Thursday, July 26, 2018

UPDATED AGAIN: Queenie & Grindelwald Together

Screenshot of Queenie holding her ears which has caused a great number of theories. We see Queenie wearing a lot of mauve, which is a shade of pink, and the reason for that is because "pink" symbolizes love that has not been perfected. Red is usually the color associated with love because red is the color of blood, and when a person loves someone truly, they are willing to shed their blood for that person; when a person loves someone, but they haven't been called upon to make a difficult decision or a sacrifice for that person, or that person isn't ready to do that, they will be shown wearing pink. It's not a statement about the realness of the love, rather, a statement about the person's place in their journey to loving someone or something else, so Queenie has enjoyed falling in love with Jacob, but as of yet, she hasn't encountered difficulties or obstacles in that relationship with him, nothing, anyway, which has forced her to grow as a person and become a person worthy of that love, because that's what love does. 
THE SECOND UPDATE: If you have previously read this post, the further update is in the adding of the cast photo which is below the next one, and it validates what I discuss in the rest of this post. 
We have all ready reviewed the second trailer for Fantastic Beasts 2, however, particularly interesting information has been circulating about the character of Queenie (pictured above) and I thought it worthwhile to take a closer look because of the way this could be setting up an important social issue in the film. I owe it to Fetony (his video is here, at about 1:00) for pointing out that Queenie wears an engagement ring (well, it's a ring, we don't actually know that it's an engagement ring yet) under her hair (please see detailed image below). As Fetony was talking about the ring, however, I noticed something for the first time which has escaped my previous viewing of the trailer,... something which I believe confirms that Queenie will at least be courted by Grindelwald to help him and, may possibly be working with him for a little while.
The top image is the original screenshot in original proportion; the bottom image is the same shot but blown up (please click to enlarge so you can examine it closer). I have circled where the ring is (again, we don't know that it's an engagement ring, but she is wearing it on her ring finger and it is a ring) but I have also circled the black thing coming out of her sleeve and touching her mouth. (It's possible that the same kind of thing is coming out of her right sleeve as well, because there is darkness around the right-side contour of his cheek and mouth, but I think that's just the shadow of her hand and arm against her face). Now, a ring symbolizes a covenant, even if this is an engagement ring, there is the willingness to enter into a covenant, the question is, is it a covenant with Jacob or with Grindelwald? And I am guessing that at least at some point in the film, it's going to have to be both, even if it's not so permanently but temporarily, that is, Queenie may make a bad decision, but then try to repent of it.
AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST, I HAVE INCLUDED AN IMAGE OF QUEENIE'S DRESS BECAUSE SOMEONE THINKS IT'S JUST HER DRESS SLEEVE POKING THROUGH, SO PLEASE LOOK AT THE BOTTOM TO MAKE YOUR DECISION. Apart from this black thing being an obscurial or having to do with Credence, I still think the oddity of this sleeve position reveals something dark about Queenie's character.
There is some thin, long, black thing coming out of coat pocket sleeve and going towards/actually touching her mouth. We know that "black" always symbolizes death, but there is "good death" (when a person dies to things of the world in order to be alive to the virtues of the spirit) and there is "bad death" (when a person dies to the virtues and life of the soul and instead lives for things of the world); we also know that hands symbolize a person's honor (more on this in a moment) and arms symbolize a person's (moral, ethical) strength (we've discussed this regarding why Dumbledore has one sleeve rolled up and one sleeve down when he's looking into the mirror of Erised).
This is the image I was looking for and it was right there all along. This is a cropped portion of the cast photo taken for the film's promotion. On the left side we see that Queenie is the closest cast member to Grindelwald, and in the enlarged image on the right side (sorry that it's not the best quality) we see the "active" Elder Wand nearly touching Queenie's hand, meaning, the two characters are indeed linked, just as we see Jacob holding Queenie's arm in the photo on the left side. Both of these poses are rather odd positions for Queenie to be in try striking that pose yourself with your own body, but the gestures tell us something that is going on. We know that legs symbolize a person's standing in society, and Queenie rests her arm upon Jacob's leg, because the muggle has no standing in the wizarding world, and Queenie will likely want to fix that. We know that arms symbolize strength, and Jacob holds Queenie's arm--in a strange sort of way, it's not a loving embrace, it's almost like he's holding her back (from working with Grindelwald?)--and Queenie's strength is her love for Jacob and her ability to read minds. Now, Queenie's index finger on her right hand points down, just as Grindelwald's hand holds his wand and also points down, so they are mirroring each other's gesture, Grindelwald holding the wand in-between his fingers so that it symbolically takes the place of one of his fingers.
There is also a further detail regarding Queenie's dress. the sleeve, as we see in the enlarged image at the right, engulfs her hand, the same way an obsurius (spelling?) does from Credence, it is swallowing her hand (the hand symbolizing our honor), but there is also an interesting detail on the front of her dress: we discuss the gold pin of the bird below, but across her chest is a design that is like a bat (it resembles the various "batman logos" created over the years) and somewhat invokes the Death Eaters of Voldermort because when they apparate they look like big bats (especially Snape after Harry shows up at Hogwarts in Deathly Hallows Part 2). So, even though I gladly backtrack that it's some foreign object/being coming out of Queenie's sleeve in the discussed image, it's her own "darkness" she's wearing and this image validates the connection I am discussing throughout this post. Sorry it got so convoluted and messy.
We can say that Grindelwald symbolizes "bad death," not only because of the views he's preaching in this trailer, but also because, in Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, Grindelwald was disguised as Mr. Graves (Colin Farrell) and nothing says "bad death" like "graves" (because the body goes to the grave if it doesn't have an eternal destination, and a person living for worldly pursuits will not have pursued the things of heaven).
So, what is that thing coming out of Queenie's sleeve?
To substantiate the importance of the black thing by Queenie's hand, we have, in the top image, the black glove pointing to where Dumbledore waits for Newt atop the building, then Newt taking the hand. We know later in the trailer, at night on the bridge, when Dumbledore and Newt discuss whether or not Newt is going to hunt down Grindelwald, Dumbledore himself wears black gloves. In the bottom image, Grindelwald makes a grand flourishing gesture with his right hand. Hands symbolize honor, so the idea of "honor" is going to be important to every single character in the film; why? Well the tagline is "The fate of one will decide the the future of all," and "FATE" is a heavy, heavy word. Philosophically, spiritually and psychologically loaded, FATE at face value usually means an end over which we really have no control, someone did something because they had to, they had no free will in choosing to do otherwise. This isn't always what FATE means, and it could refer to the ultimate way in which one of the characters chooses to use their free will (and this is where honor comes into play, does a person choose to be honorable or selfish?) is what will decide the future of the rest of the characters.
Well, I have no idea. BUT, the very fact that it doesn't have an identity means it's evil. When someone is good--or at least not rotten to the core--they have an identity. Consider, for example, Tom Riddle: before he started killing off people, he looked normal, he had an identity; has he gave himself over more and more to "Dark Magic," he lost his identity and started becoming a snake (the nose of a person, for example, symbolizes how important their character is to that person, and that his nose turned into slits mirroring those of a snake, it reveals that Tom Riddle had no concern for personal honor whatsoever). Consider also Credence's obscurial: it's black and shapeless and wrecks only destruction; it's possible that the thing coming out of Queenie's sleeve is connected to Credence and his power (it's coming out of Queenie's left sleeve, and we see Credence sending out his black "power" from his left hand). So, the "identity-less-ness" of the thing coming out of Queenie's sleeve points to it having something to do with death, possibly/likely Grindelwald directly or indirectly. Notice, also, it's moving towards her mouth,...
Again, IF Queenie and Jacob's relationship is going to be exploited by Grindelwald, I think it's setting up a situation for the audience to link Queenie and Jacob with Dumbledore's reputed homosexuality. In the US wizarding world, it is considered "unnatural" for a witch (Queenie) and a muggle (Jacob) to be together because of Queenie's powers and Jacob's lack of powers; this "unnaturalness" I think is going to be exploited by the film makers to clear the way for a forced-acceptance of Dumbledore's homosexuality: well, it's unnatural for Queenie and Jacob, but you want them to be together, why don't you want Dumbledore and Grindelwald to be together, if they love each other? I realize this is a stretch, and trust me, I don't want the film to take this direction, however, "Queenie" could refer to the American slang term for a gay man and might tie her in with Dumbledore (for example, in the latest trailer for Bohemian Rhapsody about the band Queen and homosexual Freddie Mercury, Freddie says at one point, "There's only room for one hysterical queen in this band," referring to himself as a gay man; in the film Gods and Monsters about gay director Jimmy Whale, Jimmy says to someone, "He's never met a princess before, only queens," referring to himself as a gay man; again, this is probably a stretch, and I hope it is, but I am going to mention it here).
Another potential tie-in with Dumbledore is the bird pin Queenie wears. The middle image above is the original screen shot, the image below that is the same shot magnified to look at her bird broach she wears that closely resembles the headmaster's oratory stand where Dumbledore would address the students at Hogwarts. 
The mouth, we know, symbolizes our appetites, and we know that Queenie and Jacob both have appetites: that he bakes and she cooks is one of the first pieces of information they exchange about each other when they first meet. But there is also the appetite for love, which we all share, but as rumors are going around and developing, the general theory is that it's the forbidding of her romance with Jacob (she's a witch and he's a muggle so they are not allowed to get married) that Grindelwald will use as leverage to get Queenie to help him.
Grindelwald and Newt all ready have an interesting relationship from Fantastic Beasts when Grindelwald was disguised as Graves. Grindelwald first tries killing Newt by execution, but when that fails, I think he tries to recruit Newt with the final words, "Shall we die just a little bit?" He knows his old friend Dumbledore believes in Newt, and Newt has proven himself twice: first by escaping execution, then by actually capturing Grindelwald, and this is rather like the clown Pennywise in IT at first trying to kill Bill then wanting to keep Bill for himself. Newt has impressed Grindelwald, so I think Grindelwald makes Newt an offer to join him in saying, "Will we die, just a little?" thinking it will tempt Newt, because Grindelwald doesn't understand Newt, and because this kind of an invitation would be inviting to Grindelwald himself, meaning that the line reveals more than it conceals. If you will let just a little piece of you die, then you could have immortality with me, you could have unlimited power and rule with me over the entire wizarding world. This is the kind of bargain Tom Riddle certainly thought was pleasing at an acceptable price, and it's basically the same kind of offer he will make to Queenie if this indeed is going to happen in the film. Remember, Grindelwald has that big open collar with a black tie around his neck, meaning that death has a hold on him (just as it did Tom Riddle) and Grindelwald is motivated by escaping death, even if that means a little part of him will die in the process so he can have more of the "life" he thinks he wants.
On a different note, The Super Carlin Brothers on YouTube have an excellent video detailing their theory that the right eye of Grindelwald actually becomes the "Mad Eye" of Mad Eye Moody; they did incredible research on this and I am really quite impressed, you can watch that video at this link here. IF they are correct in their theories, then that will have an important outcome on our interpretation and understanding of Grindelwald's character.
The minor problem--which just makes it that much more interesting--is Queenie can read minds, so she would have to know that Grindelwald is manipulating her and, because of Grindelwald's view that muggles are worthless, she has to know he's lying. However, if this is going to develop in the film, I wouldn't be at all surprised to Queenie closing her eyes to the truth, that is, she knows Grindelwald is lying but she sees her situation as desperate (remember, at the end of Fantastic Beasts, she appears to be breaking the law to visit Jacob in his bakery, so they established that Queenie isn't a goody-two-shoes who will put "the greater good" above her own desires, but would be willing to put what she wants first).
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
P.S.--There were some additional notes I included in the caption to the image below regarding the symbolism of Dumbledore's clothing, so please check that out as well.
P.S.S.--BELOW THE IMAGE OF DUMBLEDORE IS ANOTHER IMAGE OF QUEENIE.
I failed to discuss this in the earlier post, so I will touch upon this important point now. Dumbledore wears a gray hat and coat in this scene, and there is the picture of the large clock in the background. Clocks and watches symbolize history on a much grander scale than the mere 7:30 time we see on the clock face above. This is important because we know the color gray--the colors Dumbledore wears--is the color of the pilgrim, which can mean both the novice (someone who is just starting out) and/or the penitent, someone who is doing penance for their sins. With the clock in the background, and the color gray so prominent upon Dumbledore, it suggests that he is doing penance for his past sins: loving Grindlewald? His sister's death? Not being there for the people he loved when they needed him? Being so easily tempted to enslave the muggle population with Grindelwald? Being so drawn to the incredible power of the Deathly Hallows? It's likely all these things, and if Dumbledore doesn't blatantly come out and say it, the unspoken language of this scene will certainly validate this sense of guilt and desire to repay his debts. We also notice his coat collar pulled up. The neck symbolizes what leads and guides us in life, and when a character has a collar up around their neck, it demonstrates they are trying to protect what is going to guide their decisions, they are protecting their priorities. There is also a very likely connection being made to another wizard: Gandalf the Gray. Gandalf, from The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, wore a gray robe and hat, and it's possible that Dumbledore's gray coat and hat are meant to invoke Gandalf. Going back to the collar symbolizing how Dumbledore is "protecting his priorities," a coat is also a garment which protects us from the elements, and it seems everyone in the trailers we see wears a coat (Newt, Grindelwald, Credence, Tina, Queenie, Jacob), but the material on Dumbledore's coat seems to be a bit heavier, thicker, than the coats the others wear, meaning that he feels he has a greater need to protect himself from something or someone. Likewise, Dumbledore wears a gray hat (it looks more gray in the trailer) and since the head symbolizes our thoughts, anything atop the head materializes what the thoughts of that character are like: a hat hides the hair, so Dumbledore doesn't want to expose all of what he's thinking, at least to Newt, but since it's gray, he also doesn't want anyone to know how truly guilty he feels, or what the source of that guilt, and thus his self-determined penance, is really about.
This is an image someone gave me demonstrating that the black thing coming out of Queenie's sleeve is her dress sleeve. Ok, this is likely, I concede this, but I stand by my interpretation that this is a sign that she is going to do something "dark" in line with her appetites because this is not a typical sleeve (most sleeves stop about the wrist) and it's highly unusual for a sleeve to "creep out" of the coat in this way and touch the mouth. Because it's part of the sleeve, it's coming from the arm, so Queenie's lack of honor (she leaves work whenever she wants, she has a man stay in her apartment over night, she visits Jacob in his bakery) is going to feed her appetites (touching her mouth) so she can get what she thinks she wants.

Comic-Con Trailers & Film News Updates

Warner Brothers has really "put the pedal to the metal" with their propaganda machine. Wonder Woman: 1984 could not be more of a political statement. "1984" references, not only the famous anti-socialist story Nineteen Eighty Four by George Orwell (who himself was a Democratic Socialist) but the year 1984 during the Cold War and the Ronald Reagan Administration. Oh, Chris Pine's character is supposedly back from the dead, I guess they needed a white, heterosexual hero to kill again.
A ton of stuff has been going on, so let's get some important catch-up work done. First, Mission Impossible: Fallout opens this weekend, and it's all ready doing amazing, like amazing. Critics are saying it's the best MI to date and could be the last blockbuster film of the 2018 summer, so, if you have a chance you are going to want to see this one. I am going to make a desperate attempt to see it this weekend I have really been looking forward to it (ownership of my favorite theater changed and it's just not the same experience now).
Downton Abbey is getting a movie! All the main actors are reprising their roles and filming begins in September with Julian Fellowes, the writer of the series, penning the screenplay and producing. Deadwood is also getting its own movie! Shooting will begin on the stand-alone film this October and is set to air sometime in 2019, although film makers have noted that is not "set in stone." Everyone from the original cast and production team will be working on the film. From the Marvel Universe, Captain Marvel, starring Brie Larson (release date March 20, 2019) intends on de-ageing Samuel L Jackson by 25 years for his role as Nick Fury; technology is amazing nowadays, isn't it?
This is the newest image release for The Nun, debuting in September. The Nun panel at Comic-Con this week has proven to be one of the most popular so we can probably expect a pretty strong showing for this film.
So, remember that big fight that happened over the last installment of Fast and Furious between Dwayne Johnson and Vin Deisel? Well, Johnson has started rumors that he might not return to the F & F franchise, but that isn't stopping him and Jason Statham from uniting for a F & F spin-off, Hobbs & Shaw, to be released July 26, 2019 (so they are putting a lot in this show for that release date). The great Idris Elba and relative new-comer Vanessa Kirby are both in talks for roles (Kirby has been seen in The Crown and Mission Impossible: Fallout) with Elba possibly portraying the primary villain. Again, no word on Johnson's position regarding future F & F films, but he has all ready released information that production on Jumanji 2 has started. And Val Kilmer has confirmed that he will be returning as Iceman in the sequel to Top Gun titled Maverick. Oscar winning actress Jennifer Connolly is joining, as well as Miles Teller who will be playing Goose's son. The last I heard, the film revolved around the dilemmas involving human pilots vs drones.
The latest Halloween is making quite a commotion for the incredible quality of the film and scenes. Basic story line: yes, Michael Myers is out again, and yes, he's trying to get Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) again, but this is a clear example of Myers-as-socialism and Laurie (with her state-of-the-art security system and arsenal of guns) as a strong woman who is not going to be anyone's victim. This is a AWESOME trailer and we will be going through that in-depth in a separate post, promise!
Awhile back, we discussed a mock-u-mentary called No Men Beyond This Point, which imagined a world where women could get pregnant without men and those babies were all female, meaning the male population was dying out. Jodie Foster has joined the FX television series Y: The Last Man, with Diane Lane and Amber Tamblyn, which follows the last man born with the Y chromosome following a mysterious plague as he attempts to figure out what happened,.... Anyway, the follow-up to Edge Of Tomorrow with Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt is still happening: Doug Liman says they have a great story, but they are still working on the script. And some news that has made me exceedingly happy,....
From left to right: Chris Pratt, James Gunn, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista.
James Gunn has been released from Guardians Of the Galaxy films. He is terribly Leftist, and a silent hatred for Christians lurks beneath the surface of his films. Guardians 1 & 2 were horribly offensive (please see Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 1 and Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2). The reason he has been removed from Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 3 is due to offensive tweets he made and other bad social media decisions. I could not be happier: James Gunn was a horrible socialist stain on the pristine fabric of the Marvel Universe, and now he's gone.
HOORAY!
The heroes of Warner Brothers' DC Extended Universe. So, yea, there was a stand-alone Batman film supposed to happen with Ben Affleck having written the script, starring in it and then even set to direct it, but rumor was, it the story was so bad Warner Brothers refused to go forward with it. So, now, it appears, withe the "multi-verse" decision, there could be another Batman running around and he could be the one who gets that new Batman film.
Now, here is something just all-around bizarre. Warner Brothers has decided to make a stand-alone Joker origin film starring Joaquin Phoenix and Robert DeNiro. Okay, how many strange things can I write in one sentence? With Jared Leto playing a high-acclaimed Joker in the DC Universe, why on earth go and wreck that? Oh, because it's Warner Brothers and they don't want to look like they are indebted to Marvel. Warner Brothers has announced that, rather than have an "Extended Universe" like Marvel (where all the heroes eventually come together to fight a common enemy in the same adventure) Warner Brothers is going to have "Multi-Verses," which I understand is part of their comics' platform, that is, different universe simultaneously exist, so what happens in one story doesn't necessarily have an effect on events in other stories (or one actor playing The Joker doesn't undermine the performance of another actor playing The Joker simultaneously). Speaking of Warner Brothers, let's take a look at the first trailer for Shazam which they are heavily banking upon to raise their fortunes:
There is some seriously wrong things with this trailer, but it's just so annoying, I don't want to spend a lot of time on it, so here it is: who is it that wants to gain incredible resources without having done anything to earn them? Shazam would actually be a spot-on parody of the Left if it weren't for the fact that it's the Left actually making this film about themselves. The last scene around 2:40 details the Left perfectly: they are every bit as bad as the robbers themselves because they have walked out of the store with all that junk food without paying for it (nothing substantial, nothing nutritious, just what they want to eat not what they need to eat; food symbolizes what it is we take in and digest on a mental and spiritual scale, and the two "kids" have taken only what they want, rather like Laura in Logan when she's at the gas station: she takes a can of Pringles and sunglasses without paying for them, then Logan takes cigars without paying for them; we also saw this several years ago in a film called Project X, about an out-of-control weekend part high school boys were throwing when one of the boys at a stores said, "I'm not paying for condoms," and put them in his pocket and walked out with them; this is the Left).
Shazam appears to perfectly mirror the "political fantasies" of typical, everyday Liberals with their teenage sensibilities and utter lack of maturity and ethics, in other words, something of an echo of Steven Spielberg's Ready Player One. The would-be robbers at the gas station store are wrapped up in Christmas lights; why? They probably symbolize Christians to the film makers (this is just a guess, but it seems perfectly in-line with what the Left does, the accuse someone else of doing something and then do it themselves) and this is evidenced in the same scene when Shazam breaks the window: we know that glass and mirrors symbolize inner-meditation, that which we should be "reflecting upon," but in this scene, Shazam has caused more monetary damage to the store than the robbers probably would have gotten away with so his destruction isn't helping anyone in spite of what he thinks he's doing.
While this is on an entirely different note, it's also kind of the same note: Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure is going in for a third installment with the original cast returning (including Keanu Reeves). The story revolves around Bill and Ted having grown to maturity: being married and having kids with routine jobs, but the prophecy about them writing music that was going to save the world hasn't come true,... yet. So, visitors from the future aide Bill and Ted in fulfilling the prophecy and, trust me, it's going to be a liberal festival of mediocrity. 
On a happier Warner Brothers' note, at least I hope so, Godzilla: King of the Monsters has released their first trailer, and while Gareth Edwards knocked it out of the park with his Godzilla (2014), I hope this new crew does the same; just stay with the trailer, because it doesn't sound very good at the start,....
I realize that the first monologue makes it sound like a global warming message, but we have actually seen this technique used previously in none other than Christopher Nolan's Interstellar. If you will recall, Nolan argues that if Liberals really believe the planet is dying, than they should be pushing for space exploration--rather than hampering it--because we need to find a new home; Godzilla: King Of the Monsters appears to be doing the same thing. Now, in Edwards Godzilla,  Godzilla saved us from the Feminists and gays (please see Erasure & Time: Godzilla for more) and in the new version, Godzilla appears to be challenging all three of his biggest foes: Mothra, Rodan and the three-headed King Ghidorah; I understand this can sound ridiculous, however, when Godzilla first rose to post-World War II prominence, these "enemies of Godzilla" were actually the enemies of the United States and capitalism, Godzilla having become "a friend" to the people of Japan and being the only one who could save them from the domino effect of other Asian countries falling to communism (we'll go into this more when the second trailer drops) but, for the meantime, I am quite happy with this and expect it to be a great film!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Aquaman: Trailer #1

Well, I am disappointed.
I've been thinking about this trailer since it was debuted this weekend at the San Diego Comic-Con panel and I want to say, there is just no way around it: it has far more in common with Wonder Woman than it does with Man Of Steel and that's a pity. So, what does it do and how does it do it?
His father was a lighthouse keeper and his mother was a queen. Here we have a role reversal for gender in that it was the mother (Nicole Kidman) who ruled and his father who was a keeper of light (which is traditionally associated with women as being more spiritual and thus, full of light to show men the way to God). Now, good reader, I know your objection: what about King Arthur: Legend of  the Sword? Isn't it because Arthur was born to the queen that he's "the born king," and that signals the "new Feminism" you talked about so enthusiastically in your post? Doesn't Aquaman's trident equal the sword Excalibur?
You, reader, are quite intelligent,....
So, what about the similarities between Excalibur and the Trident? Well, we have seen Excalibur and the King Arthur legend in a great number of films as of late: King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword, Transformers: The Last Knight, The Dark Tower (his guns were made from Excalibur) and even Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk (the engines on the airplanes were called Merlin engines). What about tridents? There was the trident which Finnick O'dair had in Mockingjay Part 2, the last Pirates Of the Caribbean was in search of Poseidon's Trident, in Baywatch, Dwayne Johnson's character was in a sand sculpture holding a trident, of course the trident made its appearance in Justice League, and then there was the Esther Williams duplicate (Scarlett Johansson) who did the aquatic films and she held a trident in the Coen Brothers Hail, Caesar!. So? Excalibur and the Trident are both phallic symbols, that is, they symbolize a man's right to rule because of his power, so he has power because he is powerful. For example, in the decidedly pro-capitalist Thor: Ragnarok, Thor's hammer is a phallic symbol (he has it because he has the power to wield it, which in turn gives him more power) but what happens to it? Hela (Cate Blanchett, the goddess of Death and the definite socialist figure in the film) crushes Thor's symbol of power and his real power, and that exchange which takes place in that scene of the film summarizes perfectly what the Left has been attempting to do throughout the entire world for the last decade, at least. Undermine patriarchal and capitalist rule. In the Aquaman trailer, we see Arthur Curry having a trident thrown in his face and he has to stop it before it stabs him in the face; why? Has stated above, a trident, like a sword, is going to be a phallus symbol of masculinity (in Hail, Caesar! the Coen Brothers did a fabulous job of demonstrating how women are trying to take the "trident" of power for themselves in the Esther Williams character, and what it's costing women). The trident is going straight towards his face; why? The face is the seat of our identity, more than anything else, the face is the means by which we are identified and others identify us as who we are (and this is individual, because only you have your face, but the "identity politics" of the Left want to take individuals and "group" them by skin color or sexual identification so they are no longer human individuals but a mass with no individual identity). So, when we see the trident (phallic symbol) going towards Arthur's face, it's a statement that masculinity (the trident phallic) threatens his identity (his face) and he doesn't want to be associated with masculinity, which is why in the next frame or so, we see him smashing a sword in half: that sword is a phallic symbol like Excalibur, and Arthur Curry smashing it is basically a castration of other men of their masculinity, and this is what he's going to do to his brother, King Orm (which is like "worm"). We saw this in Wonder Woman and the god-killer sword: Wonder Woman was killing men with it to usher in a "feminist, socialist future," which is exactly what the Left wants. Further, because this is an underwater kingdom, water is typically associated with women, i.e., matriarchy because water is just a big body, in opposition to land which has definite features (desert, meadows, mountains, etc.). 
There are going to be a number of parallels to King Arthur with Aquaman: "Arthur Curry (Jason Momoa, Aquaman) learns that he is the heir to the underwater kingdom of Atlantis, and must step forward to lead his people and to be a hero to the world." Sounds like King Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) doesn't it? King Orm (Patrick Wilson) is the full-blood ruler to the throne, the son of the king and the queen, whereas Aquaman is only the son of the queen, so, in essence, the roles of King Arthur and Arthur Curry have been reversed: Arthur Curry is more of the Vortigern figure who shared a mother with Uther (Eric Bana) but was the legitimate king of Camelot, King Orm is the legitimate king of the,... water, and Arthur Curry is the outsider trying to take power.
Why?
This is King Orm (Patrick Wilson) and he is white. Just like the white bullies we see when Arthur is little, there are big white bullies when he grows up (and we also see this with the kids being bullied in the very pro-socialist IT). Now, like Grindelwald in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald, there is a war being threatened between two different worlds (the magical and non-magical world, and the water world and the surface world). Now, you probably caught the obvious reference to Black Panther when King Orm announces that his brother has arrived to challenge his right to the throne (we saw this with T'Challa [Chadwick Boseman] and Eric Killmonger [Michael B Jordan] and then we also see Arthur challenging Vortigern for the throne in their last epic fight in King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword) the difference between these two films is that the challenge has been flipped: both films posit that the current ruler is legitimate (T'Challa and King Orm) but whereas the audience didn't want to see Erik Killmonger beat T'Challa, the film is going to put the emotional tension with Arthur Curry challenging and defeating his brother (of course, in King Arthur, Vortigern murdered his brother and tried to steal the sword, so we are emotionally identifying with Arthur as the outsider trying to regain the throne). So, Aquaman is appropriating a highly masculine and ritualistic battle--the physical fight between two men for the right to rule--and giving it to the "feminine" and socialist Left, suggesting that the Left can be as masculine as the Conservatives and capitalists without spreading "toxic" masculinity. 
King Orm is white,... really white, and as such, he also belongs to the world under the sea, so King Orm is the status quo; Arthur Curry is half Polynesian (Momoa is half-native Hawaiian) so that's enough to qualify him for the horrible identity-politics of the Left to make him eligible to challenge the white, heterosexual male dominance of power (according to how the Left sees reality). So, just as Hillary deserved to become president simply because she's a woman--according to the Left's logic--Arthur Curry deserves to become king simply by virtue of the fact that he's an outsider: "You think you're unworthy to lead because you're of two different worlds," (that is, the liberals and minorities), "but that is exactly why you are worthy." Identity politics: anyone who is not middle-class and white is worthy to rule.
Now, this is where it gets interesting,...
Isn't it cool that Arthur Curry can talk to fish? Well, actually, no. Those fish are his "subjects," his "followers," because he rules over them. In reality, we don't talk to fish,. we don't talk to animals, we talk to other humans (yes, I know, you say things to your cat or dog, but apart from a wagging of the tail or looking intently at whatever good thing you are eating and their gestures indicating that they want what you have, isn't "talking" because they can't share with you what they think, what they feel; they can communicate what they want or need, but they can't tell you what they believe, hope or dream about for themselves because they are animals; we talk to other people to discover these things about them, and to reveal these things about ourselves to an audience who can reciprocate, appreciate and understand what it is we are saying).  Arthur Curry talks to fish the same way Hillary Clinton talks to her supporters: they are dumb animals. The Left genuinely believes that you and I are nothing but animals and we are not the children of God, we have no soul, no dignity and no individuality; so seeing Arthur Curry talking to the fish puts us, the audience, on the level of those fish, just as in the Harry Potter universe, Christians are muggles. It's the job of every story to embellish their own set of values and demonize the sins of the position they wish to counter with their own moral; every film, story, play or other work of art does this to some degree or other, and Aquaman and Harry Potter do this by glamorizing their world so you will want to be a part of it (every narrative does this). No one wants to be left out and ostracized, but would you rather be left our or be a fish?
One last little, but important detail. Typically, when there is a hero, it's important that the hero demonstrates humility and doesn't want the power or the rule which is being offered to him as a result of his labors; this is standard, we expect humility from heroes, so when Arthur Curry says he's back home because he had no choice, this is usually understood as "answering the call" to do something great," and this is a typical part of what is known as the "hero's journey." HOWEVER, I fear, deeply, that this standard device of humility is actually covering something far more sinister in this film (again, I hope I am wrong about the movie, but this is what it's looking like to me) namely, that when Arthur Curry says, "I have no choice," he actually means he has no free will because free will doesn't exist, he has to do what he has to do because there is nothing else for him to do because he's just an animal, like the fish he's talking to. This is detrimental because free will is essential to individuality and exactly why socialists try to undermine it every chance they get. 
Donald Trump.
Arthur Curry says, "Trust me, I am no king,... I'm no leader." Neither was Trump. Arthur Curry is an outsider, and so was Trump, never having had a political office in his life, being instead in the business world, not the political world. Arthur Curry says, "I came here because I had no choice. I came to save my home and the people I love." Well, well, well,... isn't that EXACTLY what Donald Trump did? He loves America and he ran for president to save his home and the people he loves. OH, but he's saving the people we HATE!!! The Left screams with their horrible shrieks! But it's okay for this same platform to be applied to a minority, but not for a white, heterosexual male (remember, it wouldn't be as bad if Trump were gay). And of course, the minority retorts, "Trump is so dumb!" But what does Mera tell Arthur Curry? "You do your best thinking when you're not thinking at all." So, again, it's okay for Arthur Curry to be devoid of leadership skills and thinking, to want to save his home and his people, but not okay for Trump. Now, this is a couple of minutes of a two-hour-long film, and I could be wrong, and I hope that I amthere is nothing I want to admit more than that I am wrong about what we are seeing in this trailer. I really like director James Wan but this is a big-budget Warner Brothers production, and they desperately need a success in the DC Universe, so, realistically, there is a lot that is probably beyond his control in this film, however, this trailer lays the foundation for a film that is supporting socialism and working against the establishment.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Monday, July 23, 2018

Analysis & Symbols: Fantastic Beasts 2, Trailer #2

In all, there will be 5 Fantastic Beasts films, primarily focusing on the conflict between Albus Dumbledore and Gellert Grindlewald; if you don't know anything about their relationship and history, I can highly recommend MovieFlame's Albus Dumbledore and Gellert Grindelwald Origin/Relationship Explained on YouTube. Morgan Ross does an excellent job of providing the backstory and details of the interaction between these two wizards and why Dumbledore feels he can't move against Grindlewald, wanting Newt Scamander to do so in his place.
Now, let's at least briefly discuss an important point regarding Dumbledore: he's gay. A gay character who does not act upon his or her homosexual temptations is in accord with Church teaching, specifically, that if a person is gay, they are--just like single people, such as myself--called to be chaste and celibate. It appears that Dumbledore has actually done this. At this point in Dumbledore's history, the only "love interest" Dumbledore has had is that for Gellert Grindlewald when they were young, and it was not reciprocated by Grindlewald, so they didn't become lovers, and there was no one after Grindlewald in Dumbledore's life. So, as this stands at the current time (and a recent interview with Jude Law confirmed that Dumbledore's sexuality is not going to be explored anytime soon, but that is still fairly open-ended about the future) this is an acceptable presentation of someone who has been given this Cross to bear and his bearing it in accord with Church teaching. In this interview with author JK Rowling, she revealed that she is a practicing Christian and Christianity guided the story. I am, therefore, taking the time to read the books (it was the detail someone mentioned regarding Harry placing a cross at the grave of Professor Moody's eye that caught me unaware) and re-assessing the books. The truth is, there are some things in life which act as a greater temptation than others, and sadly, beyond Rowling's control, those who have encompassed themselves in witchcraft and WICCA have abused their own free will and, if not with magic, then with something else. That doesn't mean we, as Christians, should abandon ourselves but, as in all things, use discretion, test the spirit and always put God's will before our own.
I would like to be perfectly clear about this from the start: I am not going to be clear about anything throughout the rest of this post. We have a couple of minutes of a 2-hour long film, and there are too many factors of which I cannot possibly have access to in order to make a clear and definite statement; in other words, regardless of what I say, I am likely to have to walk it back after viewing the entirety of the film. To refresh our memories, let's take a look at the first trailer.
When this trailer came out, and before I had seen Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them (which was definitely a pro-socialist film) I was confident that Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) would be a Trump figure cast in the most horrific light in the sequel; this is still possible, especially considering how the cast behaved in the panel discussion during the San Diego Comic-Con (the cast was saying, "Impeach Trump!" and trying to make links to the film) but there is a problem with that, and we see it in this second trailer:
In Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, I have to identify with the character of Mary Lou Barebone (Samantha Morton), the missionary who has launched the New Salem Society to expose witches and wizards (talking about socialism/communism makes me a witch-hunter, too, and I am a Christian), so I am not a member of the elite wizard class, I am a muggle. Further, Jon Voight's role as Henry Shaw Sr, and his son, suggests that these characters are an accurate view of how Republicans and Conservatives are viewed by the Left, while the Left sees itself as the elite wizards and witches who have been forced to hide (the Left fits this description because--like the wizarding world--they have had to hide being socialists, or gay, or wanting to change their sexual identities. or being drug addicts).
SO, metaphorically speaking, who does that make Grindelwald? 
The way Dumbledore is presented in both these trailers is quite interesting: how many times do we see Dumbledore's back? When we first see Dumbledore, it's the back of his head (same shot, both trailers); when he sits down on the desk in the classroom, we see him from behind; when he's meeting Newt atop the building, he has his back to Newt; at 1:16 (first trailer) we see Dumbledore looking at the proverbial "writing on the wall" and again when Dumbledore stands before the Mirror of Erised (pictured above, bottom image). Granted, we see the backs of other characters as well, however, at least the way he's being presented in the trailers, we see his back; why? The back symbolizes our shadow, the part of ourselves we can't see and so the part of ourselves that are likely to be vulnerable. The back is a complicated symbol, however, because there are also the shoulders--which symbolize the burdens we are willing to take upon ourselves or not take up--as well as the back of our heads; since the head symbolizes our thoughts, the back of the head usually symbolizes our history or past, sometimes those things we have buried, or at least tried to bury. Now, if you will notice in the top of the two images above, Dumbledore has his hands in his pockets; he also has his hands in his coat pockets when he meets Newt on top of the building; our hands symbolize our honor, so there is something regarding his honor which Dumbledore is hiding, e.g., that Dumbledore himself should be hunting down Grindlewald but sends Newt to do it instead (Dumbledore will be begged over the course of five years to battle Grindlewald, but he manages to put it off). In the bottom image, when Dumbledore looks into the mirror of Erised--the mirror that shows you what you most long to see--please note Dumbledore's arms: he has one sleeve rolled up and one sleeve down. Why? Arms symbolize strength, so it's possible that Dumbledore is exposing a strength he has (the "naked" arm, he's exposing his skin) while at the same moment hiding another strength he has (the sleeve rolled down covering his arm). Just because Dumbledore is seeing Grindlewald in the mirror in this moment doesn't mean that Grindlewald is to Dumbledore what his parents are to Harry Potter when he looks into the mirror (remember, towards the end of The Philosopher's Stone, when Harry sees himself, and not his parents, and he had the Stone in his pocket; that's not what he wanted to be seeing). At this moment, however, Dumbledore most wants to talk to Grindlewald and discuss something with him. Mirrors, after all, are glass, and we know that glass symbolizes inner-meditation, our ability to "reflect" upon our own selves, and it's likely that's what Dumbledore's doing in this scene: reflecting on exactly what it is he wants and doesn't want.
We know Grindlewald hates muggles, he believes that only pure-blood wizards should rule everyone else and wizards should dominate the world for the benefit of everyone, for the greater good. How can you possible get Donald Trump out of that? I know some Liberals will claim that Trump's policy on building a wall to keep out immigrants sounds like Grindlewald, that somehow Americans wanting to keep themselves safe and have people enter the country only legally and not illegally is about protecting our blood purity,..... what?!?!? No, that just doesn't make any sense. But that's not what Grindlewald is arguing anyway and that's not what Trump is doing: Grindlewald is arguing that they should come out of hiding (Republicans and conservatives haven't been in hiding) and they should use their greater power to enslave the lesser muggles (Republicans don't want anyone enslaves, Republicans want a strong, healthy middle class so the free market will flourish and the greatest number of people possible can become as wealthy as possible). So, what is it about Grindlewald that the Left can possibly pin as to pertaining to Trump or Trump supporters?
Nothing.
Which makes Grindlewald,....
This scene is an obvious reference back to Professor Remus Lupin, the Defense Against the Dark Arts (DADA) teacher who turned into a werewolf and was a good friend and mentor to Harry in The Prisoner of Azkaban. As in that story, when Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) escaped, so Grindlewald escapes in Fantastic Beasts 2, but I think that--just as Professor Lupin was hiding that he was a werewolf, Dumbledore, too, is hiding something, and it's possibly that it's his homosexuality (I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to make the case that homosexuals are treated like werewolves) but it might be that Dumbledore is actually hiding at Hogwarts rather than facing his fears of taking the role of leadership he's meant to take, and this could be because Dumbledore knows how easily he was hooked into searching for the Deathly Hallows with Grindlewald and planning with him the subjugation of muggles "for the greater good."
In the top image, I have pointed out what might prove to be some of Newt's classmates: Leta LeStrange is likely standing behind him, and oddly emotionless to everything that is going on; the red-head girl might be part of the Weasley clan and the boy standing behind her might be one of the Longbottoms,.... but these are just my guesses.
Now, let's discuss briefly what type of hero Newt Scamander is. The name "Newt" serves two purposes: first, it's short for Newton, the name of the famous scientist, so it suggests an atheist, but secondly, a man who has lost his genitals (please think of Monty Python's The Holy Grail during the witch trial, when John Cleese's character yells out, "She turned me into a newt!" and then everyone looks at him and he mumbles, "I got better.") A "genital-less male" is the only acceptable white, heterosexual male hero in today's world for the Left (note Newt was sorted into gentle Hufflepuff, not bold and brave Gryffindor). His last name "Scamander" references an ancient river which was supposed to bestow beauty upon women, so that, too, is a feminine reference So, this is a reason why, as a general characteristic, I don't particularly like Newt.
On a different note, however, why does Newt not want to work an office job? There are lots of people good at office jobs, however, Newt knows that he has other talents--singular talents unique to himself--which will go to waste if he files into a bureaucratic position in the Ministry of Magic rather than pursuing his dream and passion. Does this sound familiar? It should, because this is basically the reason why capitalism exists, and bureaucracies exist because of socialism and the government needing to create jobs for people to fill. This might be the wrong vein to pursue with this scene, however, there are mirrors on the bureau in which the boggart is kept, and the boggart itself is a kind of mirror, mirroring for you that which is your greatest fear, so there is meditation taking place in this scene. No doubt, when Newt says, "Riddikulus!" some fantastic beast will appear in place of the desk and scare everyone else. 
A Liberal.
Grindlewald is one of the Left, a figure of the New World Order. If Gindlewald is going to be seen as a "Trump figure" for the Left (that is, the Left views Trump as the incarnation of ultimate evil in the real world), then that really muddies the water of what the Left is going to have to concede (again, I could be wrong about details in the film, but this is a generalization): namely, if Trump is a Grindlewald metaphor, and Grindlewald is the most powerful wizard in the wizarding world, Trump is the most powerful, accomplished person in the world and Trump's "trying to help the wizarding world" (i.e., the Liberals) by bringing them out of the closet, so to speak and helping them to enslave unworthy muggles,.... like myself.
We haven't seen this top image in the trailers as of yet, but it's been released as part of the film's stills, and when I saw it, for some reason, I immediately thought of James Bond's file which appeared in Spectre (bottom image, I couldn't find a better picture of it, sorry). Even I recognize this is a bit of a stretch, but there is also the moment in the first trailer at 1:15-6 when we see a man in a cellar or underground tunnel (just his back) and he's looking at white, glowing writing on the wall (the image of this moment is below in the next set of stills), and this "writing on the wall" might also be a reference to Spectre, since that was an important scene in the movie and the title of the theme song. There is also the scene when Dumbledore meets Newt atop the building, much as Bond did with Moneypenny at the end of Skyfall; so, I will be the first to admit that these might be stretches, but there are at least three things in which we can connect Skyfall and Spectre to FB2; why bother? Because in both films, but especially Spectre, Bond was fighting against the New World Order, quite openly, and if Grindlewald is meant to be a anti-NWO metaphor, these links will substantiate that as proof.
On a slightly different note, it's important that the film is taking place in France; why? While not officially socialist, the French economy and social structure has long suffered from socialist programs making for inefficiency and sectors with too many workers and the government unable to do anything about it. Prime Minister Macron has begun the implementation of reforms to ease the problems which plague all socialist systems and create unnecessary stress on the national economy; only time will tell if he is successful, but the protests have been widespread even as the country has begged for such reforms. So, the setting of the French capitol will be an interesting backdrop to the political undertones of the film.
There is at least one more reason why Trump can't be seen as a Grindlewald metaphor: Grindlewald wants to end "the old ways" (probably a reference to the accord signed several hundreds of years ago to keep the wizarding world secret and separate from the muggle world) whereas Trump was elected by his followers and on the platform that he would protect and defend the old ways, namely, make America great again, return it to a role of leadership in society and defend traditional values (Christian values). Knowing how the phrase, "Make America Great Again" is acid to the fragile hearts of those on the Left, we might deduce that this very leadership is of itself the reason why the Left will view Grindlewald as a Trump figure, but let's examine that a bit closer.
In the top image is Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller) from Fantastic Beasts and beside him is Maledictus; now, The Super Carlin Brothers have theorized that Maledictus is Voldermort's pet snake Nagini. It's an interesting theory, so you might check it out. In short, "Maledictus" is a blood curse which can be passed down through generations, and it turns one into a beast from which they cannot turn back. It makes sense that Credence is an obscurial--one whose magic is suppressed--and Maledictus is becoming something she doesn't want to be either.
Now, if you will note the second image, the man (Dumbledore) looking at the writing on the wall, it's very important to know that this is a family tree; for whom? Corbus LeStrange, aka, Credence Barebone, who is actually Leta LeStrange's (Zoe Kravitz) half brother. I don't know how else this is going to play out, but we know how important family trees are to certain segments of the population in the Harry Potter universe, so this is going to be a very important realization in the film.
Lastly, if you note the bottom image, (you can click on it to enlarge) Credence is sending out his obscurial to wreck destruction; the large, black "curtain" like creatures we see in the trailer draping buildings and covering people are something like dementors, and Credence is sending them out. The point is, he's using his left hand; in occultism and witchcraft--in reality, not just the books and movies--the Left Hand Path is not only associated with witches, warlocks and demons, but also the really Dark Arts (just google it) and we've been seeing more and more examples of the left side of people and things being employed to suggest that something wicked this way comes.
First of all, if one wants to see Grindlewald's vision to make the wizarding world the leaders of the muggle world in line with Trump's Make America Great Again, America can't rule the world; on the contrary, the US wants all countries strong with strong, free markets because that boosts trade and trade boosts living standards (this is why Trump supports Brexit and other European Union members getting OUT of the European Union, it's a death-trap for the free market). Grindlewald wants to enslave muggles; who does Trump want to enslave? (I wouldn't be surprised to hear some outrageous claims from the Left, but those would be desperate and utterly preposterous). "Muggles are not lesser. Not disposable." I think this is Dumbledore saying this; the question is, who is it that thinks muggles are lesser, are disposable?
The Left.
Well, in a way, Jacob is seeing a ghost because he's a ghost from the very first Harry Potter film, The Sorcerer's Stone, in which Flimmel is responsible for having created the Sorcerer's Stone which prolongs his life. Now, I do have a bone to pick: when he meets Jacob, he says, "I'm an alchemist and therefore immortal," and there are two problems with this: first, there were lots of alchemists (okay, all of them) who never found/discovered the Sorcerer's Stone (the elixir of life) but tried, so just because he's an alchemist doesn't mean he is automatically immortal. Secondly, he's not immortal in the way God is immortal, because he has to keep taking the elixir (Dumbledore mentions this in the film that Flimmel, who would live to be 666 years old--yea, the mark of the Beast--had just enough left to put his affairs in order and then he was going to die) so he's not immortal. Now, alchemy has always, always been a huge sin: not only is one trying to defy God's plan for them by prolonging their life indefinitely, they are also searching for the means to turn base materials into gold, which Flimmel supposedly accomplishes. Perhaps this is the reason that, when Jacob shakes his hand, we hear Flimmel's bones cracking. Hands symbolize honor, and for the structure of the hand (the bones) to cave in to pressure suggests that Flimmel doesn't have much honor about him because he has gone against God's will for his life and chosen his own.
In the "Interrogation Scene" from Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, Mr. Graves (really Grindlewald himself disguised, the clip is at the bottom of this post to review) questions Newt about his purpose in bringing the beasts into New York, and Newt denies it was to cause chaos, mass slaughter and bring open war; now, who is it that is always rioting, causing death and destruction and trying to bring the country to open war? Not Trump and the Conservatives, that's the Left with the Ferguson riots, the Baltimore riots, the riots on the night Trump was elected and all the other "protests" they have violently staged on George Soros' paycheck. Either the Left has to concede that they are the superior wizarding world, and therefore muggles would be the despised "lessers" and "disposables" (and who hasn't talked to a Liberal who treats them that way?) OR the Left has to concede that Conservatives/Republicans are part of the wizarding world and of that world, Trump/Grindlewald is the greatest and actually trying to put the Left in power over the muggles.
Which is it going to be?
I don't quite understand this theory, but I will mention it to at least mention it. A rumor going around suggests that Queenie is going to be "propositioned" by Grindlewald to join her because he wants her mind-reading capabilities. The basis of the theory is that Grindlewald is going to use Jacob being a muggle against her and that she can't marry Jacob if Grindlewald doesn't come into power,.... which doesn't make sense because Grindlewald doesn't want anything to do with muggles, so this must be a one-time exception to the rule. However, what I can contribute to Queenie's vulnerability in the story is that, the first time we saw her, she was undressed--she wasn't naked, she was wearing her slip--but Tina told her to get dressed and so she put her dress on. When someone is "undressed," it foreshadows they are going to be "exposed," and this could be the meaning (or a part of it) in the trailer when we see Queenie holding her head in distress, not that she's going to be exposed to Grindlewald per se, but she will be exposed to something which will alter her character or our understanding of her.
At this point, it appears to me that Grindlewald is a figure of the New World Order, he who wants to dominate and be in charge over everyone, wizard and muggle alike. The key to this movement is the purity of bloodlines, and who is it arguing for that? The New World Order, the 13 families who value their own bloodlines (the Astors, DuPonts, Rockefellers, Collins, Freemans, Kennedys, etc.) and believe they have the right to rule over others because of their purity and view everyone else--like myself--as lesser and disposable because I am not a member of one of their families, just as I am not a member of the Malfoys, the Blacks, the LeStranges.
Before we analyze what Grindlewald looks like, let's start with his name. "Gellert" is a form of "Gerard," and it means something like "strong spear." In German, "wald" means "forest," and "grendel" usually translates to something like beam or gate. So we could come up with something like the strong spears of forest beams. This could be that there is a forest of beams (regular witches and wizards) that Grindlewald is going to transform into strong spears; then again, the "beams" might not be wooden beams, but beams of light, or magic, and those magical beams could become his strong spears (like what he was attempting to do with the obscurial in Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them). Then again, it's hard to ignore the obvious reference to Beowulf and the monster Grendel.
Grindlewald is pale and so is his hair. The color white either symbolizes that someone is alive to the virtues of faith, hope, innocence, purity, or they are dead to those virtues (a corpse turns white when it dies). So, not only is his skin pale and white, but his hair (symbolizing his thoughts) his eyebrows (because they are part of his eyes, which we shall discuss in a moment, it symbolizes that he sees death and the death of virtue) and his mustache (the mustache is part of the mouth, which symbolizes the appetites, so he has an appetite for death). In the top image, his hair has "fallen," but in the bottom image, we can say, when he's in "peak condition," his hair stands straight up, with the back of his head shaved close. The hair standing straight up suggests his thoughts of mobility, that is, achieving (like finding all three of the Deathly Hallows) and the shaved hair suggests that he doesn't give thought to anything that doesn't help him gain his goals. In the top image, his "fallen hair" means that he's thinking his goals might be out of his reach since he's been captured, and it will be more difficult to escape then he lets on at the end of Fantastic Beasts. His clothing is mostly blue, suggesting he has had a difficult life and goes through depression, and that depression has "colored" how he sees himself and life in general. What is most interesting about his clothes, to me, is the tie around his neck. The neck symbolizes that which leads us in life, and this is a black tie (black always symbolizes death) but the tie is worn on the inside of the shirt, not on the outside the way it usually is, suggesting that what is guiding him in life is something he's going to use for that which it wasn't created (the Deathly Hallows to subjugate muggles to slavery, for example).
It is at least refreshing to know that someone on the Left isn't running head-first into the horrific nightmare that has become politically known as "the New World Order."
And then again, I could be completely wrong about all this.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
P.S.--Here is the interrogation scene from Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, elucidating the "chaos" element of Grindlewald's tactics and the "parasitic nature" of the obscurist he was attempting to locate and use for his own good, ignoring the "host," or human attached to it:

Saturday, July 21, 2018

GLASS: First Trailer

This is truly an excellent image. First, melding the four faces together--Kevin, Dr. Staple, David and Glass--demonstrates that which is not possible: all four of these characters are their own, that is, they have their own role to play in the film, just as you and I have our own "roles" to play in our individual lives. No matter how badly one hates individuals, one can't simply decide all people are alike or created equally and then attempt to make them fit into a pattern or a perception of reality, which is what the Left is attempting to achieve all over the world today.
Now, we have an issue of "erasure," specifically, that the word GLASS is written over the eyes and part of the nose of the conglomerate face in the poster. Erasure is meant to demonstrate that something is inadequate, and yet necessary. So, the word GLASS "erases" the dominant features of the conglomerate face, because the conglomerate is not adequate to relay to the viewer what the film makers want to say, however, it's necessary because there is not a better image which can, so the image is in a state of inadequacy but necessity, because there is so much more they want to say, but can't.
Surrealist artist Rene Magritte did a famous image of a pipe and titled the work, This Is Not A Pipe, and it caused a bit of an uproar, because, of course it was a pipe; but no, it was only a picture of a pipe, not a real pipe. We can "deconstruct" the word GLASS in the same way: this isn't actually glass, it's a digital image of glass,... or does GLASS refer to the character Mr. Glass? Or does GLASS refer to the title of the film? We actually don't know to what GLASS refers, and so this open-ended word, "erasing" the identities of the characters, fractured by all the shards, splinters and cracks, leaves us with quite a mess; or does it?
Symbolically, we know that glass means meditation: when someone looks into a mirror, or through a window, for example, they are meditating upon themselves and matters of the interior world; likewise, GLASS is calling for us the viewers to meditate as well, especially given the fractured and damaged nature of the glass we see with the fragments of characters; have our own identities been damaged, or are they endangered? Between the A and the first S is a big white spot, suggesting that the "glass" we see that produced all the damage and splinters was hit by something really hard; there is a saying, "to hit someone between the eyes" so they can see something that is obvious and apparent to everyone else, and that looks like what this poster has exactly tried to do: that is, hit the viewer between the eyes with the reality of what is happening to our own identities and why. 
In 2000, writer/director M. Night Shyamalan released his super-hero film Unbreakable starring Bruce Willis as David Dunn, a man who had been the sole survivor of a train wreck (and a devastating car crash) unscathed, and Samuel L Jackson as Elijah Price, aka, Mr. Glass, who suffers an extremely rare disease that makes his bones excessively susceptible to breakage. In January 2017, Shyamalan released Split, starring James McAvoy, who portrays Kevin, a character with 23 distinct personalities inside him, including one called "The Beast." Willis' David Dunn has a brief cameo in Split; when Split proved to be a critical and financial success, it was announced that Unbreakable and Split are part of a trilogy dubbed, The Eastrail 177, for which we now have the first trailer for this third film, which picks up 3-4 weeks after the end of Split.
The job of a great artist (and Shyamalan has had a rough road to walk these last 15 years, so he deserves this) to recognize, distill and then articulate what is happening within the world and then present it in a comprehensible format for their audience so the audience can have a "privileged perspective" upon current events, and this trailer does just that. With the opening lines, "It's amazing to meet you," to the diagnosis of delusions of grandeur, it's not difficult to connect this doctor with the world-wide socialist trends of associating individuals and people who are truly gifted with inflated egos who lack consideration for the mediocre. In short, the struggle of the "mental instabilities" of the three men--Glass, Kevin and Dunn--reflect (just like a piece of glass) the struggle of the world today, and the self-appointed superior socialist who thinks they know how to "solve" a problem they can't begin to comprehend. When she notes it's a growing field in psychiatric research, it's Shyamalan quietly jabbing us in the ribs and saying, "Can you believe how elitist these socialists are with their phony labels?" because there have been two main prongs of the socialists' attack which Shyamalan appears to be taking upon himself.
Sarah Paulson portrays Dr. Ellie Staple; the name is particularly interesting because when we staple something together, we want to "keep it together," such as pieces of paper; that's probably at least one level of the symbolism of her name, that she views the three men as nothing more than "case files" and not really human beings with individuation and gifts, rather, she is the arm of the psychiatric institution (a great socialist monolith of government control, think about what happens at the end of The Chernobyl Diaries and what happens to the American tourists).
This is an interesting little note: the psychiatric hospital being used (although we don't know if it will be named as this in the movie) is the Allentown State Hospital, which perchance references the 1983 Billy Joel hit song Allentown about workers who are depressed because the steel industries are closing; the song is meant to give hope and sustenance to the hard-workers; if there is a link between the hospital and the song, it suggests that the "delusion of grandeur" being investigated by Dr. Staple is that of the American work ethic and our belief in the strength and perseverance of individuals. Perhaps you will recall the 2016 film Cure For Wellness which also takes place in a psychiatric hospital: that was the same hospital where Adolf Hitler recovered from his wounds after World War I, so I don't think it's such a stretch to link the mental hospital with the 1983 hit song Allentown.
First, masculinity.
It's been plaguing the news--anyone keeping up with The Drudge Report at least--that "toxic masculinity," i.e., masculinity, that traditional masculine gender roles are viciously under siege by the Left; why? Like David Dunn who sees himself as a "protector," masculinity means leadership, courage and justice; three traits socialists hate (did Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders have even one of these in any measurable degree?) because it makes otherwise easily herded people into thinking and self-actualizing individuals, and individuals (as opposed to those who want to mindlessly belong to a group) are the greatest threat to a socialist society. 
This is really a great costume. We know that feet symbolize will, and the shoes Mr. Glass wears looks like slippers rather than proper shoes. Purple symbolizes royalty and suffering; why? Well, back in the ancient days, purple was exceedingly expensive to produce, so much so, that only the royal family could afford to wear the color; after the Crucifixion of Christ, the King of all, purple also came to symbolize suffering as that is what a "good king" would do for his people, rather than have his people suffer for him, so the positive symbolism of the color denotes suffering (I know this sounds crazy, but without suffering there is no wisdom, and because wisdom is the greatest of all the treasures, one becomes royalty through their suffering because they have gained the greatest treasure of wisdom) but negatively symbolizes royalty: think of DC Comics' The Joker and his wearing purple; he wants to be treated like royalty, but is a psychopath. Because Mr Glass wears slippers instead of practical shoes, this suggests a life of luxury rather than a life of work and practicality, so Mr. Glass feels entitled to be treated like a king. The color of his jacket lapels are purple, so the same "royalty" theme applies, however, the rest of this amazing coat (from a costume perspective) has a metallic blue-into-purple quality, suggesting that the depression which blue symbolizes gives way to the "royal complex" Mr. Glass has. Compound this with the wheelchair: this king doesn't have a throne, but he's using his wheelchair has one, why? He's entitled. 
The second topic is that of individuality. I know it appears to be close to the first, however, this is where analysis of Mr. Glass comes into play. In spite of being a villain, Glass' extremely rare medical condition makes him highly individualistic--unique, singular, special--and socialists hate to admit that we are NOT all created equally; when presented with people such as Mr. Glass or David Dunn, one cannot honestly propagate that we are all created equally. This is evidenced by Shyamalan creating Kevin: 23 different personalities live inside of this one; why? Socialists believe, and I think we have to take Kevin as the unmasked face of socialism in the film (whereas Dr. Staple is the masked face, pretending she isn't really, but she really is) that all these different people (the various personalities of Kevin) are really all just the same as Kevin. If there were no individuality, in other words, then everyone would be just like Kevin, and there would be no boundaries of identity between one person and the next.
This is a highly-stylized shot; for example, what hospital do you know of that has violet colored lighting? As with the symbolism of purple discussed above, but we will articulate that meaning in just a moment. First, please note the windows behind Kevin in the middle and on the sides of the room; on the floor, in-between Mr. Glass and Kevin, we see the reflection of light, but it's what called "disembodied light," that is, it's being diffused and not valued, so the symbolic light which could be filling these characters with self-awareness and a sense of right-and-wrong, is, literally, being thrown on the floor and lost. Mr. Glass, on the left, looks like an old grandma in her rocking chair, and this isn't by accident, because Mr. Glass isn't just on the left side, he IS the Left, with their gender-switching, victimization and self-entitlement; Kevin is the image of false dignity because he's wearing yellow. Yellow is the color of gold, and because gold is always associated with kings, it denotes the kingship within us, our great dignity; however, we can choose to abandon that dignity, and that's when yellow symbolizes cowardice. David Dunn is, literally on the right, that is, the Right of politics. He's bound and chained, so he's suffering, this is where the violet light comes in: David Dunn is the image of suffering, but Mr Glass and Kevin are the image of self-proclaimed royalty who are entitled to not have to suffer. David wears a pale green hospital outfit, and we know that green is the color of new life and hope, so whatever happens to David in this scene is actually giving him a new purpose in life, even if it isn't readily apparent by the time the scene ends.
In the last few seconds, one of Kevin's personalities asks, "What do we call you, sir?" And Elijah Price says, "First name, Mister, last name Glass." This superbly echoes the introduction in Marvel's Dr. Strange when Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelsen) asks Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) who he is and starts by calling him "Mister?" and Strange replies, "It's Doctor," to which Kaecilius asks, "Mister Doctor?" and Strange adds, "It's Strange," and Kaecilius concludes, "Who am I to judge?" By giving a title as his first name ("Mister") Elijah Price/Mr. Glass erases a part of his identity: Elijah. Elijah, one of the most powerful prophets of all time, meaning "My God is Yahu," Mr. Glass prefers to identify himself with his sinful nature, rather than the divine nature to which every single person is called (our soul which is God's Gift to each of us) and this is why he "teams up with" The Beast in Kevin: as an unmasked face of socialism, The Beast is the animal that socialists believe each and everyone of us actually is, not a child of God, merely an accident of nature with no dignity, vocation or purpose. The fruits of these labors have been a long time in coming for Shyamalan, but I'm confident they will be well worth the wait!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner