Analysis Of Symbols: Halloween 2018

As discussed below, there are many changes with this new Halloween and it basically ignores all previous Halloween's except the original film. One of the significant changes is that, originally, Michael Myers was the brother of Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) and he was under an ancient curse to wipe out his whole bloodline. Because the large knife he used to plunge into his victims (the echoes of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho) and the promiscuity of Myers' victims, the "slasher films" prominent throughout the 1980s came to be seen as the moral teachings of what sex actually does to the soul and try to convince teenagers to wait to have sex. With Myers being Laurie's brother, this added an incestuous dimension to the film and, although Michael Myers is still incarcerated for having killed his older sister Judith, Laurie is not related to him, meaning that we really don't have a motivation for why he's killing,... at least not at this point. The film makers have stated that they would like to make two more films after this Halloween: those films would be shot back-to-back and be scheduled for a quick turn-around time, but they are waiting to see how this one does first; so, "final confrontation?" It doesn't necessarily have to be the "same" villain or the "same" heroine; this could indeed be the final confrontation between Michael Myers and Laurie, but one of them could be still standing at the end and go onto the next film.

POLL: Over the many years I have done this blog, people have suggested that I make videos for YouTube; I have started a poll, in the right-hand column of this blog (mobile users, please navigate to the Week's Most Popular Posts) so you can let me know which you prefer: reading posts or watching videos. Please take a moment to record your vote so I know the medium you most prefer to receive this content. Even if this is the first time you have visited this site, you are welcome to vote, but please, so there is an accurate accounting, only vote once. Writing is important to my own thought process, so even if there is an overwhelming number of readers who prefer the videos to the written posts, I will continue writing posts at this blog; however, there are times when I would be able to post more and more regularly because the writing process does take me awhile, so that is the reason I am taking a poll to discover how you want to interact with The Fine Art Diner. Thank you so much for taking the time to vote!

It's just a simple pumpkin, however, there are a number of devices employed in this image to provide clues as to why it appears more menacing then it should. First, the eyes are not symmetrical. There have been plenty of "crazy eyes" lately, but the right eye being larger than the left eye demonstrates that the right eye, being bigger, "sees more" than the left eye that is smaller. Next, the "nose" is slanted to the right side, and also fails to be symmetrical; the nose symbolizes a person's character (yes, I know the pumpkin isn't a person, just generally speaking): because the face is the seat of a person's identity--the means by which others distinguish us from the crowd--and the nose is the most prominent feature of the face, it reveals a person's sense of honor and their overall character; then there is the mouth. The right side of the mouth is much smaller than the left side of the mouth. Now, the right side of the pumpkin (lined up with the big eye, the nose and small mouth) is flat and even; the left side of the pumpkin (the small eye, basically no nose and big mouth) is slanted, and we can tell by looking at how the tree grows in the background. What we can deduce is that the pumpkin provides a visual commentary on the differences between the Right (the political conservatives) and the Left (the Liberals): the Right sees more and has a greater emphasis on their sense of honor, whereas the Left has a greater emphasis on their appetites (more on this below) and slant everything to their advantage. 

This is really a well-done trailer, and it truly looks horrifying: while remaining "true" to the original John Carpenter Halloween of 1978. Speaking of Carpenter, he has returned to guide and produce the film's resurrection, and that includes a cleaned-up time-line that basically erases all the other sequels but for the original film (so Laurie [Jamie Lee Curtis] never died, his psychiatrist didn't die, there weren't other murders, etc., but most importantly, Michael Myers has been in custody since the end of the very first film, and this is going to have repercussions for how we understand the film today. There are a few changes, however, and we will discuss these as well as whether the film appears to be socialist or capitalist.

Let's start by assuming that this film is going to go pro-socialist (I don't think it will, but let's just argue that for a moment) and see where that takes us with what we have. Michael Myers is a white male, and we know that socialists hate white males because they have been the dominant power-holders in Western civilization for a really, really long time. Laurie is female, and as Hillary Clinton declared after her presidential loss in 2016, "The future is female," so the idea of Laurie (a minority who has been oppressed by the fear of Michael Myers for forty years) killing the white male who has terrorized her for so long is finally going to destroy him once and for all is an appealing plot to those who want to start a revolution against the capitalism white male power symbolizes in the eyes of socialists. There are, however, some massive problems with the surmounting details of this trailer and while I could definitely be wrong--as always, we only have about 2 minutes of a 2 hour film--I think we have sufficient evidence to counter this pro-socialist narrative and see one that casts the villain as a socialist.

Not much is known about Martin's character at this point (Jefferson Hall, top image holding the mask) apart from being some kind of investigator/documentary film maker (does he have academic credentials in psychology, or is this just a project he randomly picked to work on?) but there is an important detail we do know: he is after facts.  Holding up the mask to Myers and trying to get him to look at it is Martin's attempt to make Myers "face reality" and hold him accountable for what he did. These are both traits the Left hates: those who want facts instead of lies, and those who look to reality rather than utopia.What does Myers do in this scene? One could argue Michael Myers does nothing, but the truth is, Myers refuse to turn around and face his own real self in the mask and he refuses to accept accountability for what he did. THIS IS THE LEFT. This is the reason Myers is "tethered" to the weight in the courtyard where this scene takes place: Martin is trying to "pin him down" and make him confirm the truth, but Myers refuses to do so; we have seen similar scenes to this in Hitman: Agent 47, for example, when Agent 47's car is speared and tethered by officials in an effort to hold him down; Dom in Fast and Furious 8 is stealing nuke codes from the Russians and his team launches tethers at his car to keep him from going anywhere and in The Mummy we see the Mummy in the forest being stabbed with tethering devices by Prodigium soldiers (there is also a scene in the new trailer for the upcoming film The Nun where a demon disguised as a nun pins a holy nun against the wall). Trying to "pin down" Liberals, such as Hillary Clinton, and make them face facts is like trying to get Michael Myers to face you and accept responsibility for what he has done.
In the second image, we see the dead body of a car mechanic who has been murdered by Myers and the mechanic is naked; why? Myers needed to get out of his inmate clothing so he stole the uniform of a car mechanic. On one level, we have seen something like this before in Man Of Steel: after having saved the crew on an exploding oil rig, Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) steals some clothes from a truck parked at a house, but this truly echoes the plight of Kent: he doesn't have an identity of his own so he is having to "steal" the identity of normal people; what about Michael Myers? IF Myers is going to be a socialist figure, then it makes sense that he would "dress himself in the uniform of the working man" to wage war against those who stand in his way to power. Now, if you will look closely at this middle image (you can click on it to enlarge) the dead man's body lies in a pool of blood, and there is a metal object on the ground beside him; it's almost like he's been castrated and the metal object is the phallic symbol; why? As you have heard me say countless times, socialists have labeled the white man as their enemy because they are the "power holders" in Western civilization, and this mechanic is skilled, he's a worker who performs a service to people who have cars, so this would make the mechanic a "worthy kill" in the eyes of Myers who wants to assume the identity--not of a skilled worker--rather, of someone who has been "left behind" in a prosperous economy and wants more of his "fair share."
The murder of the car mechanic receives greater emphasis from the bottom image: Martin, the investigator who holds up the mask in the top image, has been murdered by Myers and his dead body is now being used as a battering ram in the women's bathroom as Myers attempts to get to Dana, Martin's female partner in the investigation. Why use Martin's body? Having killed a white male, Myers has gained power because he got away with it (think of the #MeToo movement and the way men have been removed from their position simply because they have been accused, with no due process or trial, just by accusation, and the more men who have been removed power, the greater the power of #MeToo and #TimesUp has become) so the "trophy" of Martin's dead body becomes the means to be emboldened to seek out more trophies (this is discussed further below with the teeth).

Conservatives have a joke about liberals: if they want free healthcare, free food and only the cops to have guns, they should go to prison, and that is exactly where Michael Myers has spent nearly his entire life. When we see the security at the hospital where the documentary film is being filmed, those security measures are to keep the inmates inside the prison; this isn't very different from the opening scene of The Man From UNCLE when we see the security around the Berlin Wall and the measures the socialist/communist government was taking to keep "citizens" inside the Wall during the Cold War. When we see the security around Laurie's house, it's to keep Michael Myers out, it's for her personal safety and protection, and this is one of the main points of separation between a socialist and capitalist narrative of the film: Laurie is not a victim.

This top image is of the mannequins Laurie uses for target practice; notice how they resemble the mask of Myers, with their dirty, white color and the holes and decay? That's because the color white symbolizes the person whose soul is alive in faith, hope and charity, or the dead corpse of a person who is dead to faith, hope and charity (a corpse turns white as it decomposes). Laurie's greatest strength is that she knows exactly what Michael Myers is: someone who has no soul (this is symbolic because if he were an actual person, of course he would have a soul, regardless of how evil he was, but this is a fictitious work so Michael Myers is someone with no soul). This means that Laurie--who prays every night as she tells the sheriff--is protecting her soul from the soul-less-ness of Michael Myers.
On another level, we can see the difference between Laurie--who is prepared and armed to do battle--with Dana, the woman trapped in the bathroom stall by Myers and who has no protection. It would generally make sense to say that, had Martin not been killed, Martin would help to protect her, however, since Martin is dead, he's now being used to kill Dana (and this is a primary objective of socialists, to demonize "toxic masculinity" and the impulse men have to defend and protect women, because if men stop being masculine, they are no longer going to recognize the impulse to protect women, children, their homes or homeland). There is another dimension to Myers attacking Dana in the women's bathroom: the transgender problem. The last two years of the Obama administration saw legislation being forced upon schools, businesses and any public building to allow transgendered individuals to use the bathroom which they "identified with" rather than use the facilities of the gender with which they were born.
The new Halloween shares some similarities with the 2016 film Cure For Wellness which takes place in an "asylum," the doctor wears a mask to hide his real identity and, most importantly, many patients lose their teeth. Teeth are a part of the mouth and obviously allow us to eat solid food. As part of the mouth, teeth contribute to symbolizing the appetites, and we know there are bad appetites (sex, drugs, gambling, any self-destructive pursuit) but, as Cure For Wellness and Halloween are pointing out, there are also good appetites: personal success, integrity, virtue. When Myers opens his hand and the pulled teeth fall out, we don't know if they are the teeth of the mechanic who has been killed, Martin's or someone else's, but it's a terribly threatening situation, and it could be Myers (as a socialist figure) accusing Dana of a specific appetite: wanting privacy in the bathroom. (We have seen pulled teeth used in another great horror film, The Blair Witch Project, when one of the boys had what appeared to be some of his pulled teeth wrapped in a piece of his torn shirt). 
Let's take a detour. I know I have been on a Harry Potter kick lately, however, there was an important detail which links up here nicely and we have more information on it then the Halloween trailer. In Chamber Of Secrets, the Slytherin Chamber Of Secrets is located in the girls' bathroom; why? The "genocide" of the muggle-born students is a socialist agenda (think of the Holocaust launched by the Nazis and NAZI stands for national socialist party of Germany), and socialism is a matriarchal system (emphasis is placed on survival of the species rather than on the development of the individual as in a patriarchal system) so being in the girls' bathroom--where waste is disposed of--is the perfect place to release a monster that will dispose of the "waste" of the muggle-born students who Salazer Slytherin believed should not be at Hogwarts. So, back to Halloween, we have the "face of socialism" in Michael Myers attacking a woman's bathroom stall; this should be a place of privacy for her as she "disposes of her waste" but the real waste Myers has come to dispose of is Martin, the white male heterosexual documentary film maker, and now her; in other words, women who think it's okay to attack white men because of their masculine/white privilege should be wary because the same monster is apt to come looking for them as well. Rather than quelling his appetite for murder, having killed the mechanic and now the film maker only makes Myers want to kill more, and that's the problem with revolutions (as anyone who has studied the French or Soviet Revolutions knows) when the monster is unleashed, he's impossible to stop and is even likely to kill the very ones who unleashed him to begin with. In this circumstance, the teeth aren't indicting Dana, it's Myers making a statement to her that he has appetites himself and they are violent ones (because he has pulled the teeth out of the head of his victim[s]).

"I've prayed every night that he would escape."
"Why the hell would you do that?"
"So I can kill him."
This brief dialogue reveals a number of important clues regarding the universe in which this story takes place. First of all, there is a God (Laurie prays every night); secondly, there is a hell (the sheriff can't invoke a place that he doesn't believe exists). This is fundamentally opposed to socialism because socialism emphatically denies there is any god so the government can become god and create all the "morality" and ethics for that society (consider, for example, how difficult it would be in China to enforce the one-child rule via forced birth control and abortions if the citizens were Christians, the government wouldn't have a chance). But this dialogue, and numerous images in the film, also lead us to the undermining of another important socialist tenant: the government is supposed to take care of you because you can't take care of yourself.

The first shot we see of Laurie--after all these years--is the scar on her arm from when Myers stabbed her. The arm symbolizes strength, and in stabbing Laurie in the arm, Myers intended to weaken her by making her see that she is his victim and she isn't strong enough to overcome him; the opposite happened. Laurie has used that scar to strengthen her and insure she won't be his victim again.
In the bottom image, we see a young girl babysitting a little boy in bed. Now, why does Myers like killing babysitters? Because these young girls use their free time to watch the kids of couples who have sufficient expendable income to not only go out and enjoy themselves for the evening, but also to pay a sitter to watch their kids for the night. The sitter, in turn, has some extra money with which to buy things she wants/needs or to save that money. babysitting is, in other words, a service that has arisen out of the free market addressing the need of parents who occasionally need someone to watch their kids, and the need has been met by (mostly) young women who are happy to exchange their time and experience to earn some extra money (and the idea of "earn" rather than just "give" is important, because "basic income" is being touted more and more across the US, so instead of providing a service like babysitting, young women like the one above would just be given $400 a month by the government). At least in the trailer, the white babysitter and the black child appear to be getting along well; the boy asks her to shut the closet door, and she can't because Michael Myers is hiding in there. (In The Conjuring, we also saw the witch Bathsheba hiding in the armoire, the stand-alone clothes closet). It's possible that there is something specific about this closet we don't get from the trailer, however, my first thought was, "Liberals want to make blacks thinking that whites are racists, and they want to 'bring white racism against blacks out of the closet' and expose it" but, just as Myers doesn't belong in this closet--it's not his house--so that manufactured racism the Left is always talking about also doesn't belong at the feet of conservatives because it shouldn't be there, and it's only there to kill white people, not actually do anything to help black people. So, while socialism wants women to think they need a socialist society to level the playing field against men, Halloween is attempting (at least, I think) to demonstrate how socialism actually hurts women, by leaving them unprotected, not able to offer a service like babysitting or find a babysitter for your own kids when you yourself want to go out.

Laurie is armed and dangerous.
She has been training and preparing herself for this final showdown, not leaving her safety to anyone else, especially the government. Laurie has taken responsibility for herself and her property, which socialists argue people are not capable of doing: to socialists, people are dumb animals who have to have all their needs provided for them. Laurie proves otherwise. Socialists particularly want women to feel at a disadvantage and helpless since it's their plight in society and the workplace that socialists want to capture: women don't have power, socialists tell them, so give us power and we will make life better for you. The problem is, and I believe Halloween is going to do this in every scene, many people believe that socialism really wants to take care of them and really wants to make their life better, and this is the reason why Michael Myers escapes from a bus,...

Why a mask?
When we commit sins, the beauty and brilliance of our souls diminish with each act of sinfulness we make; our soul is the greatest testament we have to our individuality and our dignity. Without our soul, we have no individuality, we have no identity. The greater our virtue, however, the greater our individuality. Horror villains typically have a mask or disfigured face because they represent how sin has eaten up a soul and left it with no identity but the scars of addiction and eternal death. When we see a villain like Michael Myers, the fear comes from the possibility that, "It could be us," our soul could come to look like him: no body. Giving ourselves to addiction and sinful behaviors doesn't increase our individuality because those behaviors are self-destructive and hence, we sabotage ourselves when we commit them, rather than ennobling ourselves. 

It's rather a familiar cinematic device: a group of highly dangerous criminals are being transported on a bus and the bus crashes, allowing the inmates to escape (Fast Five from 2011, when Dom is being transported and Brian and Mia wreck the bus and The Fugitive with Harrison Ford of 1993 are two examples); so if it's so familiar, why use it again? This is the type of "silly plot point" that horror-genre critics despise, so why risk using it? "Seriously," they ask, "They take Michael Myers out of the prison on Halloween and think everything will be okay?" But this is the very point: because Michael Myers and the danger he poses has been forgotten, people have to be reminded. Even if it's a "prison bus," a "bus" most often reminds Americans (at least) of the big yellow school bus which picks kids up and drops them off after school; and a bus serves as a "vehicle of education," so when we see a bus, we are going to be "schooled about something" and, in this case, it's the danger of letting what Michael Myers symbolizes to roam about freely.

This is a part of the "documentation" of Michael Myers, and this is at least the third time we have seen "paper work" on an important character (consider James Bond's papers retrieved from the fire at his home in Spectre, and the MACUSA papers on Newt Scamander in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindlewald). There is something very interesting about this photo (yes, he stands with his back to us and his face to the wall, and that would be an indication of refusing to "face reality" and the real world, preferring, instead, to live in a world where he can create his own reality like a painting on a black canvas [the wall]): his right shoulder appears to be severely bruised. Why does this matter? The shoulders symbolize burdens we take on, we don't take on are willing or unwilling to carry; the bruised shoulder indicates that he has a "chip on his shoulder" and the burden he has made his own is to make everyone else feel the same pain he has felt, regardless of whether that is a realistic assessment of reality or not. 

Once again, please take a moment to vote in the poll (top of the right-hand column) regarding whether you prefer reading posts or would like to have videos to watch, I deeply appreciate it and it will help shape the future of this blog. Thank you!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

POLL & Halloween Post Coming

I have been asked, numerous times, to start making videos. I have posted a poll in the right-hand corner of the blog for you to vote and so I can know what you would like! Please, only vote once, it will be left up for a week to try and get as many regular readers as possible and, if you are new to this blog, please feel free to vote as well! If you are viewing this blog on a mobile device, you will need to navigate to the right hand column (where the Week's Most Popular Posts is located). Even if more people say they would rather watch videos than read posts, for my own creative process, I will most likely continue with writing posts; I will admit there have been many times when I could have gotten a video up quicker than I could have by writing it out, so please take a moment to respond, and thank you for your participation! I am nearly finished on the analysis for the new Halloween trailer: it's loaded! This is both terrifying in the footage and fun to analyse, so here is the trailer in case you haven't seen it and I will be getting this post up tonight!

Thanks for checking in and this will be up tonight! And thank you for voting in the poll!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Mirror Of Erisid: Dumbledore & Grindlewald, the Elder Wand & Woolen Socks

We have all ready discussed this image and the importance of the details (please click here and scroll down to the bottom of the post for the discussion on this image). However, I would like to remind you that Dumbledore wears a gray coat (gray symbolizes the color of the pilgrim and the penitent, someone doing penance for a sin) and his coat covers him, rather like the woolen socks protecting his feet according to what he tells Harry he sees when he looks into the Mirror Of Erisid. Dumbledore also wears a gray hat, so his sense of penance is "on his mind" (the head symbolizes our thoughts, so anything pertaining to the head reveals what kind of thoughts that character does or does not have) and the clock on the right side symbolizes time in a general sense, the past in general or the future in general, and so Dumbledore is doing penance for things done in the past, but also possibly because he knows what he is capable of doing in the future if he himself should be the one to get the Deathly Hallows or Grindelwald should get him alone and make a convincing argument for Dumbledore to join him (we know that Grindelwald probably still thinks well of Dumbledore because he mentions it when he is disguised as Graves (Colin Farrell) in Fantastic Beasts right before sentencing Newt to execution.
Now, there is a detail I didn't mention in our previous discussion on this image: Dumbledore's beard. He obviously doesn't have the immense, flowing white beard we are accustomed to seeing him wearing, and that's because of the symbolism of beards. Now, gentlemen, please do not get offended if you yourself sport facial hair, this is about artistic interpretation and not personal style. The mouth symbolizes our appetites, and a beard or mustache forms around the mouth, so the appetites naturally come into play when interpreting a man's facial hair as a part of his larger character. It's neat and trim, but it's also young, in the sense that any man could have a beard like this, i.e., it hasn't decided what it has an appetite for. At this age, Dumbledore may have an appetite for wisdom, but he isn't old enough to have the experience requite for wisdom, and not having a lot of wisdom, he also doesn't have the handmaid of wisdom, discernment, so it's likely that Dumbledore's beard symbolizes his appetite for power ("for the greater good" sounds wise, until you have experience to really understand what that likely does not mean) as much as it symbolizes an appetite for wisdom, and his journey over these next four films will be his journey of self-discovery as much as his rise to power and defeat of Grindlewald. 

Back during Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (which Fantastic Beasts 2: The Crimes Of Grindlewald is going back to as well) Harry found the Mirror Of Erised and Professor Dumbledore told him that it shows the heart's deepest, most desperate desire, and that the happiest man in the world would look into the mirror and see himself as he truly is. When Harry asks Dumbledore what he himself sees when he looks into the mirror (and I think this is only in the book), Dumbledore replies, myself, wearing a nice pair of woolen socks. This has stumped Potter fans since the book came out, but now that we actually see Dumbledore looking into the Mirror of Erised and seeing Grindlewald, it's time to review that scene for a surprising answer.

Harry sitting in front of the mirror when Dumbledore has mysteriously appeared behind him and chastising Harry for looking into the mirror "again," because Harry sees the family he never had. It's difficult to tell from this image, but Harry wears a red sweater, and red as we know is the color of blood, the most valuable thing we have, so whatever it is we are willing to spend our blood upon is what we value the most. In this case, Harry would be willing to die to see his family again, and we know, ultimately, that is what happens with the Resurrection Stone. 

We know that feet symbolize our will: because our feet take us in life where we want to go the way our will takes us to where we want to end up in life, so anything pertaining to a character's feet reveals something about their will, and this includes socks because socks are worn on the feet. Dumbledore tells Harry the mirror shows the heart's deepest, most desperate desire, and some people have speculated that Dumbledore was lying, or at least telling just a half-truth; I rather believe Dumbledore was telling the whole truth, but because so little is known of him, we couldn't find the road to take to discover the real meaning.

Here it is, the Mirror of Erised and fans totally freaked out seeing Dumbledore seeing Grindlewald in it. That we see Dumbledore seeing Grindlewald in the mirror confirms the view that later, when Dumbledore tells Harry he sees himself wearing woolen socks, it relates back to Grindlewald because obviously his old friend is very deep in his heart,.... like the socks. We have all ready taken a fairly detailed examination of this image, but allow be to refresh your mind on a few details and slip in a new one: we see Dumbledore's back, and there are a great number of instances where we see Dumblefore from behind; why? Someone's back in this example can symbolize a number of things: one, it can be their history, that part of them that is "behind them," or it might not be their back, it might be their shoulders we are supposed to notice, and then that would mean their burdens they are willing to carry, or not willing to carry. A character's back also can relate to an audience how, when or why a character feels vulnerable, especially if that character is "hiding something" or is unable to see something in themselves because the back is like a shadow, and it communicates that which isn't seen or cannot be seen by the character. Dumbledore is obviously looking into a mirror, so he "wants to see" but this is a "trick mirror" and it's not what you need to see, but what you want to see. Last, but not least, Dumbledore appears to have something he wears around his left wrist. We have all ready discussed how one sleeve being raised up symbolizes his strength (the arm) he is willing to reveal (maybe Dumbledore is telling Grindlewald he refuses to join him, for example) but the sleeve covering his right arm hides some strength he does not want to reveal (maybe that he knows he can rely upon Newt to help him). The bracelet, however, will be a most interesting detail, because bracelets often symbolize something which "chains us": since our arms symbolize strength, a bracelet can be like a handcuff, something we (usually) willingly chain ourselves to in devotion or delusion that we need or want it. 

"Socks" cover the feet, and they can be used to deceive about a character's intent or reveal a character's intent, however, the detail about them being "woolen" means these are socks intended to protect the one wearing them from the cold, and this detail of "protecting" suggests that Dumbledore's deepest desire was that he had "protected" his will (his feet). Knowing the story of how Grindlewald's desire for world power through the Deathly Hallows seduced young Dumbledore, and knowing that Dumbledore has always regretted it, we could point to that as an interpretation for the woolen socks Dumbledore tells Harry he sees when he looks into the mirror; the woolen socks do not have to be related to Dumbledore's history with Grindlewald, however, the woolen socks definitely speak of Dumbledore having wished he had exercised more wisdom over his will, but this is where it gets interesting,.....

The Super Carlin Brothers have put together this incredibly well-thought out theory regarding the relationship of the Deathly Hallows to The Veil (the one Sirius Black passes through in the Department Of Mysteries) and the Mirror of Erisid, I highly recommend you watch it! These are the two wands: the Elder Wand, which Grindlewald stole on your left, and Dumbledore's personal wand on the right. Yes, they look remarkably similar, and that's an important point in the film: when does madness impersonate wisdom and how can we tell the difference? 

Towards the end of The Philosopher's Stone, Dumbledore tells Harry that only a person who didn't want to use the stone would be able to find it, which is why Harry found the stone in his own pocket. I believe the same theory is going to hold true for the Elder Wand: in other words, when Dumbledore tells Newt, "It has to be you" to move against Grindlewald, because he himself can't, I am quite confident this is the moment when what Dumbledore will later tell Harry Potter takes seed, but first with Newt: Newt doesn't have any ambition, but at this point in his life, Dumbledore still likely does have ambition, or fears he could bring his ambitions back to life if he gets the wand, any of the other Hallows or spends time with Grindlewald. It will only be at the end of the five Fantastic Beasts films that Dumbledore, like Harry looking for the Philosopher's Stone, will only be able to get it when Dumbledore has no ambition to have it at all, but it will take Dumbledore that long in order to purge himself of those desires. Remember, Fantastic Beasts are prequals, so we are starting at the beginning and working our way towards the middle ground we are all ready familiar with. I can highly recommend the Super Carlin Brothers' video on The Mystery Of the Veil and its relationship to the Deathly Hallows, and around 5:40, they discuss their excellent theory on the relationship between the Elder Wand and the Mirror of Erised, please watch this, it's great!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

UPDATED AGAIN: Queenie & Grindelwald Together

Screenshot of Queenie holding her ears which has caused a great number of theories. We see Queenie wearing a lot of mauve, which is a shade of pink, and the reason for that is because "pink" symbolizes love that has not been perfected. Red is usually the color associated with love because red is the color of blood, and when a person loves someone truly, they are willing to shed their blood for that person; when a person loves someone, but they haven't been called upon to make a difficult decision or a sacrifice for that person, or that person isn't ready to do that, they will be shown wearing pink. It's not a statement about the realness of the love, rather, a statement about the person's place in their journey to loving someone or something else, so Queenie has enjoyed falling in love with Jacob, but as of yet, she hasn't encountered difficulties or obstacles in that relationship with him, nothing, anyway, which has forced her to grow as a person and become a person worthy of that love, because that's what love does. 

THE SECOND UPDATE: If you have previously read this post, the further update is in the adding of the cast photo which is below the next one, and it validates what I discuss in the rest of this post. 
We have all ready reviewed the second trailer for Fantastic Beasts 2, however, particularly interesting information has been circulating about the character of Queenie (pictured above) and I thought it worthwhile to take a closer look because of the way this could be setting up an important social issue in the film. I owe it to Fetony (his video is here, at about 1:00) for pointing out that Queenie wears an engagement ring (well, it's a ring, we don't actually know that it's an engagement ring yet) under her hair (please see detailed image below). As Fetony was talking about the ring, however, I noticed something for the first time which has escaped my previous viewing of the trailer,... something which I believe confirms that Queenie will at least be courted by Grindelwald to help him and, may possibly be working with him for a little while.

The top image is the original screenshot in original proportion; the bottom image is the same shot but blown up (please click to enlarge so you can examine it closer). I have circled where the ring is (again, we don't know that it's an engagement ring, but she is wearing it on her ring finger and it is a ring) but I have also circled the black thing coming out of her sleeve and touching her mouth. (It's possible that the same kind of thing is coming out of her right sleeve as well, because there is darkness around the right-side contour of his cheek and mouth, but I think that's just the shadow of her hand and arm against her face). Now, a ring symbolizes a covenant, even if this is an engagement ring, there is the willingness to enter into a covenant, the question is, is it a covenant with Jacob or with Grindelwald? And I am guessing that at least at some point in the film, it's going to have to be both, even if it's not so permanently but temporarily, that is, Queenie may make a bad decision, but then try to repent of it.
AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST, I HAVE INCLUDED AN IMAGE OF QUEENIE'S DRESS BECAUSE SOMEONE THINKS IT'S JUST HER DRESS SLEEVE POKING THROUGH, SO PLEASE LOOK AT THE BOTTOM TO MAKE YOUR DECISION. Apart from this black thing being an obscurial or having to do with Credence, I still think the oddity of this sleeve position reveals something dark about Queenie's character.

There is some thin, long, black thing coming out of coat pocket sleeve and going towards/actually touching her mouth. We know that "black" always symbolizes death, but there is "good death" (when a person dies to things of the world in order to be alive to the virtues of the spirit) and there is "bad death" (when a person dies to the virtues and life of the soul and instead lives for things of the world); we also know that hands symbolize a person's honor (more on this in a moment) and arms symbolize a person's (moral, ethical) strength (we've discussed this regarding why Dumbledore has one sleeve rolled up and one sleeve down when he's looking into the mirror of Erised).

This is the image I was looking for and it was right there all along. This is a cropped portion of the cast photo taken for the film's promotion. On the left side we see that Queenie is the closest cast member to Grindelwald, and in the enlarged image on the right side (sorry that it's not the best quality) we see the "active" Elder Wand nearly touching Queenie's hand, meaning, the two characters are indeed linked, just as we see Jacob holding Queenie's arm in the photo on the left side. Both of these poses are rather odd positions for Queenie to be in try striking that pose yourself with your own body, but the gestures tell us something that is going on. We know that legs symbolize a person's standing in society, and Queenie rests her arm upon Jacob's leg, because the muggle has no standing in the wizarding world, and Queenie will likely want to fix that. We know that arms symbolize strength, and Jacob holds Queenie's arm--in a strange sort of way, it's not a loving embrace, it's almost like he's holding her back (from working with Grindelwald?)--and Queenie's strength is her love for Jacob and her ability to read minds. Now, Queenie's index finger on her right hand points down, just as Grindelwald's hand holds his wand and also points down, so they are mirroring each other's gesture, Grindelwald holding the wand in-between his fingers so that it symbolically takes the place of one of his fingers.
There is also a further detail regarding Queenie's dress. the sleeve, as we see in the enlarged image at the right, engulfs her hand, the same way an obsurius (spelling?) does from Credence, it is swallowing her hand (the hand symbolizing our honor), but there is also an interesting detail on the front of her dress: we discuss the gold pin of the bird below, but across her chest is a design that is like a bat (it resembles the various "batman logos" created over the years) and somewhat invokes the Death Eaters of Voldermort because when they apparate they look like big bats (especially Snape after Harry shows up at Hogwarts in Deathly Hallows Part 2). So, even though I gladly backtrack that it's some foreign object/being coming out of Queenie's sleeve in the discussed image, it's her own "darkness" she's wearing and this image validates the connection I am discussing throughout this post. Sorry it got so convoluted and messy.

We can say that Grindelwald symbolizes "bad death," not only because of the views he's preaching in this trailer, but also because, in Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, Grindelwald was disguised as Mr. Graves (Colin Farrell) and nothing says "bad death" like "graves" (because the body goes to the grave if it doesn't have an eternal destination, and a person living for worldly pursuits will not have pursued the things of heaven).
So, what is that thing coming out of Queenie's sleeve?

To substantiate the importance of the black thing by Queenie's hand, we have, in the top image, the black glove pointing to where Dumbledore waits for Newt atop the building, then Newt taking the hand. We know later in the trailer, at night on the bridge, when Dumbledore and Newt discuss whether or not Newt is going to hunt down Grindelwald, Dumbledore himself wears black gloves. In the bottom image, Grindelwald makes a grand flourishing gesture with his right hand. Hands symbolize honor, so the idea of "honor" is going to be important to every single character in the film; why? Well the tagline is "The fate of one will decide the the future of all," and "FATE" is a heavy, heavy word. Philosophically, spiritually and psychologically loaded, FATE at face value usually means an end over which we really have no control, someone did something because they had to, they had no free will in choosing to do otherwise. This isn't always what FATE means, and it could refer to the ultimate way in which one of the characters chooses to use their free will (and this is where honor comes into play, does a person choose to be honorable or selfish?) is what will decide the future of the rest of the characters.

Well, I have no idea. BUT, the very fact that it doesn't have an identity means it's evil. When someone is good--or at least not rotten to the core--they have an identity. Consider, for example, Tom Riddle: before he started killing off people, he looked normal, he had an identity; has he gave himself over more and more to "Dark Magic," he lost his identity and started becoming a snake (the nose of a person, for example, symbolizes how important their character is to that person, and that his nose turned into slits mirroring those of a snake, it reveals that Tom Riddle had no concern for personal honor whatsoever). Consider also Credence's obscurial: it's black and shapeless and wrecks only destruction; it's possible that the thing coming out of Queenie's sleeve is connected to Credence and his power (it's coming out of Queenie's left sleeve, and we see Credence sending out his black "power" from his left hand). So, the "identity-less-ness" of the thing coming out of Queenie's sleeve points to it having something to do with death, possibly/likely Grindelwald directly or indirectly. Notice, also, it's moving towards her mouth,...

Again, IF Queenie and Jacob's relationship is going to be exploited by Grindelwald, I think it's setting up a situation for the audience to link Queenie and Jacob with Dumbledore's reputed homosexuality. In the US wizarding world, it is considered "unnatural" for a witch (Queenie) and a muggle (Jacob) to be together because of Queenie's powers and Jacob's lack of powers; this "unnaturalness" I think is going to be exploited by the film makers to clear the way for a forced-acceptance of Dumbledore's homosexuality: well, it's unnatural for Queenie and Jacob, but you want them to be together, why don't you want Dumbledore and Grindelwald to be together, if they love each other? I realize this is a stretch, and trust me, I don't want the film to take this direction, however, "Queenie" could refer to the American slang term for a gay man and might tie her in with Dumbledore (for example, in the latest trailer for Bohemian Rhapsody about the band Queen and homosexual Freddie Mercury, Freddie says at one point, "There's only room for one hysterical queen in this band," referring to himself as a gay man; in the film Gods and Monsters about gay director Jimmy Whale, Jimmy says to someone, "He's never met a princess before, only queens," referring to himself as a gay man; again, this is probably a stretch, and I hope it is, but I am going to mention it here).
Another potential tie-in with Dumbledore is the bird pin Queenie wears. The middle image above is the original screen shot, the image below that is the same shot magnified to look at her bird broach she wears that closely resembles the headmaster's oratory stand where Dumbledore would address the students at Hogwarts. 

The mouth, we know, symbolizes our appetites, and we know that Queenie and Jacob both have appetites: that he bakes and she cooks is one of the first pieces of information they exchange about each other when they first meet. But there is also the appetite for love, which we all share, but as rumors are going around and developing, the general theory is that it's the forbidding of her romance with Jacob (she's a witch and he's a muggle so they are not allowed to get married) that Grindelwald will use as leverage to get Queenie to help him.

Grindelwald and Newt all ready have an interesting relationship from Fantastic Beasts when Grindelwald was disguised as Graves. Grindelwald first tries killing Newt by execution, but when that fails, I think he tries to recruit Newt with the final words, "Shall we die just a little bit?" He knows his old friend Dumbledore believes in Newt, and Newt has proven himself twice: first by escaping execution, then by actually capturing Grindelwald, and this is rather like the clown Pennywise in IT at first trying to kill Bill then wanting to keep Bill for himself. Newt has impressed Grindelwald, so I think Grindelwald makes Newt an offer to join him in saying, "Will we die, just a little?" thinking it will tempt Newt, because Grindelwald doesn't understand Newt, and because this kind of an invitation would be inviting to Grindelwald himself, meaning that the line reveals more than it conceals. If you will let just a little piece of you die, then you could have immortality with me, you could have unlimited power and rule with me over the entire wizarding world. This is the kind of bargain Tom Riddle certainly thought was pleasing at an acceptable price, and it's basically the same kind of offer he will make to Queenie if this indeed is going to happen in the film. Remember, Grindelwald has that big open collar with a black tie around his neck, meaning that death has a hold on him (just as it did Tom Riddle) and Grindelwald is motivated by escaping death, even if that means a little part of him will die in the process so he can have more of the "life" he thinks he wants.
On a different note, The Super Carlin Brothers on YouTube have an excellent video detailing their theory that the right eye of Grindelwald actually becomes the "Mad Eye" of Mad Eye Moody; they did incredible research on this and I am really quite impressed, you can watch that video at this link here. IF they are correct in their theories, then that will have an important outcome on our interpretation and understanding of Grindelwald's character.

The minor problem--which just makes it that much more interesting--is Queenie can read minds, so she would have to know that Grindelwald is manipulating her and, because of Grindelwald's view that muggles are worthless, she has to know he's lying. However, if this is going to develop in the film, I wouldn't be at all surprised to Queenie closing her eyes to the truth, that is, she knows Grindelwald is lying but she sees her situation as desperate (remember, at the end of Fantastic Beasts, she appears to be breaking the law to visit Jacob in his bakery, so they established that Queenie isn't a goody-two-shoes who will put "the greater good" above her own desires, but would be willing to put what she wants first).
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
P.S.--There were some additional notes I included in the caption to the image below regarding the symbolism of Dumbledore's clothing, so please check that out as well.
P.S.S.--BELOW THE IMAGE OF DUMBLEDORE IS ANOTHER IMAGE OF QUEENIE.

I failed to discuss this in the earlier post, so I will touch upon this important point now. Dumbledore wears a gray hat and coat in this scene, and there is the picture of the large clock in the background. Clocks and watches symbolize history on a much grander scale than the mere 7:30 time we see on the clock face above. This is important because we know the color gray--the colors Dumbledore wears--is the color of the pilgrim, which can mean both the novice (someone who is just starting out) and/or the penitent, someone who is doing penance for their sins. With the clock in the background, and the color gray so prominent upon Dumbledore, it suggests that he is doing penance for his past sins: loving Grindlewald? His sister's death? Not being there for the people he loved when they needed him? Being so easily tempted to enslave the muggle population with Grindelwald? Being so drawn to the incredible power of the Deathly Hallows? It's likely all these things, and if Dumbledore doesn't blatantly come out and say it, the unspoken language of this scene will certainly validate this sense of guilt and desire to repay his debts. We also notice his coat collar pulled up. The neck symbolizes what leads and guides us in life, and when a character has a collar up around their neck, it demonstrates they are trying to protect what is going to guide their decisions, they are protecting their priorities. There is also a very likely connection being made to another wizard: Gandalf the Gray. Gandalf, from The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, wore a gray robe and hat, and it's possible that Dumbledore's gray coat and hat are meant to invoke Gandalf. Going back to the collar symbolizing how Dumbledore is "protecting his priorities," a coat is also a garment which protects us from the elements, and it seems everyone in the trailers we see wears a coat (Newt, Grindelwald, Credence, Tina, Queenie, Jacob), but the material on Dumbledore's coat seems to be a bit heavier, thicker, than the coats the others wear, meaning that he feels he has a greater need to protect himself from something or someone. Likewise, Dumbledore wears a gray hat (it looks more gray in the trailer) and since the head symbolizes our thoughts, anything atop the head materializes what the thoughts of that character are like: a hat hides the hair, so Dumbledore doesn't want to expose all of what he's thinking, at least to Newt, but since it's gray, he also doesn't want anyone to know how truly guilty he feels, or what the source of that guilt, and thus his self-determined penance, is really about.

This is an image someone gave me demonstrating that the black thing coming out of Queenie's sleeve is her dress sleeve. Ok, this is likely, I concede this, but I stand by my interpretation that this is a sign that she is going to do something "dark" in line with her appetites because this is not a typical sleeve (most sleeves stop about the wrist) and it's highly unusual for a sleeve to "creep out" of the coat in this way and touch the mouth. Because it's part of the sleeve, it's coming from the arm, so Queenie's lack of honor (she leaves work whenever she wants, she has a man stay in her apartment over night, she visits Jacob in his bakery) is going to feed her appetites (touching her mouth) so she can get what she thinks she wants.

Comic-Con Trailers & Film News Updates

Warner Brothers has really "put the pedal to the metal" with their propaganda machine. Wonder Woman: 1984 could not be more of a political statement. "1984" references, not only the famous anti-socialist story Nineteen Eighty Four by George Orwell (who himself was a Democratic Socialist) but the year 1984 during the Cold War and the Ronald Reagan Administration. Oh, Chris Pine's character is supposedly back from the dead, I guess they needed a white, heterosexual hero to kill again.

A ton of stuff has been going on, so let's get some important catch-up work done. First, Mission Impossible: Fallout opens this weekend, and it's all ready doing amazing, like amazing. Critics are saying it's the best MI to date and could be the last blockbuster film of the 2018 summer, so, if you have a chance you are going to want to see this one. I am going to make a desperate attempt to see it this weekend I have really been looking forward to it (ownership of my favorite theater changed and it's just not the same experience now).

Downton Abbey is getting a movie! All the main actors are reprising their roles and filming begins in September with Julian Fellowes, the writer of the series, penning the screenplay and producing. Deadwood is also getting its own movie! Shooting will begin on the stand-alone film this October and is set to air sometime in 2019, although film makers have noted that is not "set in stone." Everyone from the original cast and production team will be working on the film. From the Marvel Universe, Captain Marvel, starring Brie Larson (release date March 20, 2019) intends on de-ageing Samuel L Jackson by 25 years for his role as Nick Fury; technology is amazing nowadays, isn't it?

This is the newest image release for The Nun, debuting in September. The Nun panel at Comic-Con this week has proven to be one of the most popular so we can probably expect a pretty strong showing for this film.

So, remember that big fight that happened over the last installment of Fast and Furious between Dwayne Johnson and Vin Deisel? Well, Johnson has started rumors that he might not return to the F & F franchise, but that isn't stopping him and Jason Statham from uniting for a F & F spin-off, Hobbs & Shaw, to be released July 26, 2019 (so they are putting a lot in this show for that release date). The great Idris Elba and relative new-comer Vanessa Kirby are both in talks for roles (Kirby has been seen in The Crown and Mission Impossible: Fallout) with Elba possibly portraying the primary villain. Again, no word on Johnson's position regarding future F & F films, but he has all ready released information that production on Jumanji 2 has started. And Val Kilmer has confirmed that he will be returning as Iceman in the sequel to Top Gun titled Maverick. Oscar winning actress Jennifer Connolly is joining, as well as Miles Teller who will be playing Goose's son. The last I heard, the film revolved around the dilemmas involving human pilots vs drones.

The latest Halloween is making quite a commotion for the incredible quality of the film and scenes. Basic story line: yes, Michael Myers is out again, and yes, he's trying to get Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) again, but this is a clear example of Myers-as-socialism and Laurie (with her state-of-the-art security system and arsenal of guns) as a strong woman who is not going to be anyone's victim. This is a AWESOME trailer and we will be going through that in-depth in a separate post, promise!

Awhile back, we discussed a mock-u-mentary called No Men Beyond This Point, which imagined a world where women could get pregnant without men and those babies were all female, meaning the male population was dying out. Jodie Foster has joined the FX television series Y: The Last Man, with Diane Lane and Amber Tamblyn, which follows the last man born with the Y chromosome following a mysterious plague as he attempts to figure out what happened,.... Anyway, the follow-up to Edge Of Tomorrow with Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt is still happening: Doug Liman says they have a great story, but they are still working on the script. And some news that has made me exceedingly happy,....

From left to right: Chris Pratt, James Gunn, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista.

James Gunn has been released from Guardians Of the Galaxy films. He is terribly Leftist, and a silent hatred for Christians lurks beneath the surface of his films. Guardians 1 & 2 were horribly offensive (please see Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 1 and Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2). The reason he has been removed from Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 3 is due to offensive tweets he made and other bad social media decisions. I could not be happier: James Gunn was a horrible socialist stain on the pristine fabric of the Marvel Universe, and now he's gone.
HOORAY!

The heroes of Warner Brothers' DC Extended Universe. So, yea, there was a stand-alone Batman film supposed to happen with Ben Affleck having written the script, starring in it and then even set to direct it, but rumor was, it the story was so bad Warner Brothers refused to go forward with it. So, now, it appears, withe the "multi-verse" decision, there could be another Batman running around and he could be the one who gets that new Batman film.

Now, here is something just all-around bizarre. Warner Brothers has decided to make a stand-alone Joker origin film starring Joaquin Phoenix and Robert DeNiro. Okay, how many strange things can I write in one sentence? With Jared Leto playing a high-acclaimed Joker in the DC Universe, why on earth go and wreck that? Oh, because it's Warner Brothers and they don't want to look like they are indebted to Marvel. Warner Brothers has announced that, rather than have an "Extended Universe" like Marvel (where all the heroes eventually come together to fight a common enemy in the same adventure) Warner Brothers is going to have "Multi-Verses," which I understand is part of their comics' platform, that is, different universe simultaneously exist, so what happens in one story doesn't necessarily have an effect on events in other stories (or one actor playing The Joker doesn't undermine the performance of another actor playing The Joker simultaneously). Speaking of Warner Brothers, let's take a look at the first trailer for Shazam which they are heavily banking upon to raise their fortunes:

There is some seriously wrong things with this trailer, but it's just so annoying, I don't want to spend a lot of time on it, so here it is: who is it that wants to gain incredible resources without having done anything to earn them? Shazam would actually be a spot-on parody of the Left if it weren't for the fact that it's the Left actually making this film about themselves. The last scene around 2:40 details the Left perfectly: they are every bit as bad as the robbers themselves because they have walked out of the store with all that junk food without paying for it (nothing substantial, nothing nutritious, just what they want to eat not what they need to eat; food symbolizes what it is we take in and digest on a mental and spiritual scale, and the two "kids" have taken only what they want, rather like Laura in Logan when she's at the gas station: she takes a can of Pringles and sunglasses without paying for them, then Logan takes cigars without paying for them; we also saw this several years ago in a film called Project X, about an out-of-control weekend part high school boys were throwing when one of the boys at a stores said, "I'm not paying for condoms," and put them in his pocket and walked out with them; this is the Left).

Shazam appears to perfectly mirror the "political fantasies" of typical, everyday Liberals with their teenage sensibilities and utter lack of maturity and ethics, in other words, something of an echo of Steven Spielberg's Ready Player One. The would-be robbers at the gas station store are wrapped up in Christmas lights; why? They probably symbolize Christians to the film makers (this is just a guess, but it seems perfectly in-line with what the Left does, the accuse someone else of doing something and then do it themselves) and this is evidenced in the same scene when Shazam breaks the window: we know that glass and mirrors symbolize inner-meditation, that which we should be "reflecting upon," but in this scene, Shazam has caused more monetary damage to the store than the robbers probably would have gotten away with so his destruction isn't helping anyone in spite of what he thinks he's doing.
While this is on an entirely different note, it's also kind of the same note: Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure is going in for a third installment with the original cast returning (including Keanu Reeves). The story revolves around Bill and Ted having grown to maturity: being married and having kids with routine jobs, but the prophecy about them writing music that was going to save the world hasn't come true,... yet. So, visitors from the future aide Bill and Ted in fulfilling the prophecy and, trust me, it's going to be a liberal festival of mediocrity. 

On a happier Warner Brothers' note, at least I hope so, Godzilla: King of the Monsters has released their first trailer, and while Gareth Edwards knocked it out of the park with his Godzilla (2014), I hope this new crew does the same; just stay with the trailer, because it doesn't sound very good at the start,....

I realize that the first monologue makes it sound like a global warming message, but we have actually seen this technique used previously in none other than Christopher Nolan's Interstellar. If you will recall, Nolan argues that if Liberals really believe the planet is dying, than they should be pushing for space exploration--rather than hampering it--because we need to find a new home; Godzilla: King Of the Monsters appears to be doing the same thing. Now, in Edwards Godzilla,  Godzilla saved us from the Feminists and gays (please see Erasure & Time: Godzilla for more) and in the new version, Godzilla appears to be challenging all three of his biggest foes: Mothra, Rodan and the three-headed King Ghidorah; I understand this can sound ridiculous, however, when Godzilla first rose to post-World War II prominence, these "enemies of Godzilla" were actually the enemies of the United States and capitalism, Godzilla having become "a friend" to the people of Japan and being the only one who could save them from the domino effect of other Asian countries falling to communism (we'll go into this more when the second trailer drops) but, for the meantime, I am quite happy with this and expect it to be a great film!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Aquaman: Trailer #1

Well, I am disappointed.
I've been thinking about this trailer since it was debuted this weekend at the San Diego Comic-Con panel and I want to say, there is just no way around it: it has far more in common with Wonder Woman than it does with Man Of Steel and that's a pity. So, what does it do and how does it do it?

His father was a lighthouse keeper and his mother was a queen. Here we have a role reversal for gender in that it was the mother (Nicole Kidman) who ruled and his father who was a keeper of light (which is traditionally associated with women as being more spiritual and thus, full of light to show men the way to God). Now, good reader, I know your objection: what about King Arthur: Legend of  the Sword? Isn't it because Arthur was born to the queen that he's "the born king," and that signals the "new Feminism" you talked about so enthusiastically in your post? Doesn't Aquaman's trident equal the sword Excalibur?
You, reader, are quite intelligent,....

So, what about the similarities between Excalibur and the Trident? Well, we have seen Excalibur and the King Arthur legend in a great number of films as of late: King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword, Transformers: The Last Knight, The Dark Tower (his guns were made from Excalibur) and even Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk (the engines on the airplanes were called Merlin engines). What about tridents? There was the trident which Finnick O'dair had in Mockingjay Part 2, the last Pirates Of the Caribbean was in search of Poseidon's Trident, in Baywatch, Dwayne Johnson's character was in a sand sculpture holding a trident, of course the trident made its appearance in Justice League, and then there was the Esther Williams duplicate (Scarlett Johansson) who did the aquatic films and she held a trident in the Coen Brothers Hail, Caesar!. So? Excalibur and the Trident are both phallic symbols, that is, they symbolize a man's right to rule because of his power, so he has power because he is powerful. For example, in the decidedly pro-capitalist Thor: Ragnarok, Thor's hammer is a phallic symbol (he has it because he has the power to wield it, which in turn gives him more power) but what happens to it? Hela (Cate Blanchett, the goddess of Death and the definite socialist figure in the film) crushes Thor's symbol of power and his real power, and that exchange which takes place in that scene of the film summarizes perfectly what the Left has been attempting to do throughout the entire world for the last decade, at least. Undermine patriarchal and capitalist rule. In the Aquaman trailer, we see Arthur Curry having a trident thrown in his face and he has to stop it before it stabs him in the face; why? Has stated above, a trident, like a sword, is going to be a phallus symbol of masculinity (in Hail, Caesar! the Coen Brothers did a fabulous job of demonstrating how women are trying to take the "trident" of power for themselves in the Esther Williams character, and what it's costing women). The trident is going straight towards his face; why? The face is the seat of our identity, more than anything else, the face is the means by which we are identified and others identify us as who we are (and this is individual, because only you have your face, but the "identity politics" of the Left want to take individuals and "group" them by skin color or sexual identification so they are no longer human individuals but a mass with no individual identity). So, when we see the trident (phallic symbol) going towards Arthur's face, it's a statement that masculinity (the trident phallic) threatens his identity (his face) and he doesn't want to be associated with masculinity, which is why in the next frame or so, we see him smashing a sword in half: that sword is a phallic symbol like Excalibur, and Arthur Curry smashing it is basically a castration of other men of their masculinity, and this is what he's going to do to his brother, King Orm (which is like "worm"). We saw this in Wonder Woman and the god-killer sword: Wonder Woman was killing men with it to usher in a "feminist, socialist future," which is exactly what the Left wants. Further, because this is an underwater kingdom, water is typically associated with women, i.e., matriarchy because water is just a big body, in opposition to land which has definite features (desert, meadows, mountains, etc.). 

There are going to be a number of parallels to King Arthur with Aquaman: "Arthur Curry (Jason Momoa, Aquaman) learns that he is the heir to the underwater kingdom of Atlantis, and must step forward to lead his people and to be a hero to the world." Sounds like King Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) doesn't it? King Orm (Patrick Wilson) is the full-blood ruler to the throne, the son of the king and the queen, whereas Aquaman is only the son of the queen, so, in essence, the roles of King Arthur and Arthur Curry have been reversed: Arthur Curry is more of the Vortigern figure who shared a mother with Uther (Eric Bana) but was the legitimate king of Camelot, King Orm is the legitimate king of the,... water, and Arthur Curry is the outsider trying to take power.
Why?

This is King Orm (Patrick Wilson) and he is white. Just like the white bullies we see when Arthur is little, there are big white bullies when he grows up (and we also see this with the kids being bullied in the very pro-socialist IT). Now, like Grindelwald in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald, there is a war being threatened between two different worlds (the magical and non-magical world, and the water world and the surface world). Now, you probably caught the obvious reference to Black Panther when King Orm announces that his brother has arrived to challenge his right to the throne (we saw this with T'Challa [Chadwick Boseman] and Eric Killmonger [Michael B Jordan] and then we also see Arthur challenging Vortigern for the throne in their last epic fight in King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword) the difference between these two films is that the challenge has been flipped: both films posit that the current ruler is legitimate (T'Challa and King Orm) but whereas the audience didn't want to see Erik Killmonger beat T'Challa, the film is going to put the emotional tension with Arthur Curry challenging and defeating his brother (of course, in King Arthur, Vortigern murdered his brother and tried to steal the sword, so we are emotionally identifying with Arthur as the outsider trying to regain the throne). So, Aquaman is appropriating a highly masculine and ritualistic battle--the physical fight between two men for the right to rule--and giving it to the "feminine" and socialist Left, suggesting that the Left can be as masculine as the Conservatives and capitalists without spreading "toxic" masculinity. 

King Orm is white,... really white, and as such, he also belongs to the world under the sea, so King Orm is the status quo; Arthur Curry is half Polynesian (Momoa is half-native Hawaiian) so that's enough to qualify him for the horrible identity-politics of the Left to make him eligible to challenge the white, heterosexual male dominance of power (according to how the Left sees reality). So, just as Hillary deserved to become president simply because she's a woman--according to the Left's logic--Arthur Curry deserves to become king simply by virtue of the fact that he's an outsider: "You think you're unworthy to lead because you're of two different worlds," (that is, the liberals and minorities), "but that is exactly why you are worthy." Identity politics: anyone who is not middle-class and white is worthy to rule.
Now, this is where it gets interesting,...

Isn't it cool that Arthur Curry can talk to fish? Well, actually, no. Those fish are his "subjects," his "followers," because he rules over them. In reality, we don't talk to fish,. we don't talk to animals, we talk to other humans (yes, I know, you say things to your cat or dog, but apart from a wagging of the tail or looking intently at whatever good thing you are eating and their gestures indicating that they want what you have, isn't "talking" because they can't share with you what they think, what they feel; they can communicate what they want or need, but they can't tell you what they believe, hope or dream about for themselves because they are animals; we talk to other people to discover these things about them, and to reveal these things about ourselves to an audience who can reciprocate, appreciate and understand what it is we are saying).  Arthur Curry talks to fish the same way Hillary Clinton talks to her supporters: they are dumb animals. The Left genuinely believes that you and I are nothing but animals and we are not the children of God, we have no soul, no dignity and no individuality; so seeing Arthur Curry talking to the fish puts us, the audience, on the level of those fish, just as in the Harry Potter universe, Christians are muggles. It's the job of every story to embellish their own set of values and demonize the sins of the position they wish to counter with their own moral; every film, story, play or other work of art does this to some degree or other, and Aquaman and Harry Potter do this by glamorizing their world so you will want to be a part of it (every narrative does this). No one wants to be left out and ostracized, but would you rather be left our or be a fish?
One last little, but important detail. Typically, when there is a hero, it's important that the hero demonstrates humility and doesn't want the power or the rule which is being offered to him as a result of his labors; this is standard, we expect humility from heroes, so when Arthur Curry says he's back home because he had no choice, this is usually understood as "answering the call" to do something great," and this is a typical part of what is known as the "hero's journey." HOWEVER, I fear, deeply, that this standard device of humility is actually covering something far more sinister in this film (again, I hope I am wrong about the movie, but this is what it's looking like to me) namely, that when Arthur Curry says, "I have no choice," he actually means he has no free will because free will doesn't exist, he has to do what he has to do because there is nothing else for him to do because he's just an animal, like the fish he's talking to. This is detrimental because free will is essential to individuality and exactly why socialists try to undermine it every chance they get. 

Donald Trump.
Arthur Curry says, "Trust me, I am no king,... I'm no leader." Neither was Trump. Arthur Curry is an outsider, and so was Trump, never having had a political office in his life, being instead in the business world, not the political world. Arthur Curry says, "I came here because I had no choice. I came to save my home and the people I love." Well, well, well,... isn't that EXACTLY what Donald Trump did? He loves America and he ran for president to save his home and the people he loves. OH, but he's saving the people we HATE!!! The Left screams with their horrible shrieks! But it's okay for this same platform to be applied to a minority, but not for a white, heterosexual male (remember, it wouldn't be as bad if Trump were gay). And of course, the minority retorts, "Trump is so dumb!" But what does Mera tell Arthur Curry? "You do your best thinking when you're not thinking at all." So, again, it's okay for Arthur Curry to be devoid of leadership skills and thinking, to want to save his home and his people, but not okay for Trump. Now, this is a couple of minutes of a two-hour-long film, and I could be wrong, and I hope that I am:  there is nothing I want to admit more than that I am wrong about what we are seeing in this trailer. I really like director James Wan but this is a big-budget Warner Brothers production, and they desperately need a success in the DC Universe, so, realistically, there is a lot that is probably beyond his control in this film, however, this trailer lays the foundation for a film that is supporting socialism and working against the establishment.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner