Safe & Counter-Culture Masculinity

I can be nothing but impressed with ex-Olympic swimmer Jason Statham's latest thriller Safe, about a former cop with a branch of the Russian mafia after him who comes to the aid of a 12 year-old Chinese girl. Is it the action sequences? The sex scenes? Mr. Statham's charisma? No, none of these (thankfully, there are no love scenes in the film) it's the genuine standard of masculinity breaking through to illustrate what men really need today and why they really need it.

Statham plays Luke Wright who turned cage fighter after turning in some of his crooked buddies on the police force (who haven't forgotten what he did to them). Wright blows a rigged fight he participated in and gets the Russian mob after him because of their losses on the bet. Returning home, Luke finds his wife and un-bornchild murdered with the Russians turning him out to make an example of him. Destitute and knowing any relationships he forms will only lead to the deaths of others, Luke is ready to jump onto a subway train rail and end it all when he sees the frightened Mei (Catherine Chan) trying to get away from Russian mobsters who kidnapped her from Chinese mobsters using her unique talent for math to keep track of their business accounts. Luke decides to make sure Mei reaches safety despite her being the key to a $30 million safe and another safe holding a disc with the names of all New York's dirtiest politicians and cops on it. So, the Russians, the Chinese and the New York police force are after the two of them.

Loosely based on Alfred Hitchcock's 1935 thriller The 39 Steps, Safe is one more film in a growing trend exploring what society expects of men and how men really need to be for their own sake: Immortals, Shame, This Means War, The Cabin In the Woods and Wrath Of the Titans, all support the very un-popular male chastity lifestyle because of the ruin promiscuity brings upon sexually active men and women (outside marriage), but Safe goes a step beyond that and shows how being responsible for children is what really saves men from the potential ravages of self-destructive masculinity (which would be promiscuity, not marrying, not having children or not supporting the children he has, not forming life-long, meaningful ties and relationships).

Luke has arrived home to find his wife and unborn baby butchered by the Russian mob surrounding him. They decide to let Luke live, but only to torment him with poverty and loneliness. Later in the film, someone mentions to Luke that they could never understand why he stayed with Annie (his wife) who was such a "cow." It was never about how she looked, Luke says, it was about her personality, and that in and of itself undermines the facade of what men in contemporary society present as wanting in a relationship, a blond with big boobs, no brain, etc., etc., etc. It would have been very easy for the film makers to change that line, or to insert Annie as a beautiful, trophy wife to enhance Luke's masculine appeal to the audience, but they don't do that, and I am proud of them and grateful to them for abstaining from the temptation because it might that route might seem like enhancing masculinity, but it doesn't, and in turn also degrades genuine femininity (not Feminism) .

When we first meet Luke in the beginning of the film, he's not a squeaky clean guy: he's been participating in rigged cage fights for a kick-back and it appears (but I'm not quite sure about this) that along with his buddies on the NY police force, he was taking bribes as well, but the others stepped over a line and he turned them in, which they haven't forgotten. Safe is very much about penance, but its also about the inner-strength we have which will be utilized in the upcoming Snow White and the Huntsman: Ravenna the evil queen (Cherlize Theron) bathes in a white fluid to turn her blackened sins as white as snow, whereas Snow White (Kristen Stewart) will have to go through the darkened and filthy sewers to escape the queen. Evil tries to cover up their sins, but the hero has to completely put forth every single sin on the table and be cleansed of it or they aren't strong enough to overcome the evil they have to go against and Safe knows this spiritual lesson well.

Luke Wright in the colors of penance. Gray, because it's the color of ashes, symbolizes either/both someone in a state of penance, a pilgrim or a novice. We can certainly understand Luke as a pilgrim, looking for a new road in life when his seems at a "dead end," literally. His clothes are layered, meaning that he's keeping things "under wraps," not getting involved with anyone (because they would be killed if he did) and his stocking cap lets us know the "darkening thoughts" gathering in his mind. But after saving Mei and checking into a hotel, he changes clothes; importantly, Mei says something the audience wouldn't be able to discern on our own, that he still stinks. Like Tobin (Denzel Washington) in Safe House from earlier this year, an attempt to clean up sins has to be complete and total, you can't leave any lingering sins, but it doesn't look like that's what Luke plans to do, that he knows saving Mei up to that point is redemptive, but it doesn't cover everything he's done, but he's willing to go the extra mile to get completely cleaned up (for more, please see Safe House & Death In Art).

As Luke wanders around New York City, he spends a night in a church-turned homeless shelter, and one of the other men staying the night there admires Luke's shoes; after the homeless man takes off his own shoes and Luke sees what horrible and ghastly shape the guy's feet are in, Luke gives this guy his own shoes. In the morning, the guy has had his throat slit and the shoes have been stolen. (The scene might be a reference to Preston Sturges' 1941 hit Sullivan's Travels). What's the point? Minor characters like this don't exist in and of themselves, rather, they are mirrors to hold up to the main character and reveal to the audience aspects of their suffering the author/artist wants communicated to the viewer.

Luke in the homeless shelter, the young man across from him taking his tattered shoes off for Luke to see his diseased feet.

The young homeless man symbolizes Luke's will for us, because feet symbolize the will, and the years of wandering without any relationships or purpose has "rubbed Luke raw" like the young man's feet. Being able to give the young man his shoes helps Luke to feel better, but that, too, is stolen from him just like the shoes because he's accused of having killed the young man instead of having done him a good turn (the young man's throat being slit, the neck symbolizes what guides us or leads us, and the Russian mob taking vengeance on Luke for anything he does destroys Luke's ability to, ultimately, be human and that's what's wearing Luke "thin" like the young homeless man's awful feet).

The pickpocket with the crazy hair (hair symbolizes our thoughts) who bumps into Luke and accuses Luke of being rude when it was the pickpocket who bumped into him. This upside-down scene demonstrates how Luke is caught in an upside-down world: he hasn't done anything to warrant this life yet the real criminals are running loose and Luke, the innocent man in this affair, is suffering for it. Luke's faith in right and wrong is part of the "wealth" the pickpocket steals from Luke besides just his wallet.

Luke is then asked not to return to the homeless shelter and, walking on the street, a pickpocket bumps into him, stealing his wallet after verbally beating him up for being careless about where Luke is going. Stealing Luke's money isn't about his world possessions, but symbolizes Luke's own "self-worth," and his weakening condition and will to live. The scene is well situated because it connects Luke "bumping into" the authorities at the homeless shelter and the next scene of Luke "bumping into" his old buddies on the NYPD who hate him. These scenes are being offered to the viewer to carefully build up to our appreciation of Luke's readiness to end his life on the rails of the subway train, and why Mei and saving her really is Luke saving himself (as he tells her on more than one occasion).

Luke being beat up by his old friends on the police force who want paybacks for turning them in and demoting them in the departments. This scene is important because it's now showing how Luke is being robbed of his past achievements and really doesn't have anything left. There are some (specifically materialists) who would dismiss this film as having any merit based on the "body count" Luke racks up throughout the movie; on a spiritual level, however, all the people Luke kills or disables are actually projections of his inner self, his inner weaker self that has to be overcome/destroyed in order for him to be a hero. This is a standard literary device in art, that the struggles the main character faces are struggles within the self and that's why the audience can share in/be a part of the struggle and identify with the main character because we have the same ordeals interiorly that we must undergo and overcome as well; hence, the value of art, that it reminds us of our true purpose, shows us how to accomplish that purpose and the value of winning the fight. The inner forces Luke has to overcome within himself (that part of him that still smells as Mei points out) are the shady deals he made in cage fighting, as a cop, the people he has killed as a cop (without giving them due process of the law), any failures he might have had with his own parents, with his wife Annie, etc.

What about Mei?
She has been betrayed by one of her classmates, the niece of a Chinese mafia leader, who tells her uncle about how smart Mei is. Because "computers leave trails," Han wants a person who can memorize all his books so he can erase them with a pull of the trigger. Giving Mei a "new dad," (her father had abandoned her and her sick mother) Mei can do nothing but accept that Han will take care of her ailing mother, or kill them both if Mei doesn't help him. What role model in her life do you think the niece learned about betraying people from? Her Uncle Han, who probably superseded his niece's father (if he was even around) in influence because of Han's wealth and power in the mafia.

It takes a while, after Luke saves her from Russians on the subway and the cops looking for her on the street, for Mei to even let Luke know she speaks English; why? Like Luke, everyone Mei loves and cares for seems to get killed and she's not forming any relationships which could hurt someone else, not really realizing the damage she's doing to herself in the process (but who would expect a 12 year-old girl to know about that? They shouldn't, they should be kids).

There's an important side-street for us to take: Christianity.
In the film, when the Russians gather around Luke, one of them prays a rosary (I know, that's so odd); the young homeless man tells Luke, "Jesus loves you, brother" for giving him the shoes; a woman assigned to Mei lets Mei know when her mother has died and tells Mei to pray for her mother's soul so she can find her way to heaven and there is a Russian, Christian icon behind Emile's head when Luke calls to negotiate with him over Vassily. There are several ways of understanding these references and they can easily co-exist together.

This is really well done. Luke has just changed clothes (but hasn't showered) and they finally relax in a hotel room. Mei watches TV but her and Luke start silently fighting over control over the TV remote. Even though Luke has just done some serious fighting and saved Mei several times, he doesn't have the authority over her that a father does in being able to command her to not watch TV or not watch certain things on TV; that bond between a father and child doesn't exist that will exist by the end of the film and be what both Mei and Luke desperately need to feel "safe."

Each of the people connected to the Christian references could be said to be "bad" or at least un-Christian in their characters. The Russian with the rosary has just butchered a woman and child; the young homeless man has offered sexual services, the young Chinese woman has betrayed Mei and jeopardized her life and Emile has a list of sins too long to go into. It's tempting to say the film is anti-Christian, that would be easy to do and wash our hands of it, but Luke tells Vassily (locked in the trunk of the car) to "pray that little girl is still  alive. Pray." Hence, we can discern the superficial Christian references to those that are far deeper and more abiding, those guiding Luke and the way he must go to save Mei and himself.

Mei's adoptive father Han gives her to look after her and make sure she's doing her job correctly. Han gives Mei a long number to memorize, the combination to a safe with $30 million dollars in it, then they plan on taking her to another place to get the combination to another safe that has the disc of New York's corrupt officials. After they get the goods, they plan on killing Mei.

Similarly, we can take an additional step and say the false presentations of Christianity (the pretense of being Christian without actually living out the faith) these various characters present form part of the danger against men who need the Christian influence and valuable lessons of Christianity which strengthens them in thier masculinity so they can do what they need to do because they have the great role model of sacrifice, Jesus Christ.

Mei saving Luke the second time. Knowing how deadly Alex is in a fight, Mei doesn't want Luke to fight him, so she takes up the gun left on the ground. Is this the kind of image we want to see, though, a child holding a gun and ready to shoot? No, absolutely not, but it's realistic because of all the violence Mei has been exposed to--directly and indirectly--that it can't be helped that as a 12 year-old she would mimic what she has been seeing. Saving Mei will be a life-long battle for Luke, because now he will have to un-teach her the things she has learned but her being there for him to teach her will also be saving him from slipping back into that inner-oblivion.

Which brings us to an interesting detail: when Luke and the cops are trying to get the $30 million safe open, Luke goes in the wrong direction with the combination, and we can read this as a larger realization of his whole life, that he had been going in the wrong direction and that's why the great value of life (what's in the safe) remain locked to him. Which leads us to the whole purpose of the film: Luke has the choice of three safes and their content, the safe with $30 million dollars, the safe with the disc of corruption or Mei, and it's Mei, the orphaned 12 year-old that he chooses because, in Luke's own words, she saved him twice (first when he was going to jump in front of the subway car and again when Luke has to fight Alex and Mei shoots Alex in the leg to protect Luke). This is the realization of true and genuine masculinity: children save men from becoming their own worst nightmare.

"I'm sorry, Annie," Luke says, getting ready to jump in front of the subway, until he happens to glance to the side and sees Mei looking frightened and running from something. With the abortion and birth-control culture politics has created in America, children are viewed as being burdensome and undesirable, as having no intrinsic value in and of themselves; Safe aptly demonstrates the enormity of the value of the bond created between a real man and a child (not even his child, not even a child of his own ethnicity, but a child in need, nonetheless) and how the love of a child can save a man from his inner-demons and how children need to be saved by men willing to step up and meet the challenge.

It is perhaps the overwhelming message of the film that critics have shrunk from, a message of genuine love and responsibility and sacrifice (especially in the face of $30 million), but a message that is not only a part of an ever growing trend, but one this country desperately needs to hear. Luke starts to tell Mei he doesn't know how he will be as a father (to her) and Mei interrupts him and says that she has had enough fathers, she really needs a friend. Is this a undermining of the whole film and what it's built up to this point? No, because the audience feels that sting, we know that much lower standard being created and that in and of itself makes the viewer want to be more than a friend; that line from Mei calls upon the viewers' own sense of moral justice and innate goodness in recognizing what it is that really makes the world go around. That's the last punch thrown by the film, so to speak, and it hits the viewer square on the jaw.

The Raven & the Raccoon: Edgar Allan Poe & Karl Marx

Once again, I have managed to thoroughly enjoy a film given a ridiculously low rating by the critical establishment (21% approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes). Why? To me, James McTeigue's  The Raven not only gives us a wonderful chance to "play" with Edgar Allan Poe, but we are given clues throughout the film, just like the killer leaving clues on the body of the victims, and those clues are meant to lead us to a "bigger game" namely, the relationship between art and money.

Why call the film The Raven? In many ways, Edgar Allan Poe is  his best known work: we know Poe because we know The Raven (the poem). Poe himself was well-known, but mostly for his criticism of art and literature published in newspapers. Now, as then, his best known literary work is the poem The Raven and since there is a raven at the beginning and end of the film, we could almost take the bird in the film (as in the poem) to be a kind of double for the writer himself, i.e., the creature and created are the same, and to some degree at least, the villain, Ivan, wants to be linked with Poe in the same, vain way.

Because it is a literary film, the film makers will reward those who are avid readers of Poe's works (just as Poe himself will reward with a drink any man in the opening bar scene who can complete the line, "Quoth the raven, ___). For example, Inspector Emmet Fields (Luke Evans) asks Poe (John Cusack) if he has ever written a story about a sailor, and Poe says no. The first story referenced, however, was The Murders In the Rue Morgue which was about a sailor (the owner of the orangutan). Those who have read the story get a moment to indulge a superiority complex, one that rarely gets to be indulged (but please do not think you have to have read all his works to see the film; it does a wonderful job carrying you along).

Poe had many enemies during his lifetime, mostly because of his attempts to raise the standards of American literature, which led to him critically criticizing nearly all his contemporaries. The bar scene in the beginning of the film cannot be underestimated in its importance. In many ways, it accurately reflects, for example, the hostility of other writers towards Poe. That only one person in the room--a Frenchman--is capable of completing the line "Quoth the raven, ____" reminds Americans today how it was the French who had greater admiration for Poe than his own country. Yet the scene reveals a deeply political one, the relationship of art to the economy. Poe doesn't have the money to buy a drink because he's broke but wants a drink on the merits of being an internationally lauded poet, which he was (well, to some degree then) but no one will give it to him. Is this a bad thing? No, because, as Maddux (Kevin McNally) Poe's publisher at the Baltimore paper says to Emmet Fields, "Poe never killed anything but a bottle of Brandy." Poe's drinking will become the metaphor of what "buries his art alive" because alcohol has pickled his brain.

Something else the informed reader of Poe knows is that Poe never had a pet raccoon, as he does in The Raven. What's the purpose of this? Raccoons wear "a mask" just as members of Emily Hamilton's (Alice Eve) masquerade birthday ball in Baltimore do. A mask hides the features and covers something up, so what is the raccoon hiding/covering up?

The mask of a raccoon. After Poe's house is burned down by the killer, all the windows deliberately knocked out, a fireman brings a cage to Poe that is covered with a blanket. He tells Poe that they found him and inquires if the raccoon belongs to Poe and Poe says, "I recognize his voice," and takes him by that identification alone. Of all the books and all the writing of the poet burned up in his house, the animal, what most people would consider "a pest" is left. The windows of the house knocked out means a lack of or inability to "reflect" and self-meditate (houses are symbols for the soul) and the house being burned symbolizes, as Poe himself recites watching it be destroyed, the soul in damnation and hell. Carl's voice is all, then, we need to identify him in the rest of the film, but who is Carl?

Poe calls him "Carl," but we know the film takes place in 1849, the year Poe died; in 1848, The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx was published, laying the foundations for nations to transit to a new economic model of socialism then communism. What does the film think about The Communist Manifesto?

Poe and Emily both wearing masks (like Karl the Raccoon) at the costume party given by Charles Hamilton, Emily's father, on behalf of her birthday and just before Emily is abducted by the killer. It's important that Emily tells her father that she's decided to change her costume for the ball and he refuses to let her; why? Because that shows us that everything could have been changed in the film, yet it was specifically kept for a reason and we just have to find what that reason is.

When we first see Karl the Raccoon, Poe has a human heart he dissects on the desk, reciting thoughts/lines from Eureka! also from 1848 (Poe considered it to be the most important of all his works), and telling Karl how "All the secrets and mysteries of our species" lie within the chambers of the heart; then, there is "a tapping at his chamber door," and Emily enters reciting Annabell Lee. Poe and Emily then go to the couch to discuss marriage and Emily asks what C/Karl is eating and Poe tells her a human heart. Is this Karl Marx, the materialist, eating the secrets of the human soul, the very divine heartbeat of the universe (as Poe describes it in Eureka)?
Yes.

As Emily and Edgar are courting, Karl eats the heart in the corner of the room. Emily's youth, she's about half Edgar's age, being born (as we know from the wooden cross at Holy Cross cemetery) in 1826, the 50th Anniversary of the United States Declaration Of Independence and the day that both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson die. Why is this important? From their death, the future of the country would come, the era of the Founding Fathers having past. There is another, important detail to The Raven (film): the paper publishing Poe's work is called the Baltimore Patriot, "patriot" referring, of course, to the American Revolution, love of country and devotion to its cause. So Emily both symbolizes America, as a Hamilton, and Poe's art since she is his love and inspiration (so the film tells us). What happens to her happens to both the country--the United States--and Poe's art. When Poe is dying, towards the end, and he finds the door leading downstairs into the unknown basement, Poe metaphorically goes within himself to find Emily--his art--in that place where only he knows to look for her, and only he can hear her faint voice and save her by sacrificing himself.

While Karl eats the heart, Poe espouses Emily. Emily's last name is "Hamilton," the same last name of the United States' first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton who, unlike Marx, set the US on a path of capitalism and industrialization. So, visually, we have the poet Poe (who is poor) espousing Hamilton and capitalism while Karl and socialism eat away at the very humanity it claims to serve and protect. You probably have two objections: first, her last name of Hamilton is random, that it doesn't man anything, and secondly, Poe criticizes industrialization later in the film in the poem of Mrs. Bradley's. 
First objection first.

Detective Emmet Fields (Luke Evans) with his fellow police officer John Cantrell (Oliver Jackson-Cohen) from a scene later in the film. The killer has led them to Holy Cross church but the church is locked; Cantrell sees an unlocked door and goes to enter when the killer jumps from the roof, slashing Cantrell's throat. Fields comes to his aid and is shot in the shoulder so that only Edgar is left to pursue the killer. Why does this happen? Much of The Raven is reminiscent of Guy Ritchie's 2009 hit Sherlock Holmes, a hero owing his existence to Poe's invention of the modern detective and the film makers wanting to remind audiences of that. Cantrell getting his throat slashed before he can enter the church is the killer's way of saying that he doesn't want the detective stories to be Poe's legacy (or the police to succeed where he wants Poe to succeed) rather, the killer wants the literary works to succeed, although it's precisely the qualities in the detective stories that must be employed to catch the killer. The killer jumping down from the roof symbolizes his "bird's eye view" of everything taking place and his wanting to direct the events above everyone else's understanding.

Emily's name was intentionally changed to Hamilton.
Towards the end of his life, Poe became re-attached to a childhood sweetheart, Sarah Elmira Royster, a widow (it's unknown/disputed if they were engaged in real life or just seeing each other). Emily is both much younger than Sarah and they have different names, (although Sarah's and Emily's fathers both seek to keep their daughters from Poe) so Emily Hamilton really should have been named Sarah Royster, but this is an altered fact in the film. The youth of Emily reminds us of when the country was young--the Founding Fathers, including Alexander Hamilton, wanting the country to be prosperous and wealthy--and the decisions made about who Emily will marry translates to the decisions made in the country's early history about what it would become and how.

Captain Charles Hamilton (Brendan Gleeson) the father of Poe's love Emily Hamilton, or, as Poe puts it, "The gun-toting Philistine." He's involved in one of the murders in an interesting way: Hamilton's watch is stolen and sewn into the mouth of the sailor killed in Emily's dress (more on that below). As a Hamilton who thought he had lost his watch (which had really been stolen) we can understand his watch to symbolize history and that we should look at history when looking at him; that he thought the watch had been stolen can be taken to mean that someone stole Alexander Hamilton's role from history as the economic founder of the country. (To re-enforce the idea of history being associated with Captain Hamilton, the masquerade he throws for Emily's birthday is being held in the Baltimore Museum, which of course is a depository of history).

So, the name "Hamilton" isn't coincidence, but intentional,  and Alexander Hamilton, the father of American capitalism, is meant to be a deliberately juxtaposed against the father of Socialism, Karl Marx, in the scene. To show us that the audience is supposed to be thinking of the economy in this moment of espousal, Emily asks--as Edgar kisses her--"How much money did you make for the poem of the bird again?" referring to The Raven, for which he received $9 and change. This presents us with The Raven's (film's) critique of capitalism: there are things which are beyond money, which are beyond price and, while Poe received a meager $9 for The Raven then, it's influence of art across the world could never be measured.

Poe with his clothing soiled by the muddied puddles on the road. He has just gotten out of the coach of the Hamiltons' wherein Captain Hamilton has threatened to shoot him; the mud splattered upon Poe reveals a deeply accurate truth about artists in America: they are spit upon. Since art is a very different type of occupation than medicine or the army or law, it's easy for artists to be regulated to the lowest class of society, as Poe is in this shot.

At one point, we see Poe reciting The Raven for a gathering of women and he invites Mrs. Bradley to read one of her poems, in which she refers to "the butterfly and brother bumble-bee" as a "honey-making thing" so it would rhyme with "spring." Poe, with his great skill at interpretation, makes the case of Mrs. Bradley's brilliance by pointing out the drama of  the "beauty of nature" against "recently mechanized society" and how "thing" turns the bumble bee into nothing but "a clog bent on destruction."  Just as we are all revealing more of ourselves in interpretation of art than anything about society or the artist (myself included) so Poe reveals more about himself in his interpretation of the poem, because he then sees himself in the bumble bee--Poe's art is the nectar of culture--but, despite Poe's "lauded" status as a poet, he's naught more than a clog bent on destruction because society has mechanized individuals in mechanizing production.

Emily in a coffin with dirt on top of the coffin (it's not known by her or the audience at this point how deeply she's buried) but she's managing to stay alive. Emily takes the boning from her corset and uses it to carve a hole into the coffin to allow fresh air in; her captor, however, realizes what she has done and comes over, looking at her through the hole; Emily, brave girl, takes the sharpened boning and rams it through the hole into the eye of her captor, but it doesn't do anything to him; why not? Poe claims that no one has ever inspired him like Emily, so, again, we can take her to be an metaphor for his art, but attempts at hurting Ivan have failed elsewhere int he film, which means we are to take Ivan as a metaphor for art as well (the third time I saw the film, when this scene came up, the women behind me actually screamed out, so real is the audience's anticipation that Ivan's eye has been completely shattered). But we can easily argue that Ivan is a perspective on Poe's art, an insight that may or may not be legitimate, but is metaphorically there nonetheless, and that's why Ivan doesn't die, he's not a real character who can die.

So, how does Mrs. Bradley's poem about industrialization--an inherent aspect of capitalism--not undermine the anti-socialism of the film? First, industrialization is a part of capitalism, but not owned by capitalism (the Soviet Union and China had/have tons of factories) but Mrs. Bradley's poem does site the tendency of capitalism to not value art, to disregard beauty. Poe's interpretation, it could be argued a work of art itself, is the very "thing" (the honey-making thing) saving capitalism from becoming overly mechanized to the point that society is ruined by its own advances in technology and production. So the production of art hinders the damaging effects of production of technology.

Why does Poe call Fields "the infamous?" Because of a large number of cases which Fields had failed to solve.The real-life detective leaves much for Poe to desire, given that Poe's detectives are able to determine crimes simply by setting back and thinking about them, but the fight the two of them have reminds the audience that a person can be neither completely emotional nor completely logical, but both. Perhaps the most important contribution Fields makes to the case (besides tracking down Reynolds in Paris) is recognizing the attributes of Ivan's killing spree as a "game," a game which can be liked in scope to other games we have been seeing, specifically in Moneyball and The Hunger Games.

Which brings us to the point of the story, the whole engine of the plot: why is there such a blurring of the line between fact and reality, between the writings of a man and someone trying to realize them and actually carry them out? Because that's exactly what's happening in America today, President Obama trying to turn the writings of Karl Marx into a reality in the United States. The film makers of The Raven seem to be arguing that not only would it be bad for the economy, but for art as well.

Poe with Ivan (Sam Hazeldine), or Reynolds, if you prefer. Why is he named "Ivan?" Simple, because of the Russian associations with the name "Ivan," (as in the iconic ruler of Russia, Ivan the Terrible who not only oppressed people's liberties, but oppressed the upper classes as well, as is occurring in the United States today) and because it was Vladimir Lenin who brought Russia into the socialist/communist system, which is what--many of us believe-- is trying to be done to the United States today. But Ivan appears to be a man actually rich who poses as being poor, something we will need to keep in mind in upcoming films where the villain is a double (such as G.I. Joe Retaliation).

Before furthering this line of thought, let's pause to consider other angels of the film, such as Rufus Griswold and why he's butchered by the pendulum. In real life, Griswold outlived Poe, and became the executor of his literary estate (how, no one knows) and was the first to write the terrible obituary of Poe hence, since Griswold "butchered" Poe, one of Poe's stories (The Pit and the Pendulum) butchers Griswold.

On one level, the pendulum reflects the way Griswold treated Poe's work in real life; in another way, just as Griswold's body is "divided" by the Pendulum, so the country is being divided by the issues and policies of the current administration.

What about the reference to William Shakespeare's MacBeth?
The exact scene being quoted is the famous sleep-walking scene of Lady MacBeth (MacBeth, Act 5, Scene 1)  wherein Lady MacBeth tries to wash all the blood off her hands from the murders she has ordered. In understanding why this particular scene--instead of a different play or different scene--should be used, we can simply ask ourselves, "Who in the film has blood on their hands?"
Ivan.

This scene is particularly well-thought out: in searching for the killer, Fields--the name which ties him to the earth--goes into the basement of the theater as Lady MacBeth acts out her scene on the stage above and Poe chases Ivan in the rafters above the scene (meaning, symbolically, on a higher level of thought). Poe is above Fields on nearly every level.

The next body to be found, after the MacBeth scene, is a man dressed in Emily's ball gown, so the cross-dressing invites us to put another man in a woman's dress, and that would be putting Ivan in Lady MacBeth's night gown, someone responsible for murders and with blood on their hands. Just as Lady MacBeth intends to make MacBeth king by killing Duncan, so Ivan intends to make Poe king by killing Griswold (and Henry, the Baltimore publisher, and Emily who is Poe's art itself). It's interesting, as Poe mutters under his breath, that the killer Ivan would lead them to the Imperial theater where Poe's mother was an actress, so we can correlate that which gave birth to Poe--his mother, Shakespeare, MacBeth--to that which is trying to kill him and all he loves--Ivan.

Just after the opening scenes of the killings in imitation of The Murders In the Rue Morgue, we find Poe walking the dark and murky streets of Baltimore. He comes upon some ravens feeding on a dead cat, run over by a carriage. Stopping to examine the cat, Poe mutters about the ways of God and nature, as of Providence, are not our ways, and realizes the cat was "with kittens." The scene isn't just an exercise in the macabre, but introduces us to what will happen to Poe himself in the film, run over first by Hamilton's carriage in Hamilton's refusal to let Poe marry Emily (but that's not even serious, it only throws up mud on him), then later Poe is run over by Ivan's carriage (Ivan is called to his carriage while Poe is dying in the Baltimore Patriot office and it's in Ivan's carriage in Paris that Fields waits for Ivan to apprehend him).

Why does Ivan cut out chunks of Henry's wrists and leave him at his desk? This is the same posture in which we first meet Henry when Poe comes complaining that his review hasn't been published and Henry "cuts his own wrists" by cutting Poe off from the paper and potential earnings; Ivan punishes Henry just as Griswold is punished. Arms, symbolizing strength, allows Ivan to illustrate how Henry made the wrong choices about who to publish--Longfellow's poem over Poe's review--because the real strength of the paper wasn't coming from selling papers, it was coming from writers such as Poe and what he was doing (and raising the standards of American literature in the process). Idealistically, we want to say yes, that's correct, Ivan is right about that, but without the mediocrity (so to speak) of the Longfellows, would the brightness of the Poes shine half as bright? The film isn't placing blame at Henry's door, it's Ivan who kills Henry, so neither should we put blame at Henry's door.

The sad fate of the cat mirrors the sad fate of Poe, that he probably had many more tales left to tell (the kittens) had he been given more time, yet, that ultimate sacrifice is often what is required of artists to insure immortality. (Ivan makes a reference to Jules Verne who had stopped writing for a while, but started again later in life--Ivan suggesting he was going to do to Verne what he had done to Poe to get Verne writing again--and the same might have been true of Poe that he would have written more had he lived longer).

Once last little item about Ivan.
I have seen the film three times now, and each time, I have heard Ivan say the same thing when he hands the shot glass of poison to Poe: "I always had a fancy for poisons, that's how I did my dad."  Once we know what Ivan symbolizes, we can understand who is father is that he poisoned. The day Poe dies, the day Ivan gives him the poison to drink is also an election day, and the maid mentions this when she gives Poe the newspaper and the note Ivan left for Poe, the last clue. The election taking place is important amongst Poe scholars because it's often sited as one of the potential causes of Poe's death. The maid didn't have to mention this election at all, so since it is included in the story, it warrants our attention.

Ivan's room in the basement under the Baltimore Patriot is a stone cave filled with books and letters. Just as books and letters created the genius of Poe (the writing of others helping to inspire him in his own writings and understanding about the world) so it perverts and destroys someone like Ivan who can be easily dominated by the writings of others because he has no inner-sense of right and wrong to balance what he reads and that "blinds him" to what reality is (and one way of understanding why Emily can't blind him with her boning, because he is all ready blinded).

Ivan's father is Poe himself, because Ivan tells him, "I'm your crowning achievement," and yes, this makes a vicious, vicious circle, but the Ivans of the world always poison their fathers, the ones who create them, because Ivan has taken it upon himself to tell Poe how to write his stories, demand one more be done and takes it upon himself to make sure Poe is never forgotten, the way an all-powerful government intrudes and dictates into the life of its people (because we the people created the current government through our votes, we are being poisoned by our own child as well). When Poe tells the fireman, with the backdrop of his house burning down into ruin, that he recognizes the voice of Karl, we too must recognize the voice of Karl (Marx) as the poison is put before us and we have to save the country (Emily) from the madness confronting us.

Just as the drama Amadeus introduced Mozart to a new generation of people through the story, so The Raven introduces a new generation of potentially forgotten stories by Poe to a younger audience. Many will, without doubt, hearing lines and quotations from the film, be anxious to read the whole story, and delve ever deeper into the works of Poe.

It is, possibly, the undertones of anti-socialism which many reviewers frown upon, but it's important for all of us to see how Poe is being appropriated by capitalists in The Raven, because he's then appropriated by socialists in Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter: i.e., in these tense political days, both sides are claiming the same heroic images for their cause, the trick is to understand the language being employed. The appropriation of Poe as exemplary of art in America creates an argument regarding the entitlements programs in the country: throughout the film, as in real life, Poe searches for money and can't get it; The Raven doesn't advocate socialism despite the most worthy and honorary American needing assistance (a social net or state managed program for artists as we see in a film such as the 1994 Russian film Burnt By the Sun which I can highly recommend), and the film goes to great lengths to establish the crucial element of artistic creation: need.

One of my favorite moments of the film, Poe shooting at the killer and the killer's bullets disrupting a flock of ravens close to Poe, one of them actually taking a bullet. During this scene, Poe screams out at the killer, "Who are you? What's your name?" and they are the same questions Ichabod Crane asks of the Headless Horseman in The Legend Of Sleepy Hollow. It might seem like a stretch, and perhaps it is, however, at the masquerade ball, Fields tells his policemen that the killer might be dressed as "the headless horseman," and Washington Irving, the author, was one of the few American writers that Poe admired and who liked Poe in return. The bullet in the raven symbolizes that Poe's own world is about to end.

The artists need (for material survival and validation of their art) drives them to create whereas they might not otherwise (wasting their self on alcohol or drugs or both) and the public's need for art drives the public to consume art which creates the demand for the work of various artists. Is this a simplification? Absolutely, and I know in advance my manifold critics will jump all over this, yet being an artist is not the same as other occupations, it's not based on skill, rather talent, and while some technical training can sometimes benefit artists, and it's usually only the hard lessons of life that can enrich their understanding and foster creation within them; sadly, taking away those hardships undermines why artists create. Importantly, it should be argued, that Poe's most economically prosperous time was also his most artistically creative, and this certainly (without doubt) contributes to the artist's life, yet there is a brink, a threshold between artists who are competent in their field and those who become immortal throughout the world (i.e., the difference today between Longfellow and Poe).

In conclusion, there are many levels and potential interpretations to The Raven, and not least among them is the relationship to the production of art and the political arena in which art is created and perhaps the greatest in importance is attempts at bringing the writings of Karl Marx into the reality of the American economy. As I said, it's important to keep The Raven agenda in mind because Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, an anti-capitalist work also uses Edgar Allan Poe but in the exact opposite way of The Raven.

The Avengers @ War

Americans are incredibly savvy as informed viewers of films, making it difficult for film makers to exceed our expectations and live up to the hype publicity departments necessarily generate to get audiences to the theaters regardless of a film's quality. Joss Whedon's The Avengers, opening today and potentially setting the new record for biggest opening ever (currently held by last year's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 2) has managed to accomplish--and surpass--all my hopes and expectations, and that's what makes a great director. (This post contains spoilers, so please see the film before reading!).

SYNOPSIS: S.H.I.E.L.D. has been trying to harness the power of the Tesseract to develop new weapons to prevent earth from an outer space attack by Asgardians like Thor (Chris Hemsworth), or worse. Loki (Tom Hiddelston) has made a deal with his people to overtake the earth, give them the Tesseract and unleash total chaos. Loki successfully "turns" Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) to his side using the power of the Tesseract while SHIELD is destroyed. Gathering Black Widow (Scarlett Johanson), Captain America (Chris Evans) Dr. Bruce Banner (who is a master in gamma rays and is hoping to track down where the Tesseract is being hidden, Mark Ruffalo) and Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.),  Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) tries to stem off the end of the world as best as possible.

Why does Nick Fury have only one eye? When Tony Stark enters the SHIELD ship and goes around looking at their technology, he asks how Fury can see the screens with just one eye and Marie Hill says, "He turns." Doesn't seem very profound, however, having a weakness--only one eye--makes him "capitalize" on his strengths, and being able to turn, knowing you are not going to see everything, makes you more perceptive in what you can see. As Fury himself says, the Council was counting on the Tesseract weapons to defend the world, but he was counting on something riskier, the Avengers themselves, because Fury is half-blind, he can see twice as deeply, and that includes within the hearts of super heroes (hence why he takes the trading cards of Coulson's and shows them to the Avengers). Wisdom, then, is Fury's "super hero quality" that he brings to the fight. Towards the end of the film the Council overrides Nick Fury and decides to launch an atomic bomb against New York (because it makes better sense) and for the (more than) 60% of Americans who don't want Obama-care, the legislation is rather like the Congress over-riding us and deciding it makes sense, too.

Thor comes down to bring his (adopted) erring brother to justice and help save the earth and mistakenly gets into a fight with both Iron Man and Captain America. Bruce Banner is under terrible stress not to turn into "the other guy," (the Hulk) but Loki's plan of dividing and conquering them works until he finally harnesses the strength of the monster, the Hulk to break the protection layer of the Tesseract so Loki can unleash its power. After a massive battle and the launching of a nuke warhead on Manhattan where the fighting takes place, the Avengers have saved themselves (with one exception) and the earth.

Captain America, Steve Rogers, (Chris Evans) realizing he's missed decades while asleep. In my post on Captain America, I made the point that the leadership assumed by America in World War II lead us to becoming a world power and the leadership role Captain America's "waking up" symbolizes is meant to fill the empty captain's chair on the ship he was manning. His leadership role becomes an issue in The Avengers as well, and one needing to be addressed. For my complete post, please see Captain America: A Movie Of Movies.

For Iron Man and Iron Man 2, I haven't posted, but there is an important trait Tony Stark reveals in Iron Man 2: he doesn't like to be handed things. Why? Tony Stark was "handed" Stark industries, he was "handed" over a billion dollars, he was "handed" an MIT education, he was "handed" the world on a silver platter, but Obadiah "handed" Tony over to the terrorists to be killed and then (what Tony did on his own by creating Iron Man) Tony was told to "hand over" to the government. It's a simple trait but one effectively deepening our understanding of Tony especially since he would represent the 1% Occupy Wall Street demonstrates against (those with the most money in America) and Tony not liking to be handed things reveals the inner-conflict of inherited wealth, responsibility and self-realization through individual achievement we wouldn't see otherwise.

Two times the upper-class' effect on the economy is referenced through Tony Stark: first, when the "ship of state" is going down (the SHIELD ship), it's Tony who has to go into the engine, fix it, then use his strength to push it to get it started back up (likewise, it's the middle-class hero Captain America who has to be there to help him get out). Secondly, at the end, a nuclear warhead has been fired at Manhattan and Tony uses himself as a rocket to guide the warhead into space where it not only destroys the mother ship of the aliens attacking New York, but doesn't hurt New York (the financial capital of the world). This clearly illustrates for us the role of the upper classes using their resources to guide the country/the economy and danger; granted, it would be idiotic to say that all do that, which is a personal lacking on their part, but those who have the most also want to protect it. After the portal has been closed, and Iron Man falls and is saved by the Hulk (the voters in America, please see below) Steve says, "Son of a gun," and he's right, because Tony's dad was Howard Stark who created the military industry for Stark enterprises, so Steve is saying that Stark has not only created weapons for the country's military (like in Iron Man) but has become a part of the military Stark weapons aides.

This carries over into The Avengers when Agent Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg) appears at Stark Tower and wants to hand something to Tony and he won't take it unless Pepper hands it to him. Tony doesn't want to be "handed" a spot on the Avengers team, he wants to earn it (that's why he reads the whole file) it's also why he's willing to take it from Pepper but not from Coulson: Pepper loves him, but she also knows all his faults, Tony fears Coulson, however, only sees the billionaire Iron Man and not Tony as a person. How do we know this? When Coulson enters, Pepper says, "Hi Phil," and Tony says, "His first name isn't Phil, it's Agent," because dehumanization from someone else is on Tony's mind, that's what he does to Coulson before Coulson can do it to him (more on this below).

There is a part when a Steve gives two cops orders about saving some civilians and the cop asks him, "Why should I be taking orders from you?" After a sudden attack of alien soldiers that Steve successfully puts down, the cop immediately does what Steve told him to do. Why does this happen? There is a crisis of leadership in the country: because of corruption and a lack of justice for those who participate in shady deals, we no longer recognize leaders when they come along because we can't trust anyone, hence, even Captain America has to prove himself.

This insecurity makes Tony very competitive whereas Steve's confidence comes from knowing everything he has has been earned (even the formula given to him to become the super soldier still had to be earned). This inner conflict between Steve and Tony is highlighted when we remember why Steve became Captain America: his heart. Tony's heart had large chunks of debris floating around in it (symbolizing his ego and insecurities) whereas Steve's heart would lead him to sacrifice himself for others and his country. The Avengers skillfully but subtly draws this conflict for us so it can resolve it.

When Fury explains what happens to Hawkeye and Selvig being turned over to Loki's side, Fury says, "Loki has turned them into his flying monkeys," and Steve responds, "I get that, I understand that," because it comes from The Wizard of Oz, released in 1939, which Steve would have seen before he went under for 70 years. Why is this important? Again, Captain America symbolizes that leadership, super-power status America acquired during World War II which was prophesied in The Wizard of Oz (please see A Call To Arms: The Wizard Of Oz & World War II for more). Steve understands the importance of what has happened to them because he saw what happened to Nazi collaborators, what it did to them personally and all the people who died because of them.

In this scene, Tony and Loki are in Stark Tower; what's most important about this scene is what Tony doesn't say: anything about himself. He talks about the masterfulness of the others and the power of the Hulk, but refrains from laying out his impressive array of powers:

In this clip, Tony will then say, "There's one other person you managed to piss off. His name is Phil!" and Tony refrains again from mentioning himself because he's thinking about Agent Coulson dying and avenging Coulson is more important to Tony now than his own self. This is the real moment when Tony does become a hero because he's not only putting the others before himself and exhibiting true humility, but invoking Phil Coulson's death at Loki's hand establishes that team quality that Tony has lacked since the beginning of Iron Man. Why is this important? Because Tony, again, is that 1% vilified by Occupy Wall Street which Hollywood is rescuing (and we will probably see the same thing with Bruce Wayne in the upcoming Batman).

"Be careful," Black Widow tells Captain America before he goes and fights Loki for the first time, "he's a demi-god." "Ma'am," Steve replies, "there's only one God and He doesn't dress like that." Steve's right, in more ways than one, and even though Loki insists throughout the film that he is a god (rather like some members of the press treating Obama like he''s the Messiah) Loki is a long ways from being a god and he dress reveals to us why. When he's in Hamburg, subjugating people there, he wears a scarf with a leopard print which means he's being yoked by his animal appetites (the neck symbolizes what we are led by, as an ox is yoked or an animals has a collar about its neck). Loki making his first public appearance in Germany, the land of Adolf Hitler (and I know all who disliked my reviews on The Hunger Games will dislike this also, but I didn't make either film) not only links Loki to Hitler--which Steve himself says after saving an old German man who was probably alive during the War--but also that Loki is being identified with Hitler by the film, including (as all my Liberal readers will dread to hear) Socialism.  Loki's speech about Americans naturally "not wanting to be free," that we will be more free when we realize we are not, is exactly what many Republicans have against Socialism: whereas some people are willing to sacrifice and let the government control their lives--as Loki proposes--many of us, no, most of us, are abhorred by such a concept, as are the Avengers (if they weren't, they would try to negotiate with Loki). When Thor takes Loki back to Asgard, Loki's mouth is "imprisoned" with a muzzle, like an animal, not only suggesting his appetites have been "stopped up," but not allowing him to speak so he can lead more people astray.

This is one of the times it's helpful to remember other films a film maker has been involved with, because just prior to The Avengers being released, The Cabin In the Woods was released for which Avengers director Joss Whedon was a writer. In The Cabin In the Woods, there is a painting which Holden discovers of a goat being devoured by dogs, and that goat's horns remarkably resemble the horns on Loki's outfit. Why is this important? The goat horns are a symbolism of Satan, meaning, Loki is a really bad guy (we're building this up here). In the clip below, Loki talks about a mindless beast still pretending to be a man, the Hulk, and Loki intends on using the Hulk to jump start the Tesseract's power (similar to Dracula using Frankenstein in Van Helsing) but it's Loki who wears horns (i.e., parts of an animal) making him the beast, not the Hulk:

In this conversation, at least for Republicans, imagine that Loki is really President Obama and Nick Fury is desperate because the cage" is the Constitution, that which was meant to hold the general population in order (a social contract) so the country could be stable, but now, the Constitution has to try and hold Loki/Obama in power. Why is it that Thor falls in this cage? Thor is a king, and as a monarch, he doesn't recognize in the same way the rights people have or the boundaries rulers have according to the Constitution so it nearly becomes a death trap for him. At one point, it's the billionaire ego-maniac Tony Stark who makes the comment about Loki that he's a "Full-blown diva" that he wants parades and statues which is what many of us think about Obama: he enjoys the publicity of being president, but not the work. Why am I taking time to discuss this? With big publicity dinners hosted by George Clooney for Obama, the Liberal press would have Americans believe that all Hollywood supports the current government, but a film such as The Avengers clearly undermines what the Liberal press is constantly trying to convince the populace of: not everyone loves Obama.

When Loki is locked up in the cage and Thor tries to stop him, Loki uses his duplicity trick to lock Thor in the cage and says, "When will you stop falling for that trick?" then tries sending Thor to his death. Does this illustrate for us that Thor is dumb? No, it illustrates how wicked Loki is. Because Thor is sincere and genuine--if sometimes rash--he doesn't think his brother capable of doing something duplicitous like that, so it's not that Thor keeps falling for the trick--as evil Loki suggests--rather, that Thor keeps forgiving Loki in hopes that they can be reconciled and Loki only keeps proving how unworthy he is of his brother's goodness and generosity.

Bruce Banner tells Tony Stark that his secret is "I'm always angry" then he explodes and it's the Hulk who ends up beating Loki to within an inch of his life, not Thor nor Iron Man, or Hawkeye (who wants revenge) or Black Widow who wants to erase the red in her ledger (because of all the bad things she had done before she became a SHIELD agent). When a relationship has been constructed such as this--between the Hulk who is both the power supply for Loki and the one who brings Loki down--it helps to examine the similarities so as to find the differences.

There's an important trait about Dr. Banner: the eyeglasses. Glasses symbolize the qualities of eyesight (wisdom, those who are wise can see more than those who are not) but Banner is constantly taking off and putting back on his glasses,which lets us know that sometimes he is being blind (unlike Fury who is always in a state of half-blindness) and this taking off and putting on of his glasses suggests that Banner isn't really as determined to keep the Hulk within as he suggests to everyone and, like Tony's suggestion that Banner could do more to control the Hulk, Banner just isn't doing it. In this scene, Banner tries using gamma rays to locate where the Tesseract might be hidden--ironically, it's the top of Stark Tower which is the only clean energy business in the world and the same energy (the arc reactor) that is being used to "fuel" Loki's agenda. How does The Avengers play this into Obama's clean energy plan?  Having the power to power America puts that power of control in the government's hands and takes it out of the hands of Americans. If, for example, Stark Industries were to abuse the power of power, the government would be there to correct Stark and employ fair measures; but if the government is abusing the power of power (Loki) who is going to stop the government, short of a revolution? No one could, that's why this definite reference is being made to Obama's energy policy and why it's blinding people, like Dr. Selvig.

There's a part where Hulk has started tearing up the ship and Thor comes after the Hulk to save Black Widow. The Hulk ends up "falling out of the sky," and through an old building, being found by an old man, and Banner is completely naked. There is an interesting difference, because Thor falls into a field, a natural area and has to make the decision to pick up his hammer again and continue the fight. What does it mean? The Hulk falling into the abandoned factory symbolizes Americans being "stripped of power" (the Hulk) and the industrialized part of the economy being wasted and abandoned. The old man, asking if Banner is an alien, is really asking, "Don't you live here (you're not a foreign alien, are you)? Isn't this your country, or is it his to rule as he pleases?" The work clothes are the plain clothes of the plain American who insured all Americans would have the power to rule the country and not one person (and Thor being in the field is the agriculture aspect of America that stupid laws like fuel rationing, air pollution during harvest times and children living on the farm not being allowed to work until age 18, is the part of America we need to hold onto and fight for as well).

When Loki's army arrives, the first targets they take out are... the cars. This might be a reference to the roller coaster gas prices Americans have had to deal with since 2008 and possibly the Obama administration's pushing of the Chevy Volt which it has sponsored but has not "caught on" with the American public. It's in this place that Tony asks Loki if he would like a drink and Loki declines but, after he's defeated, he wants the drink then; why? Right now, Tony gives Loki a preview of what is to come and Loki not wanting the drink symbolizes how Loki doesn't want to "take in" or "drink up" the lesson Tony is preparing for him; at the end, when he does say he'll have the drink, he's ready to listen to that reason which would have saved a lot of lives, so no, it's not the same, like Loki hopes it will be, by taking the drink later rather than sooner.  This mirrors Thor who, in Thor, didn't learn his lessons early, but had to learn the hard way, so Loki's superiority complex over his brother has no foundation as The Avengers clearly shows us.

Fortunately, we don't have to go far: both the Hulk and Loki's main color is the same, green. Green (as in The Lorax) can either mean that something is rotten (as in mold and decay) or that there's a birth, a spring time and hope, as when everything starts growing again after winter. Whereas we wouldn't normally think of the Hulk as being in step with spring, the derogatory way in which Loki uses the Hulk to gain power, then is totally destroyed by the Hulk makes us ask if we can see a pattern in power dynamics in the real world which this might be reflecting.

Bruce Banner was trying to imitate the serum given to Steve Rogers (Captain America) to make himself a super soldier but Banner's experiment went wrong, very wrong. Whereas Steve's power--his physical strength and the natural strength of his heart's nobility--is used in the capacity of a soldier, hence, can be used whenever and wherever it's needed, Banner's is for a lay person and hence can only be used/accessed when a lay person gets angry about something... When the ship is breaking up, and Banner turns into the Hulk and goes after Black Widow, the ship going down symbolizes the "ship of state" collapsing (just as the dirt collapses in the beginning after Loki's attack on SHIELD and Coulson and Fury try getting away, the earth caving in right behind them, just as we have seen in the Dark Knight Rises trailers) so the collapsing ship make Banner reflect on what's going on, and that's what makes him mad. The Hulk turning on Black Widow is because she's the one who brought him to the ship to try and help but now, instead of being a help, Banner might bring everyone down with him because his fury at being used the way Loki is trying to use him.

The power structure we see between the Hulk and Loki seems to reflect the voter rage that now-President Obama harnessed for his own uses against the Republican Party in 2008 and is now, just like the Hulk beating the daylights out of Loki, like a gorilla with a rag doll, the same voter rage being turned against Obama himself.  Again, the green color connects the Hulk and Loki in ways that other characters are not connected, also because green is the color of "hope," (because of spring and re-birth) and "Hope and change" were the 2008 slogans of the Obama campaign, we can easily enjoy the catharsis of the hope the Hulk's rampage against Loki gives us as we sit back and cheer him on, preparing ourselves to do the same in November.

When we first see Hawkeye in the film, he's up in a corner looking and observing everything. He's the one making the observation that "the door's open from both sides," and, symbolically, Hawkeye is the voters who were blinded by the news of hope and change but, being hit on the head with cold hard evidence which revitalizes his cognitive powers, he regains himself and rejoins the fight. Because he's "hawk eye," he can see clearly, but his eyes being turned a different color means that he lost his ability to see, he was seeing blue (the color of the Democrats) which led him to stealing someone else's eye, the doctor in Hamburg, so he could carry out his mission for Loki.

There's another important clue which the film provides for us: Budapest. As Black Widow and Hawkeye fight alien soldiers, Black Widow says, "This is just like Budapest all over again," referring to the 2006 protests in Budapest, Hungary, during which the Socialist government leaked a speech that was supposed to be private, in which the prime minister confessed that his party had lied to win the election and they had done nothing worthy of note the last four years of being in power and knew there was nothing they could do to win the election again. Well, for Republicans, this very much reflects what we feel has happened in the United States with Obama's administration, microphone left on and all.

When Black Widow is doing the interrogation of the Russians, her right knee has a tear in the hose and there's a bit of blood. Even though Black Widow seems to have everything under control, since legs symbolize the will, we can deduce that she is afraid/weakening in this moment and that might be part of the reason she's reluctant to heed Coulson's call to come out of the interrogation; if she gets out, she won't want to go back in. Later, when she and Bruce Banner are together and the ship is being attacked, a large beam falls on her leg and she can't get out. The weakening of her will, again, isn't a fault in Black Widow, quite the opposite, we're being shown her human nature (fear) and her super hero resolution to overcome that fear, which empowers her other skills and talents. Whereas she's able to control her fear and anxiety, the Hulk releases his to a destructive end and nearly kills her in the process.

Even more seriously, Hawkeye says, "I don't think we're remembering Budapest the same," possibly referring to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 which was against the Soviets and not the Hungarians' own government (i.e., an alien government like what Loki wants to do). These two revolts against bad leadership draws necessary boundaries for understanding how many Americans are upset with the government today, however, neither Black Widow nor Clint Barton are old enough to have been in the 1956 revolts, so they must be referring to Heroes' Square in Budapest where those who contributed to Hungarian history are honored; the reason why Clint might be referencing this is at the end of the film, many Manhattanians are complaining about the mess of the battle, instead of being grateful for the Avengers saving them (heroes).(For more on Hawkeye and the importance his role plays in the film, please see my post Men In Black III & the Victory Of the Cold War: until I saw MIB III and the character of the "Griffin," I didn't understand how Hawkeye was being used in The Avengers, but this makes much greater sense of it!).

In the beginning of the film, Loki has come and Nick Fury listens to what he says and responds, "You say peace, but I think you mean the other thing," and it's legitimate to ask ourselves, in this election year, which is very much a war causing division in the country, if the powers in the government promised something they haven't delivered, or delivered something to us that we would never have wanted had they been straight forward? It's important to note that Loki is a master at shape-shifting and being able to duplicate himself; do we see that characteristic in government leadership today?

Why does Agent Coulson die? Coulson symbolizes that part in each person that is not a super hero, but is necessary for creating a super hero (it's his blood which spurs each of the heroes onto doing what they must to bring down Loki). What do we think of when we think of Coulson? Someone rather soft spoken, kind, diligent, devoted, patriotic, sincere, and these are all wonderful qualities, qualities which build up the soul (because Coulson dies believing in the Avengers and that they can save the world even if they aren't believing in themselves or having moments of doubt) and, likewise, each of us must cultivate the Coulson-like qualities so, like Captain America, we can have strong hearts, but we also have to unleash the Hulk in us to get angry about things we should be angry about so things can change for the better. That the "Coulson quality" is necessary to each of us being a "super hero" is reflected at the very last scene, when the heroes sit in the diner eating junk food: they can't be super heroes every moment of their lives, they have to rest and eat, but taking care of themselves means they can be ready for the next challenge (consider, if you will the film Hancock with Will Smith and his alcoholic super hero, even Chronicle and Andrew's mis-use of his powers).  Coulson dying with the Tesseract weapon--but not knowing really how to use it--is like the awkwardness of the heroes in the diner being uncomfortable just resting and not in action but both, again, are necessary (though extremes) of what it takes to be human.

At the end, when the news stations are showing the devastation of New York City, one woman says, "Captain America saved my life, and I would like to tell him thank you." It's not just that Steve did that, but the history of leadership in the world that he represents for America. Agent Coulson told Steve that he had helped with Captain America's uniform; Steve said, "Don't you think the stars and stripes are a little old-fashioned?" and Coulson replies, "I think we need a little old-fashioned right now," and Coulson was right, we need that patriotic energy, that bond, that genuine hope and faith that can only come from being an American. Is it right that Marvel Comics has made a film like this? Absolutely, because the comics symbolize the American imagination and creativity, and how we get things done here. There have been too many references in films lately to America being at war for us to not be at war, and that war is being fought with every second of film.