"Supreme art is a traditional statement of certain heroic and religious truth, passed on from age to age, modified by individual genius, but never abandoned." William Butler Yeats
A Separation won the 2012 Academy Award for Best Foreign Language film, the first film from Iran to ever do so; in a time when Iran is in the news because of nuclear threats it's making to its neighbors, why would the Academy award a country with such a prestigious honor? Because A Separation blames America for all the ills and woes Iran is facing and director Asghar Farhadi does that with the traditional tool of art: symbols and conflict. By weaving a long, complicated web of blame, punishment and responsibility, the real culprit of the film is revealed: freedom. If people, especially women, didn't have so much freedom, then men wouldn't have so many problems; if all Muslims just followed the Koran better, the film tells us, everything would be fine. So why exactly does A Separation hate America so much?
A Separation is really a play on our perceptions. When words are used to limit quantity, in this case, "a," we look for only one separation, the separation of Simin (Leila Hatami) from her husband Nader (Peyman Moadi) when in fact, the film is full of "separations," the most important being, the separation of the future from the past. Because there are so many separations within the structure of the film, separation permits the small lies, the fissures, the problems to creep in which propel the story and, ultimately, let it get out of control.
The opening scene of the film: in court, before a judge we never see, Simin pleads her case for wanting a divorce from her husband, Nader. They had planned on leaving the country and "making a better life" for themselves and their only daughter, Termah (the director's daughter who plays the part expertly) but the illness of the grandfather means that Nader wants to stay in the country and take care of him. Nader is willing to let Simin go, but she won't without Termeh and Termeh has decided to stay with her father, knowing her mother won't leave if she doesn't go with her. Simin goes to stay at her parents' house so Nader hires Razieh (Sareh Bayat) who is pregnant and has a little girl, to come during the day and look after his father. Termeh and Nader both blame Simin for what has happened, because if she hadn't left them, they wouldn't have had to hire Razieh. It's not a political singularity, there is often a "brain drain" when people leave their home country to find a better life, and the void left behind by those who have left can cause terrible situations in the home.
When Razieh, the hired housekeeper, crosses the street to get Grandfather, she gets hit by a car; even though we don't see this happening, we know that the future (the miscarried baby) has been sacrificed to preserve the past (Grandfather). Additionally what is important, is the lie told about how the child was lost: Razieh claims Nader hit her and the hit caused her miscarriage, because she keeps the car hitting her a secret until the very end. What does the vehicle hitting her symbolize?
Nader and his father who has Alzheimer's. Simin, during their divorce trial, tells the judge that Grandfather doesn't even know Nader is his son, and Nader replies, "But I know he is my father," and that is a admirable position, but that's how history works: history does not know the future that it will beget, it only knows itself, but we know the past from which we came (I personally lost a wonderful aunt to Alzheimer's and took care of a friend's husband who had the disease while she would take a break; it's a heartbreaking condition, but this isn't about the reality of the illness, rather, the film is using Alzheimer's to make an artistic point). The Grandfather's condition is quite sad, as he barely speaks and wets himself, hardly being capable of doing anything. But this is one of the dichotomies the film establishes: clean and dirty, speaking and silence, truth and lies, being married or being divorced, honor and dishonor.
Iran, while a republic and based on a constitution, also holds the government responsible for assuring that all its citizens have jobs and that their essential needs are provided for (socialism). Razieh's husband, Hodjat, does not know she took the job at Nader's (and tradition in the country says she should have told him about it but she didn't). Hodjat had been employed with a cobbler for ten years and then they fired him and told him to "just try and get justice" and he couldn't, so he was going to go and take care of Grandfather (Razieh didn't tell him she had been doing it, only that it was a job opening) but the day Hodjat was supposed to show up to start, Hodjat's creditors showed up and took him off to prison. We could say that the Iranian government's inability to live up to its promise of making sure the people have jobs is the vehicle causing Razieh's miscarriage because she wouldn't have been on the street if she wasn't working and she was working because her husband didn't have a job. But that's not where the film lays the blame for the tragedy of the lost child.
Razieh's husband, Hodjat. A "debt" is always a symbol of sin: we owe something intangible, but the narrative makes it tangible so it can be commented upon. The debt which Hodjat owes to his creditors signifies the debt every Iranian man owes to his family,... and never pays. Nader is ordered to pay "blood money" to Hodjat for "hitting" Razieh and causing her miscarriage; when Nader is about to write the check, and Hodjat's creditors are there, because then the money has to pay them, Nader looks at Razieh and asks her, upon the Koran, if she truly believes that when he pushed her for mistreating his father, that caused her to lose her baby,... and Razieh can't do it because Razieh knows it was probably the car that hit her which caused the loss of the baby. This is an incredibly complicated "justification" of the abuse allowed by the Koran, the law of the Koran by which Muslims live being introduced into the film. Hodjat can't pay his debt, symbolizing that what Hodjat has done in the past, will have to be paid for by the future generations (the miscarried baby); neither Nader nor Hodjat are likeable characters. There are moments when you feel badly for them because of circumstances, yet you don't like them, ever, which means, the film maker doesn't like them either, and doesn't find redeeming qualities in either one. So what's the point? In spite of how bad and unlikeable and at fault both of these men are, especially in their actions towards women, the problem Iranian, Muslim pose in Iran and the world isn't the problem with Iran or with Islam; it's technology. It's the car that killed the baby, not the angry, self-righteous Muslim man. With all the situational conflicts in the film, it comes down to this: if America weren't so much more prosperous, and people in Iran didn't have cars, then Razieh's baby would have lived, because Simin wouldn't have left to find a "better life," there would not have been a better life to go to and they would not have known about the luxury of having cars because no one would have had cars so the baby would have lived. Ultimately, the blame of all the ill in the film is because of America, prosperity and technology (one might even add the freedom American women have, because Simin is obviously more "liberated" then Razieh and Razieh's desire to leave her husband is largely the catalyst of the film's tragic events). So, regardless of what Iranian Muslim men do, it's all America's fault, and we can see the liberals in Hollywood supporting a foreign, socialist government that hates America as much as they do.
We can also say that, if things were better in Iran, Simin wouldn't have wanted to leave so desperately, and she would have stayed in her home and taken care of Grandfather, instead of trying to leave and pass on the responsibility to someone else. During the opening scenes of the film, the divorce trial, the judge wants to know why Simin wants to leave the country but doesn't seem at all surprised that Simin wants to look for "a better life" (which was the title of another Oscar nominated film from Mexico this year). An interesting note about Iran: it's considered to be one of the 10 best places in the world for tourists, primarily because of all its history, but it's ranked 89th in the world because of public image and regional conflicts making it unsafe for tourists.
Razieh and her little girl Somayeh. Part of the conflict in the film is whether or not Nader knew she was pregnant. He claims that because she was wearing the chador all the time, he could not have known she was 4-5 months pregnant but Razieh claims he had to have known because he had to have overheard her discussing it. It's likely Nader did know she was pregnant, but he doesn't want to be held accountable for his lie, however, at the end, when he asks her to swear on the Koran that he was the cause of her miscarriage, and she can't do it, Nader wants her to be held accountable to justice, and Nader gets away with it. Nader isn't blamed for anything. This doesn't mean that Nader hasn't sinned, but the Koran is only going to be harsh on the women, not upon the men. There is the civil law to deal with Hodjat and his debt, but spiritually, Nader is exempt from punishment.
In conclusion, we can say A Separation is about the Iranian government separating itself from the promises it makes to its citizens in the Iranian Constitution; the government's inability to provide for its people as it has said it would is like the dementia of Grandfather, because when Grandfather should be in the house, he's out on the street instead; when the Iranian government should be in "The House Of Islam," taking care of its problems within its own country, it's outside its borders, worrying itself about its neighbors (like America and Israel) instead, and this is why the Academy awarded A Separation the Oscar: the Iranian government, the Muslim men and the Koran allowing men to beat women are all absolved of any guilt in spite of their crimes; America, freedom and technology, however, are the culprits, the murderers of their cultural identity and the source of their problems. It's a very intense film so if you have the chance to view it, you might not like it, but it will be a great education in storytelling and dramatic build-up.
Nader and his only child, Termeh, it's not just the wall that divides them, but the truth. A controversy of the film is Simin gets her divorce in the end, but Termeh has to decide which of her parents she will stay with: stay with her father or go abroad with her mother. The judge asks Nader and Simin to step outside so Termeh can tell him her decision, and they do so, sitting separately outside, and the film ends, not letting us know what Termeh's decision was. The point is, it doesn't matter which parent she goes with; she will always be separated from the other, from a part of her identity. That is the dilemma of Iran today: like Termeh, it can try and make a better life for itself, being separated from the past, or it can hold onto its past and risk foregoing a better life; she can hold onto her religion, or embrace technology and modern life and not be a proper Muslim woman. It's likely she stayed with her father.
(As of April 18, I am considering changing my verdict about this film: I don't think it's possible that someone could make this film and be serious about it unless, as I have always argued, it is a metaphor for something else going on in the real world, specifically, the American political scene. There are just too many striking similarities to the political atmosphere of the last three years to take itself literally and, I rather think like Gulliver's Travels, I took what was supposed to be satire and made it literal; if this is the case, I GIVE MY FULL SUPPORT FOR THE FILM, as I can understand it being a satire for the Democratic party and Liberals trying to run this country, but if it's not a satire, if it seeks to inspire people to aim for this life, forget about it).
The 3 main characters seriously drugged and drunk. Just as Thomas (the birthday boy in the middle, which would translate as Obama's birthday in getting re-elected) is celebrated at school for what he did, so liberals and democrats are celebrating Obama for what he is doing.
The only reason I went to see Project X was the hope that the horrible party behavior depicted in the trailer was going to be punished and hence, could be taken as a sign that the "party" of the Democrats is coming to an end; the behavior in the film was not punished, it was rewarded. Any parents who allow their kids to see this film should have their kids taken away from them. The film presumes that we are animals: we have no souls and we are ruled by our appetites. A perfect example is, before the party, the 3 boys (and speaking of 3 boys, I far and infinitely prefer Chronicle to this horrific "film") are at a grocery store and Costa steals condoms, saying, "I'm not going to pay for these," because the Democrat party has taught him that birth control is not only a right, but the duty of the government to provide.
This is one of the really sad introverted moments of the film, when the dog Milo is tied up with balloons, because it shows the film is self-aware enough to invoke the economy being artificially "kept afloat" and it doesn't care! The house is flooded by water trying to put out a fire which refers to mortgages that are "under water," and people just walking away from them (as the boys do in the film) and it doesn't care! It shows the car being bailed out of the pool, the "auto bail out," and it doesn't care! Thomas' college fund is all used up to pay for the cost of fixing what he has destroyed and he doesn't care! He had a great night and that's all that matters. I hope someone has a party like this at Warner Brothers' Studios.
The only thing these three boys are concerned with: sex, sex, sex.
As long as it is someone else's house, someone else has to pay for it. Even though the film made a pretense of the boys being punished, they weren't, because their lawyers got them all off the hook so there were no consequences to what they have done (who are the lawyers? Politicians, because nearly all politicians are lawyers). All the girls in this film are sluts, and I mean that in the full definition of the word, girls having the "morals" of men; it was so sad to see these poor girls used for nothing but sexual pleasure of guys they didn't even know, but by the Obama Administration's definition, this is "freedom." This is definitely a pro-Democrat film because it has no shame.
The guy setting the neighborhood on fire? An ex-military, current drug dealer, if that is not a slap in the face to our armed forces! Because Costa also stole drugs from this guy, he came after them because "You burn me, I'll burn you!" and that is the ONLY justice that happens in the film.
God bless him, actor Kirk Cameron has been targeted for saying that homosexuality is unnatural and gay marriage is detrimental to the foundations of society. I'm posting my review of Project X today, and that was in no way the film I hoped it would be, but it does really target what the heart of the problem is in politics today: are we animals or humans? It really all comes down to that. Self-righteous liberals who think themselves superior to conservatives need to study history: the most advanced civilizations, even those such as ancient Greece that tolerated homosexuality, NEVER EVER NEVER EVER provided for gay unions as they are wanting today; even the Egyptians, who allowed for incest, never made any allowances for homosexuality, and yet the liberals want us to believe that we are to blame and we are being close-minded when in fact, all of history and humanity is on our side, not theirs.
Having said that, here's another pro-Obama film coming out:
ParaNorman has an August release date and looks to be pro-Obama for this reason: "The witch's ghost is going to wake up and when she does she'll raise the dead," which means Republican voters. Now I can be very wrong, but based on the information provided in the trailer, Norman is defending the status quo, that is, the system which we currently have, he's not fighting to change the system. The status quo is the Obama administration and that's what Norman is wanting to protect.
On the other extreme is October Baby (coming out in October) about Hannah who survived a botched abortion, was adopted, and is now searching for answers to what happened to her; the tag line? "Every life is beautiful," you don't' get that out of the Democrats.
Heretofore, I haven't said anything about John Carter being released this weekend. The trailers, while action-packed, just haven't presented any real information, but today, a special 10 minute clip from Disney studios has been released.
What is interesting about this clip?
First, whenever dates are presented, that is vital information. In 1868, the Civil War had been over three years, and, if you have noticed, several films this year are about the Civil War, because of the political situation, America is as divided today over homosexuality and abortion as it was then over slavery (because homosexuality and abortion is an issue of slavery to the appetites). Secondly, there is the flashback to John Carter's wife (presumably dead) and that, in contrast to Paranorman, is wanting a return to what was previous, but that which has been lost, i.e., died, and in political terms, we can call that "American values."
When John Carter gets "inexplicably transported" to Mars, that isn't what happens; it means that the film is now going to present us with symbols, with disguises, so that it can talk about issues it can speak of in open language. The aliens in the film could possibly be the Apache Indians chasing John Carter, or Mexicans; they could also be someone else. But what is clear, is John Carter gets into a war, and that is not a Democrat platform. I really don't know what to expect from the film, but I will be seeing it Friday, along with Silent House (starring Elizabeth Olsen). As I said, I saw the terrible Project X this weekend and Oscar winner A Separation and will get both those up today.
This is probably what whole film will be about: unlocking the locked doors and facing what has been kept in the dark. The house is a symbol for the soul/mind, so if there is a killer, it means something is keeping her from being able to get on with her life and that involves her father.
Is it promoted by Al Gore?
Is it pro-Democrat?
Is it,...gulp,... green?
We should probably say yes to all of the above, however, if we are Christians, we can consider this a pro-Christian film, too. Regardless of your view of global warming, the film does not do, say or sing anything contrary to common beliefs held by Christians.
Dr. Seuss' The Lorax gives us a story of extremes: an extremely greedy and ambitious business man who uses all the trees to make some product that the consumers absolutely have to have in order to respect themselves. Does Christianity preach against greed? Absolutely. Does Christianity preach against ambition? Christ said, do not follow ambition, but place yourself with the lowly.
The Once-ler is tall and thin while the Lorax is short and fat. Theologically, we can say their characters suit them well. Being tall, the Once-ler finds it hard to associate with the lowly, and being thin means that he doesn't have "much within himself." The Lorax, on the other hand, is short--even though he comes from the clouds--so it's easy to associate with the lowly and, being fat, he has "much within him" that means he can give to others.
The film gives us the extreme of social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, and an extreme view of the theory that the wealthy and upper classes drive the economy so they should be catered to. Anyone who does not practice their Christian faith, would see this as a piece of propaganda to overthrow business in favor of the environment. So what is the teaching of Christ on the environment?
The earth was given to us for us to live in and use for all of our needs, but as with all gifts, we are required to be good stewards of what God has given us. If we don't take care of the earth, the earth can't take care of us. But this is where the Christian sub-tones come in: there are really only two trees in Christianity: there is the tree in the Garden of Eden, and there is the Tree of the Cross and I don't think it's an accident that the film has been released during Lent, when Christians all over the world are doing penance and particularly examining the interior life. It's not just the trees in nature that the film invokes, but the tree inside of us.
The man who made a zillion dollars selling air, O'Hare. He's incredibly short, and this stature, as I have pointed out, will be an issue in films such as The Secret World of Arrietty, Mirror, Mirror,Snow White and the Huntsman, Project X (there is a midget that jumps out of the oven) and Jack and the Giant Killer. In The Lorax, O'Hare's stature is short because he's a small person inside, while Once-Ler is tall, he goes through a short phase like O'Hare, but he retains his stature because he repents of his evil ways that cut down all the trees.
The bright tuffy-tops of the trees are used to make sweater-things, and we are faced with this dilemma in our own life: are we going to use the fruit of our Christian belief to be consumers of material goods, or to "let it grow," let our faith grow and spread like trees in a forest, and be consumer spiritual goods? One of the lines in the closing song, which invokes the favorite, "This Little Light Of Mine," is "You can't harvest what you don't sow," and for Christians, this is particularly true during Lent.
The artificial world created as a result of cutting down all the trees is really a logical result of what happens to us when we cut down the tree of the Cross within our soul: we cease to be the people God created us to be and become artificial because we follow society, not our Father. It's easy to see, in this world that doesn't follow Christ, the stumps in the forest as all those called to be Christians who do not heed the call, but by God's Grace, we have the seed of Life within us and we can spread that. I wouldn't hesitate to take my kids to see it and I hope you enjoy it!
Part of our Lenten retreat should be understanding what "cuts down" the tree of the Cross in our own life and how we are led away from it. Being as "tall" as a tree, the Once-ler doesn't realize how hurting the tree is hurting his own self.
Director Heitor Dhalia's and writer Allison Burnett's Gone provides a voice for American women who are feeling trapped by liberal political rhetoric telling them about birth control and how they should view sex. The film obviously foresaw what has come to the political discussions this week with talk show political conservative Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut because she wants the government to pay for her birth control. The liberal government would have all women believe as Nancy Pelosi preaches, that 98% of all Catholic women use birth control. What Gone does, is provide--in a secular context (so it doesn't have anything to do with religion)--a voice and description of the harm done to women who do engage in casual sex. By giving a subtext of how women have been politically raped--forced into believing something they intuitively know is harmful for them--Gone finally delivers a real political message: just as "the lady vanishes" in This Means War, so "gone" are the girls that have spoken against casual sex and have tried to protect themselves and others.
Jill Parrish (Amanda Seyfried) was abducted from her bed one night; drugged and her hands bound with gray duct tape, she was thrown into an earthen pit where she found human bones; the abductor, Jim (Socratis Otto), came down to kill her but she was able to use a bone she found and stabbed him in the shoulder and escaped. A year later, she's still edgy about being abducted again; when she comes home and finds her sister Molly (Emily Wickersham) gone, Jill knows Jim has come back for her and she has to find Molly or Jim will kill her; the police never believed that Jill had been abducted because they couldn't find the hole and there was no scientific evidence verifying her story so they believe she's crazy.
Jill in the earth pit holding the bone she will use as Jim (off screen) climbs down to kill her. Please note, just to Jill's left is a dog food bowl and a matching dog water bowl is also off screen. That dog food is what women are "fed" to make them believe that sexual promiscuity is natural and if you are not engaging in sexual activity, something is wrong with you.
There are two reasons to approach this film from a psychoanalytic perspective. The first is, everyone's pointing out that Jill's crazy, she's been in a mental institution and at the end, she says, "It was all in my head." The second reason to approach it this way is because that is how Jill follows Jim's trail: whenever someone in a film or story is tracking down clues that is an invitation from the film makers to track down the clues within the story to find the real message. So what are the clues? The abundance of sexual references made within the film revealing how women are treated sexually today.
Molly studies for an econ test the next day when Jill comes home. The parents of the girls died, which, symbolically, indicates their patriotism and their faith (the founding father and holy mother church). In normal circumstances, this would be a bad thing, but given how the political atmosphere has been charged the last year (and even more so now with the birth control mandates) having a purely secular heroine is actually a benefit because it demonstrates that sexual morality does not hinge upon religious morality, that a woman can know sex is bad for her even if she isn't siting religious reasons for it. Molly used to have a drinking problem. When Jill arrives home before going to work during the night at a diner, Molly realizes that Jill had been at Forrest Park, the place where Jill was found and claimed to have been thrown into the pit (she was looking for evidence to verify her story). Molly says, "How would you like it if I came home drunk?" because Molly correlates Jill trying to find out what happened as a bad thing. Whereas Molly's drinking was a disordering of Molly's appetites that led to her downfall, Jill learned a lesson that is keeping her safe and protecting her.
These are all the references to Amanda's sexuality and sexual encounters she has to put up with in the 24 hours in which the film takes place. The guy she "fights" in her self-defense class pushes her hair back and calls her sweetheart (which is what Jim called her when she was in the pit), when she's at the diner, she's stared at by a customer who ends up being Jim, the cook behind the counter smiles at her, insinuating he wants her to be nice to him, a young teenager asks her if they went to the same school and his friend tells him to give it up while his girlfriend is sitting there. When Jill goes to the police, the lieutenant tells her that an honors student had gone missing but was found with a guy in a hotel room; a female detective tells Jill that Molly might have had two boyfriends instead of just one; Detective Hood (Wes Bentley) says that Jill should move in with him because he likes them a little crazy.
The Lucky Star Diner where Jill works the night shift with her friend, Sharon. Jim, the man who had abducted Jill, has just let the diner (unknown to Jill) and left her a $100 tip and left Sharon a $100 tip as well. Jill gets upset because he had been staring at her, but the guy just on the other side of the counter from Jill and Sharon will smile at her in an inviting way, then one of the customers will try picking up on her even with his girlfriend right there. That these references take place in Jill's workplace demonstrates what didn't happen in the history of Feminism: as a result of working alongside men in the labor force, women were supposed to have earned more respect, and that's not what has happened, it has just exposed them to more sexual dangers.
When Molly's boyfriend Billy (Sebastian Stan) is talking to Jill about Molly's disappearance, Jill tells him what pajamas she was wearing and Billy says he knows Molly only had one pair (because they have been sleeping together). When Jill starts looking for clues, the locksmith she talks to (Ted Rooney) offers her a stick of gum (we might not think this is sexual, but it is enough to Jill that it triggers a flashback). Jill goes to see if Molly has spent the night with Try (Hunter Parrish) from her econ class and finds that he was sleeping with another guy. Two cops (one male, one female) are talking in their squad car about the male cop having sex with his sister-in-law that has continued into his marriage. Jill is trying to avoid detection by the police and she talks to some young girls about Justin Bieber, the singer, taping into their desire for him to keep herself hidden. Jill talks to a "skate rat" who lives with his girlfriend and claims that Jim has "rapie eyes" (a rapist). The janitor from whom Jill rents his car calls her a five-minute girl and refers to her being a prostitute.
When Jill gets home and realizes Molly is missing, she spots one of Molly's earrings on the floor. The erring, a diamond, symbolizes that Molly has heard what Jill couldn't say, i.e., the reason Jill was reluctant to go to dinner and it's when Molly herself has been put in that position that she's able to understand what Jill has gone through (Billy wanting to come over and spend the night even though Molly has a big test the next day). Molly reflecting on these things (her cleaning her teeth while Billy is on the phone means she is cleansing herself of her appetites, including the ones for him) is what puts Molly in Jill's position, bound and gagged.
Jill goes to her friend's Sharon's house (Jennifer Carpenter) and Sharon has two little boys but isn't married; further, Sharon is the type of girl who takes a strange man's phone number (Jim gives it to her). These are all examples of sexuality outside the normal realm (that is, between a husband and wife) the film offers up. The second aspect of the film to consider is the story Jim tells Jill as she's going through the woods to meet him: there was a man who lived in a cave with his daughter in Forrest Park, and she didn't go to school because he taught her all she needed to know and they were very happy together... what does this "story" mean? The father would be a founding father, like Uncle Sam, the legislative body of this country; the little girl symbolizes the future of this country. The two of them "living naturally" translates to them living according to nature, not according to the spirit (please think, for example, of The Tree Of Life) and Jim is arguing that women like Jill should live naturally, not according to the spirit and what they have learned, rather, according to the appetites, like rabbits. This is how Jim wants Jill to be, but she's not, she's fighting it. How can we know this is a reliable translation of the film?
Because of the incident that triggers everything.
Billy, Molly's boyfriend, who thinks that Molly disappeared because Molly has started drinking again. That Billy insists Molly only has one pair of pajamas means that he only sees her in one way: his girlfriend, that's why he wants her to come spend the night with him instead of studying for her econ test the next day, because he doesn't see her as having any being outside of his girlfriend, i.e., his bed partner. Specifically, the difference between the pajamas Billy is used to seeing Molly wear and the ones she wears when Jim breaks in and takes her is the blue stripes on the ones she wears when she is abducted. The presence of the blue stripes means wisdom, though it's not always in everything Molly does, but Billy, revealingly, usually doesn't think of Molly as having any wisdom.
Prior to Molly asking Jill to come have dinner on Sunday and meet Billy's cousin, Jill doesn't have any flashbacks of when she was abducted. The minute Molly wants Jill to go on a date, Jill has a flashback of being in the pit and having tape over her mouth and her hands bound. Now we are in a position to understand what this is about: the earthen pit is Jill's vagina, her sexual organs, because that's all that guys see her for, sex, and there is no way for her to get out of that "pit." The sex she doesn't want to engage in is what makes her dirty. Jill knows that if she gos to dinner with Billy's cousin, he will probably press her for sex and that's why her flashback of being bound and gagged is triggered: she can't say anything because women are expected to perform sex when a man takes them out to a $15 dinner and if she resists she's labeled "crazy."
The first clue Jill gets is a neighbor having heard the car horn honking during the night when Molly was taken. Why a "lock smith" van? Jill has locked away her memories of what happened and she needs the key to open them again and find out. When the film first opens, Jill is in the forest, walking a long a path. The forest has always symbolized a dark spiritual trial and the path she follows is the path of life.
This is the second reason why the film must be explained psychoanalytically: if we take the events out of Jill's mind, they don't make sense. For example, how did Jim get into Jill's house to get Molly? He didn't, the house is a metaphor for Jill's mind, but if we take this literal, it doesn't make sense. Why is Molly put under the house (but then she can't go back the way Jim placed her there, she has to break a board to get out? That doesn't make sense) because she's being put in the same kind of place that Jill was put, and because the porch is the "entrance" to the soul and the mind, Molly being under the porch means "she's beginning to understand and enter into" what Jill went through with Jill's devastating sexual experience.
The police force who refuses to help Jill. The reluctance of the force to even believe Molly is missing reveals the deeper problem that women have to endure: that because some women "behave badly," all women behave badly, and it's no one's fault, far from it, it's everyone's right, but those who do not believe in acting that way are "crazy," i.e., fanatics.
The second subtext of the film is, why does Jill lie so much? If she wants people to believe her, shouldn't she be telling the truth? Jill tells the truth to the police and they don't care; she tells the truth to her neighbor lady who doesn't seem concerned. So when she's having to explain why she needs information, she puts it in monetary terms because Jill reasons that people will care about property more than they will care about a young woman, and Jill is right, they do.
Jill has blond hair and blue eyes. This references a certain "type" of woman that Alfred Hitchcock was fond of: the angel. Jill's big blue eyes and long flowing blond hair emphasizes purity and innocence, qualities not associated with women anymore. It's from her desire to protect herself and the other women who have been lost in the same "hole" she was that her strength comes.
There is a second aspect to her "lying," and that is, if we are reading the story psychologically, then they aren't lies, they are encoded descriptions of what has really happened to her, just different ways of telling the story, and they all involve theft and damage: in other words, she's telling the truth, but what she says is a story using different symbols to communicate in a way her audience will understand.
The female detective on the left is an interesting character because of her hair. This is the officer who tells Jill that Molly might have two boyfriends. Hair symbolizes thoughts, and her hair is always crazy, almost like a rat's nest, and that's because she's a "modern" woman, wearing men's clothes. If we compare her crazy hair to Jill's that's washed, combed, pulled back and basically disciplined, then we can see, in this female cop's appearance, what being "undisciplined" does to a woman: she becomes like a man. Something that's interesting is when Jim comes to abduct Molly and he takes an old high school picture of her; that's probably when Molly lost her virginity and the time that Molly is remembering as she starts "listening" to what Jill is saying by not saying it and remembering her own bad sexual experiences.
Why does Jill stop taking her medicine?
We see her taking her meds when she's working at the diner, then when she's on the bus, trying to find Molly, she decides not to take the medicine. The medicine symbolizes "what they are feeding her" because her therapist will call and tell Jill a lie to get Jill to come in so they can keep her from looking for Molly. Jill realizes that her understanding of what is happening is superior to the cops and everyone else, she trusts her instincts, she knows that she's not crazy, even though the "powers" that be (the name of the main cop who is tracking her down) don't want Jill to think for herself because there is "no evidence" to prove her story.
Detective Powers.
Why, in the pit, did Jill stab Jim with the bone?
The bone is what Jill finds "within herself" when she's trapped, and that leg bone symbolizes her will. But as Jill points out, the bone has been split in two, so what happened for it to be split in two? If Jill wasn't raped, she was at least in a sexual experience that was not only unwelcomed but psychologically damaging and that damage is what split her will and fragmented her identity. That she is able to use it to stab Jim in the shoulder (as a part of the arm it symbolizes strength, so his strength over her) the very fact that Jill knows she is wounded makes her want to heal and that strengthens her so she can fight the spiritual battles she needs to fight.
At the end when Jill says, "It was all in my head," she's referring to the spiritual battle she has fought to gain back her confidence and heal the wounds she has suffered. She has fought to keep society out of her brain, when they tell her nothing happened, but she knows that it did. All the missing girls that "no one is looking for" are girls like Jill who do not want to have sexual relations regardless of the pressure and propaganda society puts on them. When "slut pride" is being paraded by the Liberals, it's more than refreshing to see a film that understands the damage that can be done by engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage. That the political powers who be want to insist that sex is nothing but a physical activity, and women who do not believe so are being oppressed by religious institutions, is a form of political rape that can't stop soon enough.
Here's the story line to Tim Burton's Frankenweenie: "When young Victor's pet dog Sparky (who stars in Victor's home-made monster movies) is hit by a car, Victor decides to bring him back to life the only way he knows how. But when the bolt-necked "monster" wreaks havoc and terror in the hearts of Victor's neighbors, he has to convince them (and his parents) that despite his appearance, Sparky's still the good loyal friend he's always been."
That reeks of Obama propaganda.
The attempts, like in The Vow, to bring back those old feelings that got Obama into the presidency because they have died must be a genuine fear in the liberal camp: despite the havoc and terror in the hearts of American voters, because of the artificial means used to sustain the dying economy, Obama is still the friend of the people (please see The Vow & Obamacare). Like in The Vow, it's a vehicle causing of the disaster the film focuses on, so we can deduce that the "vehicle" gaining speed in American politics has, indeed, killed Obama and his campaign is trying to bring him back to life. (The part where Sparky wags his tail and it falls off, may be a reference to the 1997 Dustin Hoffman political drama Wag the Dog).
Scene of hell and general disaster from Project X.
On the other hand,...
Opening this weekend is Warner Brothers Project X and I think I will have to see it. I am not particularly looking forward to it, but I am hoping that it may be an undermining tool to Frankenweenie, that is, the Liberals have had their ultimate party, and now that the neighborhood is burning down, it's time that the adults come back and take charge:
You know the part where "my dad's car" gets driven into the swimming pool? Maybe that's a reference to the "tanked" auto industry and the "bail outs" (the car will have to be pulled out of the swimming pool).
Yep, an image is worth a thousand words.
It's very possible that the neighbor coming over threatening to call the police, and caught on camera punching "that little child in the face" are the Republicans who are threatening to bust up the party and are being held hostage by the liberal media who "shows only what they want to be seen" on videos and other social media.
The American Dream today.
The importance of Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie is obvious in the tagline: "The greatest movie someone else's money could buy."
Here's the full story: "Two guys get a billion dollars to make a movie, only to watch their dream run off course. In order to make the money back, they then attempt to revitalize a failing shopping mall." Okay, who else was given a whole lotta money to make something work, it flopped, and now he's trying to do something else instead? This film could go either way, Democrat or Republican, but I am hoping that the insane number of a billion dollars to make a movie will mean that it's a Republican film talking about the waste the government has committed in trying to revitalize the economy like the mall they are trying to revitalize. It's scheduled for a March 2 opening.
Rainbows and dollar signs refer to the Democrats.
I am getting my post up today on Gone (I got in the second screening and it was so worth it!) then this weekend I am seeing Project X, The Lorax and A Separation, the Iranian film which won the Oscar.
I wouldn't have known this, but it appears Obama went back to his home base in Chicago this week and got stuck in a major traffic jam; the news, however, failed to report the protests taking place, but, fortunately, someone had a camera! You might want to email this to a conservative friend to cheer up their day!
This is weird, I knew not to trust Ridley Scott.
The below is a short directed by Luke Scott which is not a part of the Prometheus film, but a backdrop to help explain the context in which the film exists. Ladies and Gentlemen, Guy Pearce:
Well, we do know more now than we did before. Prometheus is set for release on June 8.
Let me explain what I meant about trusting Ridley Scott: if the information contained in the mini-film above is important, than it should be in the film; if it's not important enough to be in the film, then they should not have made a mini-film. While I am hoping the hubris displayed in the mini-film is what will be targeted by the feature film, Scott's bizarre use of a mini-film to introduce us to information we require for the film makes me seriously question the reliability of the film's continuity.
An image from the film; is this a Buddhist graveyard?
I completely support expanding the vocabulary of film and giving film makers the right to use all the tools they can to most effectively communicate to the audience; is a mini-film effective communication? I like the static and the use of noise in the original trailer here (the opening with the wavy lines and the sounds of someone talking but you can't make out what they are saying):
Anyway, it is what it is.
But now for something completely different: the trailer for Avatar II (for 2016)
Personally, I think this version of Avatar II looks much better:
Have a great day, I am seeing Gone for the second time now; thanks to a lot of attacks on Rush Limbaugh for saying a law student was a slut because she's having so much sex she can't afford all her birth control, I am really going to work hard on this anti-female sexual activity film now.
