes, third is the writing on her face and body and, last, but not least, her wide, gaping mouth, which the Egyptians even translated to her sarcophagus (pictured above). The Mummy is at least the third film to take us to ancient Egypt to discuss the occult and economics (the other two being the beginning of X-Men: Apocalypse and Gods Of Egypt with Gerard Butler). Why? Ancient Egypt was an advanced society, a capitalist society (they had a class system which business people could move in and out of, even if the upper-class was perpetually shut-off for them) and a society which was pagan. Given that Christianity has suffered so much, publicly and privately, in America today, I think we have to say that America has become a pagan culture, in spite of the relatively high numbers of people who still claim they are Christians, but live in a state of sin (such as addiction or adultery).  As you have seen me write countless times,dear reader, historical films (or a historical moment in a film) is NEVER about history or that historical moment, it is, rather, about the here and the now, how that moment in that country's history reflects what is going on in our own world today. For example, the two most important words might be spoken by the airplane pilot carrying Ahmanet's sarcophagus as the birds start hitting the windshield: "November 4th!" the pilot says into the microphone; why? November 4, 2017 was the date Hillary Clinton was scheduled to be elected president of the USA, but was beat by Donald Trump (The Mummy film makers didn't know that at the time of production, so we will have to keep that in mind watching the film). So, I think there will be at least a sufficient platform for us to use as a catapult for interpreting Ahmanet as Hillary Clinton, or at the very least, modern feminists.
We know the mouth symbolizes the appetites, so a gaping mouth, like the one pictured above, is going to stay open in order to take in as much as it possible can (then we also see, in the dust storm taking over London, Ahmanet's face appear in the blowing sand and, again, her mouth is opened wide to take in everything she can AND, when she slits her father's throat, what happens? Some of his blood splatters onto her mouth, meaning, she develops an appetite for spilling blood.
Something I find rather interesting--and I could be wrong about how it happens in The Mummy since I haven't seen it yet--is how it seems that rather "ordinary" Egyptian citizens stand up to these colossal super-natural threats in X-Men: Apocalypse, Gods Of Egypt and The Mummy. From what we have seen of The Mummy, embalmers condemn Ahmanet to be buried alive, and we saw the brave soldiers of X-Men risk their lives to keep the occult aliens from taking over the world in Apocalypse; Bek and Zaya help defeat Set in Gods Of Egypt. So, if Nick Morton's name does mean "victory of the people," we definitely have a film championing the "populist" movement. 
It's finally here.
This weekend, one of the films I have most anticipated for this entire year opens, and sadly, it looks to not be projecting very well: The Mummy is expected to bring in $30-35 million, much more internationally; if it fails to open at that level, it could jeopardize the entire Universal Dark Universe reboot (and they have just added two new monsters: in addition to Van Helsing, Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, Wolf Man, Creature from the Black Lagoon and the Invisible Man, they announced remakes for The Hunchback Of Notre Dame and Phantom Of the Opera; it has also starting circulating that a "collaborative film" with all of them together is not on the table). Here are the topics upon which we need to focus during the film: first, Tom Cruise's Nick Morton.
This is at least the third morgue scene we have encountered recently, the other two being in Baywatch (please see Baywatch: Toxic Masculinity, Toxic Femininity for more) and John Wick Chapter 2 (when Wick has been taken to meet the Bowery King and has gotten his wounds sewn up and he's on the table with the two dead janitors who had tried to kill him). Nick's last name, "Morton," is interesting, because it comes from the Latin for "death," and since Prodigium itself is Latin (meaning "wonder" or "great sign,"), we know that we are on the right track seeing Nick as a "face of death" himself. In other words, Nick Morton is right at home in the morgue because (somehow, I don't know how yet) Nick has been "dead" his whole life, and that is something we will have to look for when we see the film. What about "Nick?" Nick probably means "Nicholas," which is "victory of the people," and maybe it means that in the film, however, there is also the possibility that "Nick" refers to a "nick," like when you are shaving and cut yourself, or you nick a piece of furniture. We'll have to see. We know that Nick dies, but then he is resurrected, but he's not resurrected in Christ, he is, rather, resurrected in the Curse, but I don't know how that happens in the film at this point. So, issues and the boundary of life and death, are going to be imperative, because it's not really biological life, rather, political life, or political death (remember, Ahmanet kills to gain power over her country, so this is a political film) but there is also spiritual death and spiritual life; who gains life, who loses it?
Nick is not the kind of character we are used to seeing Tom Cruise playing: Nick Morton is, according to writer/director Alex Kurtzman, "amoral," meaning he doesn't have a particular moral code by which he lives (such as chivalry or even Dominic Tiretto's code of family in Fast and Furious); why? Why would Kurtzman risk such a character, with an actor known for always playing the hero? At this point, I have not seen the film, but I think we can venture the answer that it's because we are used to seeing Tom Cruise act in a particular way that when we see him fail to live up to that, it's going to be more highlighted, whereas an actor we are used to seeing as a "creep," like Will Ferrel, that behavior would be expected. Nick, then, is going to be much more like a carbon-copy of most men today, rather than a role-model type (which Cruise usually portrays). How is this important? Ahmanet is able to possess Nick, or at least come perilously close to possession. If Nick were stronger, Nick wouldn't be in danger, which leads us to our next point: the Crusades.
This is a great scene, even without the zero gravity stunt thrown in! We just saw in Wonder Woman how Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) pierces through the protective barrier of Diana's island when his ship crashes and she has to save him. In that situation, Wonder Woman film makers are claiming that the failure of men (Steve losing control of his plane) had invaded the feminist world (Diana's island) and feminists would not have gotten involved in the American civil war of the Obama administration (and still going, this is represented by World War I in Wonder Woman) had it not been for mankind's desperate need of a savior (Diana). In this scene for The Mummy, (when the airplane begins to crash and we see the zero gravity stunt) we are seeing the exact opposite of that scenario from Wonder Woman: in The Mummy, the plane is the "ship of state," and the windshield you see in the image above is equivalent to the protective barrier surrounding Diana's island (we saw similar barriers in both Oz the Great and Powerful from several years ago, as well as Thor: the Dark World when the Dark Elves pierced the protective barrier of Asgard).  In the image above, the windshield doubles as the "protective barrier" for the ship of state; why? Being made of glass, the windshield symbolizes the ability to reflect, to understand and meditate about an event or situation. Because this is the front windshield, and not the rear windshield (which would symbolize reflecting on the past), this instance allows us to understand the importance of reflecting on the future; and what's there to see? Blood. There is not only a massive crack in the windshield ("destruction" of the self, in this case, the "self" is the government,and the government's inability to reflect upon what it's doing)  but the blood we see is smeared across the windshield (making it difficult to "reflect" about the coming menace of the other birds); what does the blood symbolize? In this case, civil war. How can we determine that? The birds and the plane are "similar," in that a plane is designed like a bird, with a body and wings, and meant to fly like a bird, so they are similar even while they are dis-similar. The flock of crows attacking the plane are the same ones we saw hanging dead and upside-down in the ceremony room where Ahmanet sold her soul to Set, so these birds are the "birds of death." On the other hand, the airplane is technological, it's transportation, it helps people and has become a necessity of the modern world. This is what the civil war in America is about: the agents of death (the Left) and the agents of technology and advancement (conservatives). It's my understanding that this plane is actually Nick's (he's a soldier and this plane is his squad's) so the plane being attacked by these birds of death is actually Nick (the proxy of white, heterosexual men) being attacked, just as he is attacked by rats later in the film. The crows bringing down the plane reveals the Left's attempt to bring down the economy and the government protecting it, and to destroy all those within it (remember, the "binding spells" against Donald Trump aren't just directed at him, but against all of us who support him). There is no possible way we can ignore the politics of this film, they are going to be everywhere. Even the zero gravity which turns the plane, literally, upside-down, reflects how the Left has turned this country upside-down: from gender identification (I'm neither male or female, is now an acceptable legal statement, and if gender isn't stable, then what is?) to the law of the land and people being held accountable for the crimes they have committed. Being "upside-down" is going to be important in the film because when Nick is being over-run by the rats, and Ahmanet comes to begin her possession of him, Nick sees her as being "upside-down," meaning, her very rule is upside-down (who murders their family for power? Oh, yea, Vortigern in King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword). The same kind of chaos and darkness we saw Arthur fighting against with Vortigern is set to be the enemy of Ahmanet's reign.
At some point, Nick and Jenny (the archaeologist working for Prodigium) visit an old English cemetery and encounter Crusaders there (ghosts). Why is this important? We have been given the timeline that Ahmanet has been buried for 2000 years; 2000 years ago, Christ came, and gave us a way to live, by love for God and love for neighbor; Nick hasn't done that, and neither has most Americans today. The Crusaders were the warriors of God, the men who pledged their lives to him and the code of chivalry,... how different would the world be today if there were men alive who would do this? The point is, Nick hasn't, and as such, he has no moral compass (not really, anyway) and this is going to mean that he's a man of his appetites (he allows that which he wants to guide his decisions rather than some higher ideal). This is where the battle of the two women is going to come into play.
Number one question: why does Ahmanet's pupils multiply? The eyes, as we know, are the windows of the soul, so this is the ultimate parasitic relationship, that Set feeds off Ahmanet's soul, and she lets him. She wants power, but how much power does Set have over her while he occupies her soul? All of the power. If we are not in control of our soul, we are not in control of anything. Ahmanet has sacrificed the most basic and elementary mode of existence for an existence she never even gets to experience for a moment (the power of being queen, or the power of ruling the world once she is awakened).
There are going to be binary oppositions in this film, and that's a good thing. For example, the hieroglyphs which Jenny cleans in the bottom image, are the acceptable means of writing, which also means, those are the acceptable texts which society accepts and promotes (the canon, in other words). Ahmanet rejects those and seeks out the "forbidden texts" so she can experience the "forbidden power," and that text becomes engraved upon her flesh because our soul becomes infected with the things we read: if we read works of holiness, we become infected with holiness and want to do good and holy things; if we read corrupt materials, our soul, too, becomes corrupt and we want to do corrupt things, hence the writing on her body.
There is, however, a more interesting and modern interpretation of the writing on her body: so much has been written on the female body,that the female body has ceased to be a real body and has become only a political/social issue:  is the female body still a body anymore, or just a political entity? If some woman doesn't get a promotion, it's not a matter of her qualifications, it is a matter of corporate sexism, whereas if a man doesn't get a promotion, as we all know, it's just that he isn't qualified. Feminists have regulated their bodies to nothing but their vaginas, and men's bodies to nothing but their penises in all their feminist rhetoric nobody reads. But it's had a negative effect because, as you well know, we are not only losing the ability to identify with our bodies, but losing the ability to identify with other people and their bodies. Feminism, in other words, was supposed to be helping women understanding themselves better, instead, they have become just like the clay tablet in the bottom image, a piece of paper upon which to write the latest theories and unacceptable attitudes towards the female body.
Jenny Halsley, the archaeologist for Prodigium, and Ahmanet, are two very different women and yet they have characteristics in common. Symbolically, they are both women who represent for us the passive principle of the "motherland," and what's a bit of a reverse is, we have two versions of the "motherland" (Jenny and Ahmanet) fighting for the man (Nick) who symbolizes the active principle of the country's mode of production, i.e., "the economy." Usually, it's the two modes of economy (two men) competing for rights of access to the motherland (the leading lady), so is this film feminist itself in offering a role reversal? Possible, but not probable. The two women merely reflect the reality of what is happening in America, even the world. So what are the characteristics of these two women?
There is water and there is desert, the absence of water (duh, I know, right?). Water is a baptismal symbol, even if it's just "cleansing," water is meant to impart self-reflection and conversion (even in non-spiritual matters, as we see with James Bond in Spectre).  When Bond goes to kill Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) it's in the desert, where there is no water, there is no self-reflection, there is just a sprinkler watering a lawn (because Blofeld's "self-reflection" has been manicured and cultivated to be just so). Ahmanet is buried in water; why? Nothing grows in sand, but water cleanses, and water provides the symbolic medium for meditation, in other words, by burying her in water, the Egyptian priests hoped to cleanse and purify her through her reflection on what she had done, become and her motivations; that didn't happen, because she has just grown to be even more self-righteously indignant that she was denied power, sound like a liberal? We see Jenny being dragged under the water and, even though I don't know what's going to happen, we can say that Ahmanet wants to somehow bury Jenny in her virtue, bury Jenny in her ability to reflect on herself; in other words, turn Jenny's virtue into her own death.
While nothing grows in the desert, it is a good place to be purged, because there also is no place for the demons to hide: everything is visible, and it becomes its own process of cleansing, just like the water; with water, however, growth can be fostered, meaning, that which water cleanses, is also going to grow, but that which the desert cleanses, needs to be put to death. The reason this is important, is because of the sand storm Ahmanet whips up in London and then we see Nick and Jenny in water, so this is a drastic change of "landscape" for those characters, and that's how we will know what is really going on in these scenes. 
One of the women is modern, one traditional; but which one? Jenny, as an archaeologist, looks to the past, while Ahmanet, wanting to be one of the only queens in Egyptian history, looks to the future and away from her country's past of having only male pharaohs. While we see Ahmanet go to the "margins" to get power, we see Jenny have power with the marginal organization of Prodigium for whom she works. Both characters have been filled with clues about how they see the state of the country and world, and in understanding what they want to tell us, we will experience that great artistic state known as catharsis. I am seeing The Mummy Friday afternoon (sadly, not in 3D because of the timing restraints) and I will diligently work to get the post up asap; if the film disappoints, or I think there is something you should know, I will post so you have that info (I haven't heard anything about a post-credits clip, but I always stay until the end anyway).
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Thursday, June 8, 2017

The God-Killer: Wonder Woman & the "Evil" Aristocracy

On the island, where Diana lives, she is the only child.
In other words, on an island full of women, she is the only child.
On an island full of women, only one of them wanted to have a child, Hippolyta, and she didn't want to have a child the "normal way," she wanted to have an "asexual" birth (more on the clay baby below). While feminists will applaud this "liberated" state of existence for women, ask yourself how unnatural that is that these women don't give birth, and thereby, what other "unnatural" ways of living the have adopted.
When Steve Trevor asks Diana, "What is this place?" she tells him, "We are the bridge between mankind and the gods." As we discussed in King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword with The Mage being the bridge for Arthur to pass from being a scoundrel to a king, so Wonder Woman wants to posit the same kind of things,... except it doesn't. Wonder Woman is only a bridge for minorities and women, not for white men, members of the aristocracy or people who love their country.
There is a really important part of the film when, on the island, Diana walks in on Steve naked after he has exited the bath and she says, "What is that?" and Steve thinks, for a moment, she refers to his penis, but then realizes she's talking about his watch; that's an intentional "confusion" which isn't meant to confuse us, rather, it's meant to clarify for us: specifically, that the film makers view history (the watch) as his-story, and his-story is phallic (Steve's penis which he thinks Diana asks him about at first). What does Steve tell her about the watch? First, that it was his father's; when you think about a man passing on his watch to his son, what do you think about? Maybe the scene in Pulp Fiction when Christopher Walken's character shows up and tells little Butch about how they all suffered to get that gold watch to Butch someday. To us, that is a sign of love, of incredible devotion and it gave those men a purpose, an achievement of having protected that heirloom when nothing was left to them; the socialists, however, are like, what a pack of stupid idiots, and the socialists would be like that because it was during the Vietnam War that Butch's dad was hiding the watch, so he managed to hide it from the same socialists who, today, are bad-mouthing the soldiers who managed to save the watch.
What happens is, right at the end of Wonder Woman, before he dies, Steve gives Diana that watch; why? She didn't express any kind of like for it, but he gives it to her not because it's a material possession, but because it symbolizes men giving his-story over to become her-story, and he's willing going off into the sunset with his evil, phallic symbol gun to kill himself and rid the world or man, or at least, white man. We see something very similar in Pirates Of the Caribbean 5 and Carina being a horologist, a specialist in time, because--by finding the Trident and breaking it--Carina has taken his-story and written herself into it, if not re-writing it all together.
So, the film makers propose, that the best way to make his-story NOT his-story anymore is to replace it with something that doesn't have anything to do with history, like taking the island of Lesbos and turning it form a poetry colony into a Sparta-wannabe, and somehow that will help to settle old scores. 
In the poster above, the tagline for Wonder Woman reads: The future of justice begins with her,... Why? Well, there is of course the play on concepts that somehow Wonder Woman is the first member of what is going to become the Justice League which Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) is assembling and relies upon her for help; then again, given that she kills Aries, the god of war in the film, and ends the "enslavement" of men to all that Aries infected them with, we could say that is the "justice" the film makers intend to communicate to the viewer,... then again, we know the Left believed that Hillary Clinton was going to be president and that Hillary would reign in a new "justice," where those who had committed murder walked away free, and those who had done nothing but earned money would be hung from the gallows,... sadly, this is exactly what Wonder Woman is about, so for those of us who voted for Trump, we have total validation. There are two main murders I want to focus on in the film: that of Aries and Steve Trevor (Chris Pine). Yes, I know you are saying, "But Trevor had to sacrifice himself," but no, he didn't, and this isn't the first time we have seen this.
He was murdered.
THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.  These two characters definitely symbolize conservatives in America today. Dr. Poison, on the left, is a female chemist working to create a poisonous gas so strong, it will destroy the gas mask anyone wears to protect them from it,... why? Because Liberals imagine that is what conservatives are doing to do to Hillary (had she become President Hillary as they expected her to) is to release information (the gas) so deadly to the Liberal party and cause would be utterly destroyed, information so damaging to their agenda that they wouldn't be able to "put on a mask and ignore" what the information was the way Liberals usually do about things like this. What happens first when the gas is tried on a gas mask? The glass eyes crack and shatter, meaning, the Liberals are forced to see what is happening (the eyes of the mask) and acknowledge the truth (the glass symbolizes reflection). When we first meet Dr. Poison, she demonstrates her achievements for General Ludendorff on a prisoner, and the prisoner does die a slow, painful death, but it doesn't quite work the way Dr. Poison wanted it to; the prisoner is someone being forced to listen to the truth about socialism/communism and be converted to capitalism; so what happens? The Left (symbolized by Steve Trevor) steals the notebook with the doctor's "research" so she can't finish developing the weapon gas. The green notebook wherein Dr. Poison keeps all her notes is stolen by Steve Trevor. The "green" of the notebook denotes that the contents are the "hope" of the conservatives (because green symbolizes new life and growth), but Liberals see them as "rotten" (because when something goes bad it turns green, as part of decay). Why are the notes so important? As Diana tells the British generals, it's written in two languages: the "two languages" reflects the two "different" languages of Wonder Woman: there is the spoken language of the dialogue between the characters, and then there is the unspoken, secondary text which we have to tease out and piece together. This dualism is echoed after Diana has been fighting Sir Patrick/Aries and her head is ringing from an explosion; Steve tries to tell her good-bye, but the ringing distorts what he's saying and she can't hear him; the noise of the dialogue of the film is "ringing" in our ears, the viewers, and we can't actually hear Steve saying good-bye, because it's supposed to be all white men saying good-bye and going off to commit mass suicide, but more on that below with Steve. 
The main reason the British intelligence doesn't want Steve to act on the contents of the notebook is because of the Armistice, the declaration of peace; what is that in terms of reality? The Election of November 4, which, again, Liberals were confident was going to Hillary (we're going to be discussing the November 4 election again with The Mummy).
What about the blue vials Dr. Poison breaks open for Lundendorff to inhale? If you noticed (and this is so damning to the Left) the vials are deep blue and they have diamonds around them (they are quite lovely, actually): as we know, dear reader, the blue symbolizes, simultaneously, sadness and wisdom, because it's from the sadness of life that we gain wisdom; diamonds typically symbolize love, but also because they are so hard, and because of their reflective nature (their ability to capture light and expand it) they can also symbolize truth, as in, the "cold hard truth," which is the basis of the wisdom of the blue vials. So, the Left, in giving Ludendorff these vials, knows that the wisdom of dealing with the feminism, socialism and class revolution which Diana Prince symbolizes, is based upon the experiences of war (World War II,Vietnam, Korea, the Cold War and various smaller wars that were never officially declared) and that this experience is indeed wise and the truth,... but socialists don't care about the truth, as we all know, just their agenda. If you thought that both of these characters were somehow gods connected to Aries, and then still confused about them at the end,... that just means you are probably too rational and logocentric, and you need to stop thinking so much.
Why does Diana not kill Dr Poison when she has the chance? She's female. Even though Dr Poison is an evil conservative, like myself, a female is much better than a male any day: the men have to die, but not the females, just the bad men (Luddendorf and Steve Trevor). Why does Dr Poison have the mask on her face? Because she has "lost face" with feminists in helping conservatives. Again, we saw this character in Pirates 5 with Shansa the witch who is visited by Barbaossa and gives Barbossa Jack's compass back. Shansa helped the British and Dr Poison helped the nationalist Luddendorf.
But Aries first.
Why does the film lead us to believe that German General Ludendorff (pictured above) is Aries, the god of war, and whose death will return men to being good and fair? Because it's a "two-for." By having "two" gods of war, Aries, the film makers can attribute two different "roles" for Aries in the modern world: one as the proud, nationalist German war-monger and the other is the aristocracy, because as Sir Patrick, the second Aries, is a member of the British aristocracy, or the upper-class. It really isn't important that Ludendorff is German, what's important is the Iron Cross Ludendorff wears around his neck (it's in the picture above, the black and silver cross around his neck).
It might seem odd to have this image in this post ("Wrong movie!" right?) but comparing the importance of the painting behind Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor to some of the visual imagery we see in Wonder Woman when Hippolyta tells Diana the story of Aries and Zeus, especially when Aries "falls from Olympus," I was particularly reminded of Lucifer's fall from heaven as depicted in this painting. The importance of the 'change" from traditonal Christianity we see in this painting, and the pagan myths Hippolyta tells Diana, is imperative because it establishes the most dramatic demarcation between socialism and capitalism: God. It's not an accident that the sword is called the "God-Killer," not because the sword is actually going to kill God, but because the re-distribution of the power the sword provides, will kill God, that's why, in King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword, Excalibur's return to the line of Pendragon means there is going to be a return to tradition and order, exactly the opposite of what Vortigern wants. Likewise, in Pirates 5, Henry and Carina break Poseidon's Trident because breaking the sea god's Trident means breaking the sea god himself if he doesn't have a symbol of power to use for his ruler ship. 
The Church (really, of any denomination, but especially Christianity because the Catholic Church has fought so hard against socialism, up until Pope Francis, anyway) makes it excessively difficult for socialism to be planted and take root in a country, either because of the religious convictions of the people, the activism of the clergy or both. The Church is the keeper of the Moral Code, and that's difficult for socialism because they want the State to be the maker and keeper of the Moral Code; socialists want the State to make decisions about abortion, not the Church; to make decisions about when sick and old people should die, not the Church; about you are nothing but a lump of tissue and there is nothing special about you or any skill or talent set you might have, so shut up and get to work. By associating the Church with the German nationalist movement (Ludendorff) Wonder Woman film makers hope to persuade you that the Christianity is also associated with nationalism and war-mongering.
So, what about Sir Patrick?
When the film opens, we see a truck marked Wayne Enterprises delivering a secured briefcase to Diana Prince; where is she? At the Louvre, and we know that--not because of all the artwork--because of the glass pyramid we see the Wayne guard walking by (pictured at the top). Why is this important? Well, I never saw The Da Vinci Code, but supposedly the Louvre is the place where Mary Magdalene is buried (it's not, but the heretical book claims it is). Now, fast forward to when Diana and her gang defend that French village and she takes out all the top of the church where the sniper has been and then she stands on top of the church. We saw the "desecration" of the church in Magnificent Seven, and we see it again in Wonder Woman: the sniper must be an excellent shot to be a sniper, and as we have consistently seen in pro-socialist films, anyone who is good at what they do must die because their skill/talent is a gift from God and that gift validates His presence and activity among His children, how He chooses to reveal Himself. So the sniper is killed because he's an excellent shot (Charlie is a sniper, but he's lost his ability to shoot, so since the gun is a phallic symbol, Charlie is impotent, which is the only reason the film makers allow him to "stay alive" in the film, even though he's white and male). When Diana has taken out the sniper, she has destroyed God's creation--rather like Salieri in the film Amadeus and him wanting to kill Mozart because God gave Mozart such an incredible gift, then Mozart's death just left the world without Mozart and Salieri the patron of the mediocre. But Diana, standing at the top of the church, and having been in the place at the start of the film where the "pagans" believe Mary Magdalene is buried (because they believe she and Jesus were lovers and she bore Jesus a son), means that Diana is the NEW Mary Magdalene through whom the "new" church of socialism will be born (remember, this takes place in France and this is exactly what the French Revolution did with the Church). REMEMBER: the sword she uses is called, "The God-Killer," and then Aries tells her, "The sword isn't the God-Killer, you are." Literally, because whereas Mary Magdalene adored Christ and gave up her life of sin to follow Him, this new Mary Magdalene (Diana Prince) is going to kill and destroy Christ. 
There is another film with which the opening of Wonder Woman begs comparison, Edge Of Tomorrow (Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt). The "Omega" brain, which controls all the mimic activity destroying the world is located in the glass pyramid at the Louvre (yes, the same one opening Wonder Woman). We can take this as either being a confession on part of the Wonder Woman film makers that yes, Edge Of Tomorrow's Omega does symbolize the socialist revolution in the world, and it's going to be led by DC Comics, or even an unconscious admission because Wonder Woman film makers saw Edge Of Tomorrow and knew--even without articulating it--that they are the ones meant by the film's character of Omega. Why would Wonder Woman film makers do this? As Thranduil (Lee Pace) says in The Hobbit: Desolation Of Smaug, it's the very nature of evil to reveal itself. That which we, conservatives and Christians, consider "evil," the Left and Liberals consider "good," so they want to advertise their "self-righteousness," which conservatives see and understand to be their one-way ticket to hell (please see Beneath the Louvre: Edge Of Tomorrow for more). We also can't forget that we just saw a pyramid structure housing occult forces in King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword. The occult forces trying to destroy Camelot are housed within a not-so-subtle reference to the Illuminati, and we can definitely say the same of Wonder Woman and the Louvre's glass pyramid (please see The New Feminism: King Arthur Legend Of the Sword for more). And, last but not least, it was within a pyramid that the evil Apocalypse was buried, resurrected by the feminist Moira in X-Men: Apocalypse.
But there are also other issues. For example, we learn that Hippolyta, Diana's mother, formed her from clay. Have we seen that anywhere else recently? Yes, yes, we have: Warcraft. Medivh the wizard sculpts a giant golum to be a "servant," but it ends up being a weapon possessed by the demon of fel magic (which is symbolized by the color green in the film). Just as the golum is supposed to do what it's told, so, too, is Diana, and all of us; in other words, the film believes we are ALL made of clay and have no individuality or uniqueness (please see To Kill a Demon: Warcraft for more). Don't believe me?
When Diana is a little girl, running away from her mother on the island, she sees an armadillo (second image above); why? Of all the fantastic animals that could have been on this island, why an armadillo? Because from one egg, four genetically identical offspring are born, so they might as well be made of clay (please see this link at Wikipedia for more).; being identical, the armadillos supposedly have no individuality and that's a common feature of socialist societies, everyone is literally like everyone else, or forced to become like everyone else. The armadillo is by a set of stairs, and stairs symbolize the ascent to a higher form of consciousness, or we are supposed to transcend something tangible into the world of greater abstraction, so we are being invited to get into a deeper interpretation of why on earth, in the middle of nowhere and for no apparent reason whatsoever, there is an armadillo in Wonder Woman. But the film uses this same technique with another animal on the island: a cow.
The cow we see in the film is a species particular to India (the photo above at the bottom is the best I could find) so why India in a Wonder Woman film? Cows are sacred in India and are not supposed to be eaten; so why is there one in Wonder Woman? As a sub-conscious message that we should not be eating meat, either. Remember that awful Darren Aronofsky film Noah (Russell Crowe)? That film was saying the same thing: Noah told his kids, we eat moss, but they kill animals and eat the flesh, believing it makes them stronger, even though I just eat a handful of lichen and kick their ass. Wonder Woman is saying the same thing; why would socialists care about what we eat? The weaker you are the easier you are to control. The stronger you are, the harder you are to control because you can fight back and survive. This is one of the strategies of castrating men of their leadership positions in society: men who have been emotionally, psychologically, spiritually and socially castrated are far easier to control and brainwash then men who have a strong sense of personal identity and of their own masculinity.
Back to Diana.
At the start of the film, then, at the Louvre's glass pyramid, she's being packaged as the "new Mary Magdalene," but without a Jesus Christ, but then, with the armadillo, she's being packaged as one who must never know who she really is,.... really? Why is knowing who you are such a bad thing? Because if you are a socialist, you are not allowed to stand above anyone else, and Diana being "special" means she does stand above everyone else and one person being better than the others ruins the whole system; how? Individuality. So the film starts out embracing just being a clay doll, a member of society like everyone else, but then, when Diana goes to kill Aries #1, and even Aries #2, she announces, just as they do in The Iliad by Homer (and given Diana's extensive reading of erotica, all 12 volumes, we can be confident she read The Iliad), who she is and why she is killing them; why? Because that warrior, and only that warrior, was capable of killing that other warrior, so it was a mark of individuality,.. oh, wait, that's bad in a socialist society, isn't it? Yes, it is, they've just deconstructed themselves. 
David Thewlis, who plays Sir Patrick, really doesn't come across as being the "god of war," does he? That's intentional. Wonder Woman film makers don't want you to see the typical individuals as the threat (if Dwayne Johnson were a bad guy, how scary would that be to have him show up at your door trying to knock it down?) rather, a class of individuals who, in and of themselves, aren't scary or terrible, but as a class--specifically the upper-class--are the very face of war itself. So, for socialists, we could say there is a checklist of what must be accomplished to accomplish socialism, and there are three things on that list: kill nationalism (Ludendorff), kill off the aristocracy (Sir Patrick) and kill of white males, especially white males who are "above average," which leads us to the murdering of Steve Trevor.
To a large degree,we have seen this group before in The Magnificent Seven, when all the white people died, and only the minorities lived. Again, Charlie (the Scotsman on the right end) was supposed to be a sniper, but lost his ability to shoot because of what the war did to him mentally. This means that Charlie isn't good at anything. It's okay for a minority to be good at something, like Chief's ability to get around, or Sammie's acting, but they are minorities while Charlie is white, so Charlie has to have some kind of "castration" handicap working in his favor. While we see the "bad" Germans using the guns on the beach of Diana's island, Charlie's inability to use a gun basically means he is "impotent," and can't reproduce, therefore, he poses no risk of creating future generations of men who are going to be like him,... all this is how a socialist thinks, so it's a good thing I am a capitalist. 
When we first meet Steve Trevor, his plane crashes into the ocean and he has to be rescued by Diana. Why? To begin with, his plane symbolizes his "vehicle" of self-determination: he himself is a wreck, which is why he wrecks the plane. When Diana gets to him, he is under water: water either symbolizes the baptismal qualities of cleansing and grace, or water symbolizes sex, and we know that Steve and Diana later have sex, so the water into which his plane dives foreshadows the sexual act Steve will later have with Diana. Steve's legs are caught int he plane: legs symbolize our "standing" in society, so this means that after having sex, Diana doesn't actually think very much of Steve's performance (remember, Diana tells Steve on the boat that men are needed for reproduction, but not pleasure, and since Diana apparently doesn't want to have a baby, Steve is there merely for her pleasure and she finds that he doesn't measure up). IF you doubt me, please recall that after they have sex, Steve again gets into an airplane (the one loaded with the poison gas) and blows it up, reminding us of what happened at the beginning.
So what is the point of this?
In the image at the top, we have Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich) from Hail, Caesar!; the second image down is the poster for the upcoming Kingsman 2: The Golden Circle and, the third image is Wonder Woman when the Amazonians have Steve Trevor tied in the lasso of truth which keeps him from lying to them. The last image is Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill) in The Man From UNCLE wearing a cowboy apron because he's been cooking. What each of these images have in common is something to do with a lasso, which has suddenly become quite popular. In Hail, Caesar! Hobie is a real-life cowboy who gets a start in acting, and can do some pretty impressive tricks with a lasso.. Why is this important? Well, do we see either The Kingsman's Channing Tatum's character or Diana Prince in Wonder Woman do any tricks? They use their lassos to fight, but do they actually manage to make circles or something that would be recognized as a skill or talent apart from just whipping it around to encircle their enemies? My point is, Hobie, being a white, heterosexual male, and a real cowboy, uses his logic and skill to "teach" the lasso how to move, to recognize a set of tricks and then become better and better at doing them through practice. Tatum's character and Diana Prince, on the other hand, appear to just use the lasso to punish their enemies. We don't have to say that the lasso is a phallic symbol,... I think it would actually be better to say the exact opposite, because a lasso is,... excuse the expression, "limp." Essentially, Hobie knows "the ropes," but Tatum and Diana Prince are bringing the ropes "down," in a barrier sense, they don't want anymore "logocentric" structure to society which favors white males (but wait, you say, keen reader, Channing Tatum is a white male, and The Kingsman Secret Service was a pro-capitalist film; you are correct. Given the layout of the trailer for The Golden Circle, I think--and as always, I could be wrong--but I think The Statesman (the American cousins) are going to be portrayed as socialists, because all the actors in those roles are very liberal, even though the film itself will be pro-capitalist because we have the same film writer and director returning; I hope that clears it up). Just as we see the Amazonian in the third image using the lasso to make Steve tell the truth, all socialists basically want that: to make white men tell the truth about who they really are, which is the enemy of minorities everywhere, according to minorities.
So, what about Napoleon Solo? If Hobie and his rodeo tricks are the norm, then how does Solo use a lasso? Kuryakin calls Solo "cowboy" throughout the film as a derogatory nickname, but we see him actually wearing a cowboy themed apron in the image at the bottom because Solo "knows the ropes" and how to get what he wants: for example, he knows how to get a rise out of Kuryakin when they are told they are going to be partners and they verbally spar to establish male dominance over the other; at the end, he knows how to get Victoria distracted enough that they have time to launch a bomb at her boat and stop her. While Hobie is the logocentric model--the white male rational mind-set which has established ways to do things and excels at those very things (rodeo tricks) which minorities don't (like the little boy in Logan who only had second and third place trophies instead of first place trophies)--we can see Solo as the "creative" model. Solo is, by all definitions, part of the establishment (white, male, heterosexual) but he's also a criminal. Solo wasn't born to wealth but he's managed to learn the ropes and make the ropes work for him, thereby protecting innocent people from becoming his theft victims. Socialists, on the other hand, make the lassos work against their enemies, not for a greater good.
Men are evil.
At least, it's imperative to socialists that white, heterosexual men are seen as evil, and that they need to end their existence. Steve Trevor's legs getting stuck in his plane when we first meet him not only foreshadows his lack of sexual performance with Diana later in the film, but how white, heterosexual men themselves have gotten stuck in a downward-spiral in their standing in society. What has contributed to Steve's (the white man's) rejection of him by society? The plane symbolizes technology and achievement, and we can also see Steve's achievement in not only successfully getting the stolen notes of Dr Poison to the British, but also the medal he wins (after he's dead, Diana sees a photo of him standing by a plane and there is a medal on his jacket; we know from the medals Captain Salazar wears in Pirates of the Caribbean 5, the rodeo trophies in Logan, the demon-villain coming out of the corner behind a box of football trophies in Justice League, and Nebula accusing Gamora of just wanting to win, when she only wanted a sister in Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2, are the rolling accumulations of anti-awards and anti-winning and anti-above average with which the Left has squarely identified.
Does "above average" ring a bell?
When Steve and Diana are leaving her island, Diana asks Steve if he knows how to sail, and this is probably a reference to his 2016 film The Finest Hours about a daring rescue mission wherein Chris Pine plays the lead; it was a incredible rescue and only a miracle and superior skill managed the saving of all those men and getting the rescued back home. This provides one more reason why Steve Trevor has to die, and I know it doesn't make sense, but socialists want a reason to kill everyone, and if a character can have blame heaped up on them, so much the better.
When Diana and Steve are getting ready to sleep in the boat for the night, Diana makes it clear this is not a big deal, and even though this is 1918 in the film, the film makers make it sound like causal sex is only causal sex and it's exceedingly common outside of marriage (if I had an exact transcript of the conversation, I could point out the exact spots where there are problems, but alas, I don't). The reason this is important is because it's a double-edged sword for men: feminists want women to have equal sexual rights to men, and for women to get to sleep around, however, feminists then site men's sexual appetites, and not even being good in bed, as a reason to do away with men all together. Because men have failed to protect their masculinity by not being promiscuous. they have lost their masculinity.
When Steve and Diana arrive in London, and Steve says, "Welcome to Jolly Ole' London," and Diana replies, "It's hideous!" this is meant to be a slam against industrialization and culture. If you will recall another Chris Pine film, Star Trek Into Darkness, the white-faced primitive people wearing yellow robes were essentially a symbol for hippies who want to destroy civilization and go back to medieval days when we are all bound by feudalism.  Criticizing the way London looks is a means of brainwashing people into thinking that all cities are "hideous."
After Steve has gotten out of the bath and Diana enters and sees him naked, and questions him about whether he is "average" for the male sex (his penis size), Steve brags and states that he's "above average." Recall, if you will, dear reader, that the "morning after" Steve and Diana have been together, you wouldn't know it: there is no "after glow" or any kind of intimacy between them; why not? Men are not needed for sex, Wonder Woman tells us. Having an island of all women is much better than having a man of your own. In other words, throughout the whole film, Steve Trevor is made such a sissy and wimp, he has to die because that's the only way for him to redeem himself, is through death, but only after the film makers have spent the whole film, making the case of how bad he and other white men are (remember, both Aries #1 and Aries #2 are both white also). To add a "completeness" to Steve's death, he shoots the bombs with a gun to cause the explosion that kills him; why is this important?
Why is this the moment when Diana realizes she has more power than she thought?Look at how she holds her arms (the crossed forearms is a famous characteristic of Wonder Woman). She's basically making an X with her arms, it's a broken cross. We have seen this at least two other times in pro-socialist films: in Logan, at the end when Laura takes the cross over Logan's grave and turns it to an X instead of a Christian cross, and then in Pirates Of the Caribbean 5, with the X that Jack Sparrow wears on his cheek the entire film. Our arms typically symbolize our strength, so by making an X, Diana is realizing that she's stronger than God, and this is the moment she becomes the God-Killer. Need proof? What do people do when they are afraid of something? They make the sign of the Cross, or they hold up a Crucifix to protect them; they do not rely upon their own strength, rather, they rely upon God's strength and goodness to protect and defend them. Diana, on the other hand, is realizing (because this is political propaganda) that she doesn't need God, so she's broken the Cross, just like Jack Sparrow and Logan. Just as we discussed the breaking of Poseidon's Trident in the Lex Luthor image above, so Diana breaking the Cross to be only an X is doing the same to the Cross that Henry and Carina do in Pirates 5 in breaking Poseidon's Trident.
When Steve arrived at the island, the Germans in hot pursuit behind, he asked Diana if they had any guns, and it was because of the guns that so many of the Amazon women died, including Robin Wright's Antiope. Chief, likewise, tells Diana that he and his people do not have any rights because Steve's people took them away. How? With guns. So the instrument of Steve's death (technically speaking, anyway) being a gun (because he shoots the bombs to get them to explode), is to Wonder Woman justice, not only because of the oppression of the Indians, but because of the women with bows and arrows (like the Indians) who were killed by the guns. Why are the guns so bad? Because they are so much better than bows and arrows! That's why they are bad! Technological advances that women nor Indians came up with and that's why white men have to die is because no one else is as smart as them, so let's get rid of all the smart people and just leave the stupid people to be happy. When the poster says, "Justice begins with her," the death of Steve Trevor is the first. In more ways than one.
What do we make of Etta Candy? Well, she's not at fault for anything. How do we know? Look at her hat. We know that the head symbolizes our thoughts, because the head is where our thoughts originate, and so anything on our head materializes our thoughts so they are in some way visible to others.  Her hat is gray, with maybe a bit of blue in it, and we know that gray symbolizes the novice, the beginner; while most of the film appears to have Etta teaching Diana how to dress and act, it's Etta the film wants to exemplify as the "novice" because because Etta is going to be with whom most of the women in the audience identify: we prefer to wear dresses rather than skimpy Amazonian bikinis and we don't think about lifting our legs or arms in our fashion choices. It's through Etta, as well, that women in the audience like myself are supposed to start realizing that we are "enslaved": just as Etta works for Sir Patrick, i.e., Aries #2, so women are supposed to see their own bosses (but only the men, the female bosses are okay, regardless of what they do or how they act as bosses, because they are most likely feminists, and they can get away with anything) as a "god of war," as Aries, because they are not business people, they are, rather, declaring war on other businesses, they declare war on their circumstances (wanting to rise above them) and the worst of the worst,... they declare war on helplessness. Those horrible business owners, they don't want to be helpless and depend upon the government for their subsistence, like good little socialists do.
Now, here is an important point regarding Etta: "Protect this with your life," Diana tells her, handing Etta the God-Killer sword and shield. "Protect this with your life," she might as well be saying, because your life is cheap compared to what this sword is worth to me. This is important because socialists want to portray the exact opposite scenario to the public: socialists are the ones who care about you, not those money-grabbing, greedy materialists who are just using you to get rich. Diana makes it clear that Etta is supposed to die defending the sword and shield, because Etta isn't worth anything; even though Etta would be considered Steve's "slave" where Diana is from, Etta is probably Diana's doormat here.
After Diana hands Etta the sword and shield, Steve and Diana get cornered by thugs wanting Dr Poison's book back and then Etta shows up, holding the sword; why? Wonder Woman film makers want you to believe that the moment an oppressed woman like Etta holds a great phallic symbol like the God-Killer sword, she will become liberated, just like Diana believing that the moment the aristocracy is destroyed, all men will become liberated and start being good, rather than selfish and mean. They know this isn't going to happen, but they want the simpletons to believe it anyway, because, again, those are the easy ones to control.
So, Steve was guilty for the sins of his ancestors against the Indians, but the socialists of today aren't guilty for the sins of other socialists and communists? Yep, that's the way they roll, because there isn't any other way for them to do it but the cheap and sleazy way, which is what they are most familiar with. This was an absolutely wretched film. I despised every single second of it and felt that I was strapped to a chair in a Soviet concentration camp re-assignment division. You must understand, THIS IS ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Saturday, June 3, 2017

The WORST: Wonder Woman

It was FAR worse than what I imagined it was going to be. It might not seem like it when you are watching it--rather like Pirates 5--but trust me, they really loaded this with propaganda. And here's the thing: it would have been even worse if Zach Snyder (Man Of Steel, 300) hadn't been the one who came up with the story-outline and then others just filled-in dialogue and action. So many little things like Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) wearing a medal, and the baby made out of clay and the white people dying and only minorities being left alive (like in The Magnificent Seven),... it's getting so bad. I'm working on it and will get it up asap. This is what is making a film like The Mummy even more important, because it looks like (apart from King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword, John Wick Chapter 2) it's still one of only a couple of films to really make a stand against the continued march of socialism.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Friday, June 2, 2017

CASTRATION: Pirates Of the Caribbean 5: Dead Men Tell No Tales

Look closely.
Very closely.
Do you see it?
On the tooth, on your right side, there is a pink stone in the tooth (click on the image to enlarge it if you need to); why is this important? This is the same color of pink we see Optimus Prime's eyes turn in trailer for Transformers: The Last Knight, signifying that Prime has become a feminist (please see Trailers: Transformers, Detroit for more).  This skull and crossbones is supposed to symbolize Captain Jack Sparrow (there is not only his divided and braided beard, but his beads and that long thin bone on your right which hangs down in his hair), so we can say that Jack has been converted to feminism and wants to lead the charge. Why? Why would Jack Sparrow become a feminist? He's a pirate and, as such, an outlaw just like feminists, in the very real and legally binding sense: feminists want the phallus-centered law to end, because they feel it doesn't represent them, and it doesn't. The law is based on maintaining order and promoting fairness and harmony throughout society; feminism, on the other hand, is about the elevation of one sex over the other sex and about using coercion to achieve it through male-guilt. The "order" which the phallo-centric laws created go against the "chaos" of all feminists encourage, like abortion, satanism (yes, look at all the witches participating in the "binding spell" against Trump), perverse sexuality (because of "sexual liberation," women encourage same-sex attractions by acting more masculine and regulating men to a more passive role) and the embracing of destruction rather than creation. Some of these issues are addressed below regarding the symbolism of the Trident, but Likewise, much of our sense of how to act in society comes from Christianity, and feminism is in stark contrast to Christianity as well (and the rest of the film, too); in a word, feminism is aptly aligned with everything the New World Order champions; so how and when does the NWO fit into Pirates? From the first scene to the last.
Why is the sea important? 
It doesn't have borders, it doesn't have nationalities, it doesn't have walls or an identity (like the United States and its cultural heritage, or Britain, or Germany, or Italy, etc.). So the sea is a perfect setting for the NWO and what it wants to achieve: to make national boundaries disappear like water. Throughout the film, we also see anyone who is anybody brought down, so there is no Tall Poppy Syndrome, which we literally saw in action in Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2 when Gamora was in the field on planet Ego and cut down the flowers beside her because they annoyed her. There is a surprising amount of similarities between Pirates and the pro-socialist Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2, and I will try to point out as many as I can.
Without a doubt, Pirates Of the Caribbean 5: Dead Men Tell No Tales, is pro-socialist, which is a pity, because that means no one likes or is willing to say anything good about Johnny Depp's latest film: the Left doesn't like it because the franchise has made so much money and, in spite of castrating the main characters, the young snobs the Left has raised refuses to be grateful for anything; those of a conservative mind set won't like it because of the blatant undermining of justice, rewriting history and, yes, castration,... not literal--not just yet, anyway, but we can expect it any time now--bust most definitely in both the political and economic sense; we can easily say that the structure of Pirates is the exact inversion of what we see in Guy Ritchie's King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword. As always, this post is full of spoilers, so you have been alerted, and if you haven't seen it yet, there IS A POST-CREDITS SCENE (and it's at the very, very end of a very, very long credits crawl). So, let's begin with the most important aspect of the film: Poseidon's Trident.
So, Jack is being chased because he and his crew attempt to steal a vault loaded with gold. First of all, the mayor (or bank president, whoever he is) announces that the new safe will "bring St Martins into the modern world!" and that gold has never been stolen from a St Martin's bank; then the vault is opened and we see Jack Sparrow asleep with a hangover and the mayor's wife. Each of these details is important. The "modern world" the mayor mentions is actually supposed to work on us psychologically as understanding banking to be "so 1800s," because banking and gold was how they thought of "modern," so if we today truly are modern, we aren't going to look to such arcane institutions and methods of doing things to keep moving forward; rather, we are going to try and find something different (which this is supposed to be a lead-in for socialism). Then, we see Jack drunk, he's broken into a vault no one could break into. What does this mean? If you label a ship as "unsinkable," it's going to sink, like the Titanic, and if you label a vault as "unbreakable," someone is going to be able to break in, and probably quite easily (consider Napoleon Solo easily breaking into the vault in The Man From UNCLE). This is, I will concede, a good point: if you want your gold to be safe, there is a chance someone will break in and steal it, and with all these robbery films the Left have been making, like Hell Or High Water, Tower Heist, Logan Lucky, Masterminds, and others I don't care to remember right now, there is a really good chance the Left is going to break into the banks and steal all your money,.... Then, we have the woman suddenly appearing; why? Feminism. The wife of the mayor is the perfect candidate for feminism, because she's on the floor of the vault, while he rules and gets all the glory. In other words, just as the wife has had an illicit "dalliance" with Jack Sparrow, so feminists are having an illicit dalliance with criminal classes; doesn't sound fair? Which group wanted Obama to pardon Hillary Clinton on his way out, even while, in the same breath, they insisted she didn't do anything wrong and she shouldn't have to go to jail? The Left has made it abundantly clear that they despise the Law, not only in their abhorrent treatment of police officers, but also in the manner of how Obama categorically dismissed all wrong-doing and crimes committed by people in his administration,... no one was EVER punished for ANYTHING. Liberals wanted that to continue with Hillary; why? Because they deny they should be responsible for anything, and I could go on, but that's pointless, we have all seen it playing out for the last several years,....
Of course, Jack Sparrow is drunk because the Left believes in altering reality, and alcohol--like drugs--definitely alters reality, to the point that Jack can't even remember why he's there in that place. So we have Jack glorifying drunkenness and not having any idea what is happening around him, and I'm quite confident the "leadership" of the Left would love to see all their followers in the exact same state.
The middle image above, with the British soldiers standing on the slab of where the bank had been just moments ago, is incredibly important to the film; why? The NEW WORLD ORDER. This is exactly what they want to happen: steal all the banks away and start over with a clean slate, and many of the ruling elite that want this are themselves bankers, who want to create an even more beneficial system for themselves. How can we say this? The bottom image with the bridge.
As the crew of the Black Pearl pulls the bank throughout the town--which I am quite confident is meant to reflect Dominic Toretto in Fast and Furious: Fast Five--they come to a bridge through which the building won't fit (bottom image) so as the building goes through, it's all smashed to smithereens, and then there is just the vault, however, the vault has been dropping money all through town and by the time they get it back to the ship, it's empty of all its gold. The money falling out of the safe is a clear indication of "wealth redistribution," because it's mostly the kids and poor picking it up (kids like young Henry who wants to pay off his dad's debt of being captain of the Flying Dutchman).  The bridge symbolizes a process of change, because people start at one end of the bridge, and when they get to the other end, they are at a different place (duh, right?) but that's how the bridge symbolism works, and why it symbolizes change, and why the bank won't fit through the bridge. So, when the "change over" (the bridge) to the New World Order arrives, there will no longer be any banking (the destruction of the building) and there will no longer be any money; why would the NWO want to get rid of money? Because that means they get rid of wages, and consumers (because in order to be a consumer, you must have expendable income; you must have at least some leisure time outside of work and there must be a "market" where you can spend that expendable income; this is capitalism). Sure, once all money is gone, all debt is gone, too, but once all money is gone, so, too, is all of our freedom, because we can choose when we have money, but when all we have is our labor, then we are slaves, and that is exactly what the NWO wants.
When Jack and the crew get to their ship, The Dying Gull, there is one single coin left and Jack sneaks that for himself, and then tells the crew there is nothing left for them; what has just happened? The Left, socialists. have painted a horrible picture of what bosses are like, because--as the captain of the ship--Jack is, technically, their boss. So Jack keeps what was "made" by stealing the vault for himself, and gives nothing to Cotten and the others who did the "work" of stealing the vault, and then Jack tells them that they should pay him money as tribute for being with him (or something like that). Now, this is a moment of artistic noise, that is, with Jack's slurring, sound effects and the crew's accents, it's difficult to understand exactly what is being said, and the film makers wanted it this way, but you know, that Jack has failed to provide them with "wage" for their "work" (in pirate terms) so they mutiny, which is exactly what the Left wants ALL EMPLOYEES to do to their bad bossess, because every boss is bad to a socialist.
Then what do we see? Jack bartering his compass for a bottle of rum; later, we see Jack the monkey, at the end of the film, act like he's going to barter with Jack Sparrow (I will give you your compass if you let me stay with you, since Barbossa is dead?) and Jack let's him. The point is, bartering--which is a capitalist system of exchange--is bad since Jack obviously made a bad bargain in giving away the compass for a bottle of rum,.... remind you of when a Johnny Depp character did something like there somewhere else? Tonto, in The Lone Ranger, and we're being reminded of it.
Why does Jack Sparrow lose his hat at the end of the film? Technically, he loses it because it falls off his head when the waters come crashing back down, but there is a symbolic meaning as well: we see Jack first get the hat after he has saved his crew from certain death at the hands of Salazar, and in gratitude, they offer him "tribute," including the hat, and from that moment on, Dead Men Tell No Tales contends, Jack has been "obsessed" with tribute and getting money, because we know the head of a person symbolizes their thoughts, so their hairstyle or anything on their head will give us a clue to what they are thinking; the hat was given as tribute, so tribute is what Jack thinks about, and we see this with the empty vault and again when Cotten and crew save Jack from the Guillotine and Jack wants the crew to pay him for them rescuing him. So, after the Trident is broken, Jack loses his hat because after the "power is divided" and no one is in control anymore, no one owes tribute to anyone else anymore.
There is another reason to consider Jack and feminism, which is his slur against chivalry at the end of the film as he watches Will, Henry, Carina and Elizabeth all walk off together. Chivalry, as we know from King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword, is the very definition of masculinity, law and order. Is anyone surprised that the pirate Jack Sparrow, who is--by very definition of "pirate"--at odds with the law, and thereby, masculinity itself
When the film opens we see a very young Henry Turner (son of Will Turner [Orlando Bloom] and Elizabeth Swann [Keira Knightly]) rowing deep into the sea in a scenes that reminded of the row-boat full of communists rowing delivering Channing Tatum's character to the Soviet submarine in Hail, Cesar! (from the Coen Brothers); but little Henry wraps a bag of rocks around his ankle to drag him to the sea floor so the Flying Dutchman will have to fetch him, and then he tells his father (Will Turner) he's going to free him of the curse that keeps him there.
What just happened?
You may need to click on this image to enlarge it so you can see. The first image, at the top, is the very first image we see in the film: it's a book illustration of the pagan god Poseidon, holding his Trident; the second image down (and it is intentionally difficult to see) is the "actual" Trident used in the film as Poseidon's, and is, again intentionally, very disappointing. The Third image down is the Devil's Triangle (two of the angles being formed by the rock sides going up, and the base of the triangle by the water), and this is where Jack outwits Salazar, and then, the bottom image, is the splitting of the sea where Carina, Henry, Jack and others go down to get the Trident of Poseidon. So, what do all these images mean? I'm glad you asked.
There are two important details about the image at the top: first, the illustration is obviously more grandiose than the "reality" the film makers provide us with; why? Because they want it that way. Look at the second image: that's like an ugly twig. That's a horrific Trident, even if it were just a regular trident, that's awful (I mean, Finnick O'dair [Sam Claflin] in Mockingjay Part 2 is just a mortal, but he had a far superior trident than what Pirates decided to bestow upon "the god of the sea," Poseidon) so what the film makers of Pirates is doing, is deliberately "de-sensationlizing" the Trident; why? Because it's a male symbol of power, and to de-sensationalize the Trident is to de-sensationalize male power across the board. This leads us to the second important point: The Trident of Poseidon is not the Cross of Christ. You might be going, "Well, duh!" But no, I assure you, this is where the other two images come into play.
The "Devil's Triangle" (third image down), isn't the "Devil's Triangle," it's the Holy Trinity. To the Left, God is "the devil," because God has all these rules, regulations, and oppresses gays, women and the poor, whereas the devil is an anarchist revolting against God's strict ways. Young Jack tricks Salazar into going into the "Devil's Triangle" (the Holy Trinity) by acting as if Jack himself is going in, i.e., the Left think they have tricked us with their "gospel" of equality and freedom from debt for the poor, and whatever other trash they preach, but they are leading people, like myself who believe in law and order, into the very "devil" they themselves hate, God. I know, this doesn't make sense at all, but when we see Salazar's crew attack the British who go in (the ship young Henry is on) why does Salazar (if he symbolizes law and order, and the British also symbolize law and order) why is Salazar attacking them? Because the British captain wouldn't listen to Henry, so since Henry is a "hero" of the Left (because he will believe anything he's told and he wants to free his father from debt and "divide the power") the British have to be punished for mis-treating young Henry who has no power on the ship (we will discuss his "treason" below). If you don't buy into this, I understand, I believe that this is what Liberals truly believe, but I completely acknowledge that it's ridiculous, which is why I am not a Liberal (if you don't think even Liberals are dumb enough to think like this, check out this article about how one girl "reasoned" that working with the devil would be a good idea to stop Trump).; but consider the bottom image.
It is, in far less colossal appeal, the "parting of the sea," without Moses. Without anyone, in fact, since Poseidon himself seems to be a myth, which is, basically, the point: the sea can part on its own, and doesn't need a white man holding a phallic symbol acting like he's saving people when, in fact, he's just going to enslave them with capitalism,.... Again, I obviously don't believe this, yet the "parted sea" (which is really more of a crack, like the "crack" in their own heads) exemplifies the "re-writing of history," and we're going to see more like it: you want the Red Sea to be parted so you feel like you are being saved? We'll give you Hillary Clinton parting the Red Sea (remember, she should have been president now, according to the Left) and we will save you from the slavery of capitalism and all those fathers who do nothing but rack-up debts for their kids to pay off. To sum up, there is just enough religious symbolism in the film to undermine Christianity, but not enough for anyone to get really upset about,.... yet. This is going to change.
An important event takes place in the film, and it re-writes the Pirates history. Originally, Jack Sparrow got his compass by bartering it from the sea goddess Calypso ((you can watch a video of it here at YouTube). In Pirates 5, Jack gets it when the Captain of the Wicked Wench hands it to Jack and encourages him to use it against Salazar to save the ship. Is this a big deal? Yea, because it's an example of intentionally changing a story and thinking you can and get away with it, just like all of the lies from the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton; a perfect example of this is the remake of Watership Down. The original 1978 version of Watership Down was clearly about an "escape from Berlin" and communism; a new version, made for television (probably so it reaches more kids) is being made and will re-write that, making capitalism the evil and communism good. Trust me, this is how they are re-writing history, one film at a time, one piece of history at a time. And little things like changing how Jack gets his compass, contributes to the "license" of rewriting history.
The bag of rocks around his ankle sinking him represents "debt," and in the casual lexicon of the film, "debt" isn't a "debt," it's a "curse," and it's the "debt" of  the curse that Henry wants to rid his father. (It hasn't always been this way, but there was this TV show with Robert Redford about suicide called The Discovery, about life after death, and people were willingly killing themselves to be free of this life and live in the next; except it wasn't about "life after death," rather, "life after debt," and the mother filling a backpack with rocks to drown herself--kind of like young Henry in POTC 5--was doing so because of her college debt drowning her; so the brainwash of the show was, become a socialist and there will be life for you after debt because socialists don't have debts when everything is free,... except nothing is ever free, but do you want debt because you went to college, or because you needed to buy toothpaste and shampoo for the month?). So, young Henry mimics the state of being "in debt" and "under water" (because being "underwater" is a financial term meaning that you owe more on a loan than what you can make back from the market) to speak to dad and then we get to Carina.
Carina, top image, battles being called "a witch" throughout most of the show. When Barbossa visits Shansa (second image down) we are introduced to the real witch of the film: us. Yes, viewer, if you are a conservative, and you rooted for the Tea Party, guess what, the Left thinks you are a witch. Here is what happens. When Barbossa arrives, Shansa asks him if he would like some tea, and she takes a cup full of this thick, green slime and drinks it. This is a reference to the Tea Party and the "hope" (the green color) of the grassroots movement to impeach Obama. Then she kisses a "pet" rat that runs over her; the "rat" references those who "ratted" on Hillary regarding her emails and servers, the missing $600 million from the State Department, and the deaths at Benghazi, as well as the destroyed US Embassy there. Later, Shansa is taken to the cell where Carina had been held (third image down), and one of the British soldiers referred to Carina as a "witch," and Shansa replied, basically, "She's not a witch, I am." Then Shansa deciphers the writings on the wall well enough so the British can attempt to intercept Carina, Jack and Salazar. Was does it mean?
As we saw the "parting of the sea" above, so the "writing on the wall" is meant to refer to THE writing on the wall by the Holy Spirit, announcing to King Belshazzar that his kingdom had come to an end just as we see Carina and Henry being the kingdom of Poseidon to an end when they break the Trident,.... well, if parts of the story don't make sense, don't worry about it, because if you DO worry about it, that means you are infected with "logocentrisim" the way Jack Sparrow is infected with scabies. Remember, Carina kicks down a priest; regardless of whether you are Catholic or not (I am, personally) that's exactly what the film is doing, her heretical "confession" she makes (that she has nothing to confess) and that she's walking over religion, is what the film makers believe and want people to start doing; Shansa is a "witch" because she helps the British, and as I detail below, that's the ultimate evil for the film makers. There is also the small detail that Shansa "requires payment" for helping Barbossa, and of course, that means Shansa is in business for herself (she's self-employed) and that, too, is an evil in the eyes of the film makers.
Why is Carina so unlikable as a character? She's so full of herself. She does nothing but brag about herself and put other people down; in short, she's a bitch, just like the vast majority of feminists society has been forced to tolerate.  
Now, Carina, an orphan, was left on the steps of an orphanage with nothing but a book and a name; the book is the diary of where and how to find the Trident of Poseidon, but Carina also realizes at the very last moment that it's Captain Barbossa who is her father as he sacrifices himself to save her from Captain Salazar. We also see Paul McCarthy hamming it up as Jack Sparrow's Uncle Jack who, like Jack, is in prison, waiting for a beating; now, what do we have here? Fathers are an awful lot of trouble, and not good for very much at all, which leads us to a really big problem,....
So, what are we to make of Henry, the new hero? Well, let's look at what he says when he attempts to rescue Carina and Jack from the gallows: "I'm just the distraction." We have heard that in another film, once more, Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 1, at the end when Star Lord (Chris Pratt) sings, Oh, Child, Things are going to get easier,... right before Rocket blows to bits Ronan who is the equivalent of the Tea Party. But we also hear Brenton Thwaites say this in another film, Gods Of Egypt, when he and the god Ra have to fight off the evil Seth (Gerard Butler) who has taken over the fertile Egypt with his desert and is letting demons in (sound familiar?). So which hero is Henry? Star Lord, because Henry is perfectly willing to bring down the British, and the prove is his treason. Yes, you are perfectly legitimate in arguing that Henry was trying to warn the British of the Devil's Triangle so the ship wouldn't be lured into danger by Salazar (who lures ships in the way Sparrow lured him in). The problem with that is we know what the Devil's Triangle really means to Liberals (the Holy Trinity) and so, to Christians, Henry telling us not to follow God (steer clear of the Devil's Triangle, aka, The Holy Trinity) is basically a heresy, so why would we listen to Henry? We're Christians, and he's telling us not to believe in God, but he believes every other myth that has been written, just not anything written in the Bible. These are the characteristics making Henry a "hero" to socialists. Then there is still the treason.
When Obama was doing things to weaken America and strengthen our enemies, conservatives shouted, "Treason!" and wanted him impeached; Liberals, on the other hand, applauded him, because they didn't want America to be strong, rather, they wanted our enemies to be strong, so when Hillary was committing treason, she was applauded as well; in other words, Liberals only love hating America, and anyone who commits treason is a hero to them; proof? How does the British commander of the ship demonstrate that Henry is in "a state of treason?" They rip his sleeves off; why? Because the arms symbolize our strength, and to have the sleeves ripped off means you tried to undermine the strength of your country (Obama and Hillary) and so thereby, you have no strength yourself because you don't even know what is to your advantage (having a strong home country is to your advantage, stupid Liberals). 
Where is Poseidon?
They are able to find his Trident, and there is no doubt ever expressed that the Trident does, in fact, belong to Poseidon, and they are even able to find Carina's unknown, long-dead father (Barbossa) but they can't find, or even bother to look for Poseidon, but they get his Trident,.... why? They steal it. They just take it for themselves because they want the audience to believe that Poseidon's Trident doesn't actually belong to someone, the way the $9 billion dollars that Donald Trump has made over his life, doesn't really belong to him, it's just there to take it if you want it; or to take anything from anyone else, should you so care to do so. And you should. Because that will end the "curse of the debt," which the whole film is about, and this is why, the riddle of the film, "DIVIDE THE POWER" leads to the breaking of the Trident: that is, without a doubt, the most important moment of the film and it means castration. "Divide the power" isn't about going from socialism/communism to democracy, it's about going from democracy/republic to totalitarian rule: taking the possessions of others and giving them to a small ruling elite (Hillary, Obama, Bush, and anyone else on Soros' payroll). Even though there is no Poseidon, the breaking of the Trident is like the breaking of King Arthur's Excalibur, or Thor's hammer: it's castration of male power, the castration of leadership, responsibility and the symbols of that power, which leads us to Salazar and the end credits scene.
Ever hear of a TV show called Shark Tank? Well,  now, the Liberals have made a film called 47 Meters Down about some dumb girls who get stuck in a cage watching sharks and they can't get back up to the surface; you can watch the trailer at this link. There was also the Blake Lively film, The Shallows, about capitalism ruining paradise, and now we have Pirates 5 comparing capitalists to dead sharks. The sharks are "dead" because Liberals believe that capitalism is dead and anyone who supports capitalism is dead, also. This is, however, a potential additional religious reference (even though I will admit this is a bit of a stretch, but when it comes to the liberal mind, that's all they do is stretch things) and that is when Christ compares apostles to "fishers of men" and the multiplication of Christians to the multiplication of the loaves and fishes. So, take it how it's most insulting to you: you are a dead shark because you are a capitalist, or you are a dead shark because you are a Christian (and a "shark" is how those pagan, satanic Liberals see you praying for their souls).
What about Beatrice? Jack is captured by someone to whom he owes money, and is being forced to marry the man's widowed sister, Beatrice, who is hideous, and Jack even stammers calling her an "it" and a other names; why? That's a "revenge" for people who have a difficult time with transgenders. You've seen men wearing a long wig, and maybe even some make-up, and maybe dressed like a woman, but he's still obviously a man, or a woman who has tried to make herself more masculine, but is still a woman; they have disavowed their God-given identity to take up an identity that is more of an "it" and so, Pirates 5 is shaming us and trying to "show us how it feels" to be called an 'it,'" ... so what's my proof that Beatrice is someone like myself? She's "widowed," and we know that men symbolize the economy, so Beatrice was married to a man who symbolized the economy but is no longer alive,... like "capitalism." Remember, Hillary was supposed to be president when this film was released! So, Jack is basically seeing a "picture" of himself in being Beatrice's next "capitalist" husband, the way Barbossa sees himself when he looks at Salazar (discussed below). Beatrice is basically the reason Jack becomes a feminist and wants to break the Trident (instead of keeping it for himself to use as "master" of the seas, because he doesn't want to be a capitalist anymore; we also know Jack wanted to go to heaven, but he's obviously turned his back on that, too). 
Who is Captain Salazar?
What about those "dead sharks" that he sends after Jack?
What about the hideous Beatrice and her two kids?
Me, again.
Pirates Of the Caribbean 5: Dead Men Tell No Tales cannot stop slapping in the face someone like myself, a conservative and Christian, who believes that criminals and murderers should stand trial and pay for their crimes. Remember: when they made this film, like so many others, they believed Hillary Clinton would be president right now. Salazar tells Barbossa that his father, and his father, were both killed by pirates, and he vowed he would clear the sea of them.
Why is this important?
This is perhaps the most important shot in the entire film (not that anything in the film is particularly important). Why? "The dead have taken command of the sea," Shansa the witch tells Barbossa, but we learn that it's Barbossa with his ten ships that is in command of the sea; it's because Salazar has destroyed so many of Barbossa's ships that Barbossa goes to make a "capitalist" trade with him in exchange for Jack, as usual. Just as the "dead sharks" reference the capitalist show Shark Tank, so the "dead commander" references the financially successful pirate, Barbossa. Why does Salazar's face have all those lines over it? Just before we "meet" Salazar in the film, we see Henry holding up a mirror to see the Devil's Triangle, then we meet Salazar; that juxtaposition of the mirror is a horrible slam to people like myself. They are saying that people who don't believe in God can "reflect" upon themselves and know that God is actually evil, whereas Christians and capitalists aren't capable of reflection (the mirror) and so the lines in Salazar's face reflect the "broken mirror" of self-reflection which Salazar isn't capable of seeing because he's a selfish capitalist and Christian. Then, there is obviously the uniform. Just as Henry was wearing a uniform at the start, then his sleeves were stripped off, Barbossa wears a uniform similar to Salazar's and then, just before he dies, his sleeve is rolled up, exposing the same star-formation Carina has searched for her whole life. "But wait!" you say, smart reader, "Socialists want the government to take over everything, and the British is a government, so why are the British bad, and why would wearing a British uniform be bad?" and that is, as usual, a most excellent point you are making. The answer is: the British government is the wrong government. The British are very practical, self-sufficient, realistic, nationalistic (rightly so) and logocentric, that is, they don't go for the "emotional" way of doing things, they go for the logical way to do things, and that's why American Liberals hate the British as a form of government (I don't think they hate the British, except for Brexit, but American Liberals hate everyone). Anyway, the British government is the wrong government, therefore, it's basically evil, like the Devil's Triangle and the Holy Trinity. So anyone revolting against what the British government stands for, is good, and someone defending the British government is bad.
So, we know that no one dies unless they are all ready dead, unless they sacrifice themselves for someone,.... so, Barbossa sacrifices himself to save Carina, right? Wrong. Salazar threatens to pull her down into the abyss of the sea with him, and why didn't Barbossa reveal to Carina previously that he was her father? He would have pulled her down, the way Will "pulled down" Henry to the Flying Dutchman at the start of the film to see his dad (but Will didn't do that, you may argue, and you're right, he didn't do it physically, but because of Will's debt and Henry's desire to see his dad, it was Will causing Henry to do it). So, Barbaossa sacrifices himself, but only so he's not weighing down Carina, and we saw the same thing in Independence Day: Resurgence when the white, heterosexual male (former) president sacrificed himself for his daughter. We also see it in Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2 when Yondu sacrifices himself for Peter Quill. (Granted, Peter isn't a female, but he's making the move to convert to socialism; please see Patricide: Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2 for more). Salazar on the other hand, is avenging his father, and this is an important note, because in Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 1, Ronan said almost the exact same thing, about the people he hated having killed his father, and his father before him, which is what Salazar says. Well, who are the pirates who killed so many of our fathers and grandfathers in the same way? Wars, wars fought to stop socialism from spreading (World War II, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War). You may be confused: "Didn't you just say that Salazar was Barbossa?" Yes, but Salazar links Barbossa to the audience, in other words, Salazar is an "efficient villain" who is meant to mirror the audience, but through Barbossa, demonstrates what our fate will be if we fail to submit to the bullying tactics of the Left. Proof? When Salazar's ship comes up out of the water, it looks like a massive mouth that is going to "consume" a ship, and that "consume" is meant to be directed at "consumers" who are capitalists. Then there is the issue that the first thing we see of Salazar is his foot; why? Feet symbolize the will, so Salazar is a man of will power, which isn't associated with the "victims" of Liberalism (rather with a man like John Wick); then we see Salazar's medals, for his outstanding achievements. To people like me and you, medals and trophies are good, but we are seeing a disturbing trend amongst the "participation trophy" sector which sees trophies for actual achievement as "evil" because, like, no one should actually achieve anything, because that makes someone else a loser (remember in Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2 when Nebula says to Gamora, "All you wanted was to win, and all I wanted was a sister," oh, yea, winning must be bad, and of course, the black kid in Logan who had rodeo trophies and then died in the next scene; then there is the villain of Justice League popping out from a dark corner behind a box of football trophies,.... yea, the Left hates achievement, which is why they loved Hillary so much: she never achieved anything). So, these are the reasons why Salazar and Barbossa are basically the same, but also why Salazar symbolizes the audience, whom the film makers hate with a passion.
Because for one, it is one of many references to Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 1 (the villain of Ronan who also cites that his father, and his father, were killed and there would not make peace; this references World War II, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, possibly the Cold War in general as well, when so many people died to fight against socialism/communism and its spread, and both films are saying, "So what? I don't care if you lost relatives. Let me have what I want today, those people are no longer relevant," which is one of the reasons we are celebrating Memorial Day this opening weekend). "Pirates" are lawlessness, they are thieves, drunkards (or addicts of any other drugs), adulterers, and the antithesis of civilized society; in other words, "pirates" are "liberals."
Please read the paragraph below before you read this caption, it will make more sense, thank you.
The likely meaning of the end credits scene, in my estimation, is that, Davy Jones (pictured here as portrayed by Bill Nighy) is an "octopus-like" creature, and we just saw at the start of Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2 how the octopus creature opening the film and quickly being killed off by the Guardians is actually a metaphor of Christians and conservatives in the audience who paid to see the film, and are now being slapped in the face by it (please see Patricide: Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2 for more). Please recall how the octopus symbol has been employed over the last several years to symbolize socialists: it's the sign of HYDRA in the Marvel Universe, as well as of SPECTRE in the James Bond film Spectre. So, what has happened, is the liberals--who can't come up with anything on their own, so they steal everything from everyone else--took the octopus symbol and are trying to "re-write it" just as they try re-writing history, to make people believe that, no, the octopus today doesn't symbolize socialism/communism, it symbolizes Christians and conservatives. So, when Davy Jones' shadow is seen in the bedroom of Will and Elizabeth Turner, it's really the horror of them seeing someone like myself who has come in through their door at the dead of night and is ready to take them away. in other words, they see someone like myself as a member of the Gestapo--even though they probably aren't smart enough to know what that is--and themselves as the innocents. Again, this is a great inversion of what we just saw in King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword, with the masked Black Leg soldiers kicking in the doors of people and hauling them away at the dead of night, because that's what the socialist Nazis did; we can prove it: how many times in the capitalist history of America did soldiers round people up and take them into custody? Once, and a Democrat was in office (FD Roosevelt). But in any society where there has been socialism and communism, there is nearly always the sweeping away of a large portion of the population in a purge to aide the socialists taking control so they don't have to battle their enemies. Anyway, this is most likely what the end credits scene means, is that, even though "Hillary Clinton has been elected, and we are all safe and debt-free, there is still the fear that THEY could return and wreck havoc on our little Utopian bliss."
What about the end credits scene?
IF they decide to do another Pirates film (and opening weekend isn't looking great for it) they will mimic another Disney franchise, Star Wars, by pulling in the "young tier" of millennials to take over the lead from the senior class. But the possible return of Davy Jones to the narrative is a consequence liberals are seriously thinking about: when all debts are canceled, all debts are canceled; in this case, the debt of Will Turner as captain of the Flying Dutchman will also cause some serious ripple effects throughout the universe. During the scene, we have to note that the window is open--symbolic of reflection--they are sleeping (a symbol of death or at least not being alert to what is about to happen) and we see Davy Jones walk in through the door into the bed room (the bed room often symbolizes the heart, because a bedroom is like one of the "chambers" of the heart), and we then see Davy Jones raise his sword (phallic symbol of law and order) and the crashing of lightening and thunder (because it comes from the heavens, might symbolize even the "judgement of God"), but it has also been dark in the room, then suddenly it's light, so they have, metaphorically, been in the dark about something but then they will be illuminated all too quickly,... It is meant to invoke Davy Jones, without a doubt, but on a deeper level, there is also the truth that Will Turner was Davy Jones for nearly two decades, and he can't just leave that on the sea floor bottom, like the barnacles under his bed; because we see Will wake up, this dream is more about Will's inner-state than about the return of Davy Jones and more likely to be about Will doing something "phallic" (exerting his "toxic masculinity," as liberals would say) rather than Bill Nighy actually returning as Davy Jones,...but we don't know. I actually DO hope this was the final adventure: I rarely agree with main stream critics, but I chime in with their sentiments that I hope this franchise is over, because I hate being the target practice of a drunk and unsuccessful pirate.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
I took a photography class once, and we had a discussion on portraits, wherein it was pointed out that, in a photograph, you can "cut off" the top of someone's head, and it will look acceptable, but don't "cut off" the bottom of their chin, because that alters their features too much and that will look really awkward, if not ruin the photo. Now, in this image of Jack Sparrow, there are many interesting things going on. First, the top of his head is cut off; why? Probably because he's missing his hat, which we have discussed previously. Secondly, half his eyeballs are missing; why? This is probably the indication that Jack has altered the way he sees the world, that now he's only going to see "part" of what there is to be seen, that is, the liberal, feminist side, because they are the ones who ignore reality and only see what they want to see. Jack has dark circles under his eyes, rather like the villain Hela (Cate Blanchett) in the upcoming Thor: Ragnarok which you can view here. Even though Jack seems arrogantly proud of his "accomplishments," his crew certainly doesn't, especially after the failed bank robbery at the start of the show; this darkening of the eyes suggests either that Jack really does have a bleak outlook on life--which is why he was willing to trade his compass for a bottle of rum, his heart would never desire after anything again, so he wouldn't need it--or, two, he wants people to see him this way, regardless if whether he really is or not. This would add to the "intimidation" and mystery factor, both of which would be advantageous for a pirate.
Everyone knows how I love erasure or, sous rature: when one has to use a word that doesn't quite convey what one wants to say, so they cross it out, but then there is not another word that does convey the meaning, so even though the word is crossed out, it's left legible. Please note Jack's mouth, and how Dead Men Tell No Tales, is written over it, in gold letters. That the phrase should be written over Jack's mouth acts as a form of erasure because it suggests that Jack himself is dead (and by the standards of the film, he is because he's after money, which means, he's dead, because good socialists aren't concerned about money). So, Jack can't tell us anything--about why he might be dead, or the film, or even this poster--because he's "dead," however, that in and of itself, that Jack is dead, IS being told to us, so we will know, according to the film makers' morality the "path of death" so we won't take it up for ourselves, in other words, Jack Sparrow is being left alive as a lesson as to how not to live one's life. This is typical of socialists, because no one wants to see films about socialist heroes like Marx, Stalin, Pol Pott, Lenin, Pinochet, Mao, etc., and quite frankly, they are embarrassing to the Left, so instead, they create cardboard heroes they know the audience will identify with and use them to brainwash viewers, as well as push their morally dubious agenda.
One of the two most intriguing aspects of the poster is the mark on Jack's upper-right cheek. one critic I read automatically deduced it was an "X" because, "X marks the spot" in a pirate's life, and we do hear a reference to that when Jack tells Carina, "So you are the X that marks the spot," when they argue about how she knows where the Trident is. If Carina is the "X" marking the spot, why is it on Jack's cheek then? At this point, the poster is actually flipped on us, because it's not that Jack Sparrow can only see "half" of what is going on (because his eyes are cut off), rather, it's us, the viewers, who have our eyesight cut off, because we can't see what the "X" means nor, regarding the second most intriguing aspect of the poster, why Jack has "JAKC" written on his knuckles (more on that in a moment). There is, however, an entirely different explanation altogether. If you will recall the ending of Logan, Laura takes the cross at the head of the grave they have dug for Logan, and turns it on its side, into an "X" for X-Men because these socialists didn't want Logan associated with Christianity, but with comic books; the "X" on Sparrow's cheek, then, might be linking Sparrow with Logan, not that Sparrow is an X-Man, rather, that Sparrow refuses to be identified with any Christian tenants and wants, instead, to be aligned with this socialist faction; why can we say that? The "X," as we see Laura turn it, is a "broken cross," just as the Nazi swastika was a broken cross, just as the Trident of Poseidon is a broken cross, and just as the "X" on Sparrow's cheek (from the direction we look at it, it could be a cross, but it's not, it's a mundane "X,") is also broken, and that's imperative, because at the start of Pirates Of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Jack was in hell,... with himself,... and thereafter, for a short while, he was saying, "I'm willing to do what I must to be in with the 'goody-goodies,'" so he wouldn't have to be condemned again,... well, it didn't last long, did it? We can say that Jack Sparrow has sold his soul for socialism and feminism,... should we be sad? Remember, this is a man who traded the world's greatest compass for a bottle of run, so what does that say about those following socialism? In all likelihood, the "X" that marks the spot is the same "X" marking the spot where Logan (Hugh Jackman) is buried in Logan.
So, why is the "c" and the "k"switched in the word "JAKC" on his hand? Because that is what they are doing in history. "Just a simple, switch-eroo," just like the characters of Murtogg and Mullroy, the two British soldiers from Curse Of the Black Pearl, who we see this time as pirates working for Barbossa, and trying to swindle treasure from the other. So, just as Murtogg and Mullroy "switched sides" to becoming pirates from their previous respectable employment for the British navy, and just as Will Turner switched from being Davy Jones to being Will Turner again, and as Carina Smyth switched from being an orphan to the daughter of Captain Barbossa, and as Barbossa switched from being the all-powerful pirate of the seas to being a self-sacrificing dad, or the way Jack Sparrow goes from being a captain wearing a hat, to being a seaman not concerned with tribute,... In other words,... CHAOS. That's what the JAKC means on Jack's hand, a world where nothing is going to be grounded in meaning, but every thing is in flux and can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean--like, Bruce Jenner suddenly deciding that the absence of a penis means he's a woman. This is exactly what they plan, and they have warned us, it's only going to get worse.