White House Down: Obama as Action Hero Vs. Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Posted on by admin

Die Hard at the White House as Obama propaganda. Okay, now you know the entire movie. Well, not really, because this movie has what Die Hard did not: An invulnerable hero, played by Channing Tatum. What made the original Die Hard so good was John McClane’s weaknesses and real injuries. In this movie, Channing plays John Cale, who seems to live unscathed through a thousand poorly aimed bullets by sharpshooting criminals, deadly falls, and even a grenade. I know, I know, even the new Die Hards have become that. But I mean not even a scratch on the guy. Makes it rather unsatisfying because you never really believe he can be caught or hurt by the bad guys so your emotional investment is lost.

John Cale is a security agent for the Speaker of the House who is trying desperately to get a job with the Secret Service because his daughter worships the President as hero, and no longer feels that way about him. He’s divorced, and he’s messed up one time too many, but he figures if he can protect the one person his daughter sees as a hero then maybe he can gain her trust back. And that is the emotional power of this story of a father and daughter in the midst of a terrorist take down of the White House. It’s actually quite touching and it’s what makes this story rise a little above its otherwise excessive action movie set pieces.

But the political and moral worldview of this movie is abysmal.

If you want to understand the moral worldview of the storytellers, look at the villain. The villain’s goals and rationale are what the storytellers believe are the dangerous beliefs in this world that must be stopped. And in this movie, the real enemies that exist in this world — the Islamic regimes and Muslim terrorists killing tens of thousands of innocents around the world, with the intent of imposing Islamic Law on everyone – THOSE villains do not really exist. The very real threat of Iran is just a figment of the vast right wing conspiracy theorizing. NO, the REAL enemy is the tired old Hollywood boogeyman, the “Military Industrial Complex” and “Right Wingers” in America who believe that Iran is a threat and must be stopped from getting nuclear weapons. I kid you not. This is the ludicrous view of the world that could only come from Hollywood.

First of all, Jamie Fox plays President Sawyer, an obvious Democrat Barack Obama President, who just like Obama, makes all kinds of references to himself in connection with Abraham Lincoln. Ironic, since Lincoln was a Republican who would condemn the Chicago mafia politics of Obama, and the slavery, KKK, and Jim Crow of the Democratic Party. But truth is often not important when people try to construct symbolism of themselves. Nevertheless, Sawyer/Obama ends up fighting the bad guys, shooting a rocket launcher and helping the hero save the White House, his daughter, America, and the World. The obvious intent here is to construct a narrative mythology that connects Obama to a superhero persona worthy of obedience and genuflection.

In the beginning of the film we see President Sawyer on TV talking about how “the source of violence is poverty,” in other words, the tired old Left Wing sloganeering that poverty causes crime. Really? So, all the tens of millions of poor people, many tens of millions more than those violent ones, who don’t engage in crime, why aren’t they violent? And since the source of so much violence in the world is actually driven by the rich, where is their poverty? This is the evil foundational belief of Marxism that reduces morality to economic terms because of its desire to control the wealth of others. With Presidents like this, who needs enemies?

In contrast with this religion of Leftism, Christianity claims that the fundamental cause of violence AND poverty is actually VALUES. It is moral values that drive human beings to do good or evil, NOT economic status. Those with good moral values do not engage in crime, even if they are poor. Those with bad moral values DO commit crimes even if they are rich. See Spot run. Duh. The real truth of the matter is, folks, that the most violence has been done upon this world through this very belief that economics causes crime (See: Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, North Korea etc etc.).

SPOILER ALERT: We soon discover that the President has a “Peace Plan” that consists of removing all American troops from the Middle East. Another absolutely immoral belief, since it would create the biggest slaughter and takeover by Islamists in the world. So when the villains first blow up the Capitol and take the White House hostage, we hear that everyone thinks they’re Arabs (Because, don’t you know, we’re all racists who have created an artificial boogeyman of Arabs as terrorists without any reason whatsoever. Just racism, yeah right.) The racist MSNBC newsman, Chris Matthews would love this movie and so do Islamists. But we ultimately learn that the bad guy is a Right Wing conspirator who tracked down a bunch of “Right wing sociopaths,” “racists,” and “White Supremecist” radicals as well as Libertarian nuts who are mad for the laws against online pirating. (One of the bad guys uses the derogatory term “Sheeple” of the hostages, which happens to be a term that right wing survivalist types use) Oh, and just to make sure, they connect the villain to religious Americans, the movie has the villain saying, “God bless us all.” I’m surprised they didn’t add a Tea Partier, a Pro-Lifer, or those “dangerous” types who don’t believe in big government.

But this all just reflects the same bigotry and Islamophilic prejudice that the current White House administration enforces when it scrubs all references to Islam, Muslim, Jihad and terrorist from its government documents and instead proclaims the real dangerous people to be pro-lifers, and “people who do not trust government.” Yeah, those are the REAL bad people we need to watch out for.

Okay, so this villain is taking over because he believes that there are no nukes in Iran, “But there will be,” so the President’s move will allow Iran to move forward. So the villain wants to rain nukes upon Iran in a Pre-emptive strike in the name of protecting the country.

So Iran will love this movie too! Because it shows what terrible victims they are of the big bullying imperialistic America, that we all know is trying to take over the world!

So, you get the analogy with the real world? Those in our real world who are warning that Iran will use nukes as Hitler would use nukes — because they are WORSE than Hitler’s Nazis — THOSE people are the dangerous ones, NOT the actual Islamo-nazis of Iran who will actually start with nuking Israel and move on from there. Those who say that sometimes we are forced by impossible options to stop a bully, or rather a serial mass murderer, by pre-emptively using force, those people are just warmongers and racists. Of course, in the real world, using nukes is the last option for such things. A pre-emptive strike does not require nukes. But this movie’s political posturing is actually an incitement of hatred (and violence?) against those who are arguing for the use of force to stop Iran from getting nukes. The filmmakers create a demonized image of their political opponents as dangerous violent crazy zealots to inspire the suppression of those views from the public debate.

Kinda like Chicago politics.

Kinda like the IRS.

Quartet: Growing Old Sucks $#!%!

Posted on by admin

Is all we have to look forward to in our twilight years, the hope for a one last curtain call? This was a cute, whimsical, and serious movie all rolled into one with some wonderful characters, drawn out boring singing scenes, and a depressing ending that is supposed to be uplifting.

In this story about a retirement home for accomplished musicians, all the old folks are preparing to perform a concert for Verdi’s birthday. But trouble happens when a diva, played elegantly by the wonderful Maggie Smith, arrives and stirs up past hurts with her ex-husband who also lives there and has been trying to avoid her for the rest of his life.

I like movies that make me examine my life and make me question whether or not I am investing in what really matters. Therefore, I like movies about death and movies about people facing the end of their life. But this one didn’t deliver in the usual way. It pretty much backfired.

Here’s why:

First of all, Billy Connolly is the lovable comic relief of the ladies man who still can’t stop hitting on the young working women at the retirement home. But you get the sense that he was a desperate bid to bring some life to an otherwise drab bunch of old cranks, half wits and babblers. Now, you would think that would not be the case, because some of the characters are dramatic and others cute and eccentric, and they all had successful careers as musicians, and singers, which was supposed to have given them a life well lived. So the idea of a group of such people preparing for a concert to reprise their yesteryears would make one think it is a good high concept. Unfortunately, there were too many indulgent scenes of showing the singers and musicians practicing that it just got boring and FAST FORWARDSVILLE, baby. I think the director, Dustin Hoffman, suffered from his actor’s perspective of thinking we want to see the real life ex-musical artists he cast bathing in their younger glories and singing pretty well on screen. Not me. I want a good story.

But I don’t want to be too hard on this movie, because the main theme of a divorced couple finding forgiveness at the end of life for past infidelity had a note of grace and hopefulness, especially at the ending.

But the problem for me was that all the forgetfulness, all the declining body functions, all the cute and mindless or silly babbling people, and all the reminiscing and fantasizing about the good old days when they were somebody that surrounded the few people with their wits just made getting old look entirely undesirable and dreadful.

But isn’t that what you want, Brian? Didn’t I say that I like movies that make me examine my life, yada yada? Well, not if the hope that is presented is an illusory and fleeting recap of the humanist attempt to find meaning in what ultimately has no meaning. And that is what this movie lacked for me: Transcendence. It tries to find hope in a hopeless situation, and in so doing distracts us from our real need.

Rather than finding some hope in the midst of a sad reality in this story, I didn’t find any because apart from that forgiveness moment of husband and wife, the big context of the movie’s big theme was summed up in the ending shot after their also-boring performance of the Verdi concert. The people we saw struggling through their age issues end up with a “glorious” slo mo curtain call of happiness after their performance of a song together, giving one the impression that they ended well or that they were ending their life with a joyful curtain call so to speak.

But this is not satisfying because it is shallow and empty.

I am sorry, but the revelation of a life lived by seeking to be loved through performance, and glorying over great songs or experiences or moments of singing is precisely that flaw that needs to be redeemed, not reinforced. It is the delusion of all artists and entertainers, of which I am both, so I know of what I speak. At the end of my life, I know that I am not going to look back on my life and consider all the art I did and how great it made me feel and try to rekindle older fleeting moments of vanity and chasing after the wind. Because I know that all of it will turn to dust. I am not going to be thinking of any of that. I know I am going to be thinking did I know and walk with my Creator? Did I give my life away to others? Did I invest my life in the truth that transcends our muddled and painful existence? If there is nothing beyond this existence then all the performance is a delusion of denial to keep us from facing the truth that none of it has lasting effect. It will mock us at our death. It will not be a curtain call, it will be a Satanic horror movie where reality is the opposite of our delusions and it will damn us.

I write about this very Ecclesiastes-like theme of angst and the despair of meaninglessness in my novel, Gilgamesh Immortal, a retelling of the Gilgamesh epic retold within the context of a Biblical worldview. We must be honest with the despair of reality and the meaninglessness of a worldview without ultimate transcendence, a worldview without God, and only then can we begin to find the truth that transcends that reality to bring meaning and purpose to our hollow humanistic lives.

Monsters University: Nerds, Outcasts, Oddballs (Like Me) Kick Butt

Posted on by admin

For anyone who has ever felt like they don’t belong, like they’re an outcast, or that they aren’t in the in crowd or that they don’t have that something special that others seem to have, or that they must be weird or an oddball and feel alone in a crowd – which pretty much describes me, which is why I loved this story.

The long awaited sequel to Monsters, Inc from 2001, brings back Billy Crystal and John Goodman in their roles as Mike and Sullivan, two lovable monsters seeking to be the best at scaring little children. This is an origin story about how they first met in college, that is Monsters University, and became the unlikely team that we saw in the original.

Though not as fresh as the original, and a little slow at the start, Pixar still does it right with this one by placing this story of identity, self-worth, individualism and team spirit into the fun environment of a university that gives degrees to monsters on scaring the real world.

We see that Mike has struggled all his life with simply not being scary. And yet that is all he wants to be. He is the typical nerd monster in grade school that everyone teases and laughs at. But he finds a way to make it into Monsters University, where he meets Sullivan, the monster with a pedigree of scariness, but a troublemaking slouch who doesn’t follow the rules, doesn’t try hard enough, and gets stuck with the Losers because of his irresponsibility.

So when they become roommates at the fraternity, OK (Oozma Kappa), which consists of nerds and outcasts, and an old guy going back to school, they begin in conflict because Sullivan sees they are all losers, but Mike believes if they try hard enough, they can all win the big Scare Contest of fraternities, and whoever wins, the entire frat or sorority gets to be included in the Scare Program, the elite degree that sends a lot of monsters to become quality scarers of children.

Needless to say, the nerds want to be accepted by the “in crowd,” who mocks them, Sullivan struggles with being a failure to live up to his family name by being with a bunch of losers, and Mike is the eternal optimist who believes that if everyone works hard enough, we can all achieve our dreams.

This is a wonderful story about appreciating the special value of each person as we discover that even the nerds and outcasts of the world have talents or special qualities that make them valuable people in the world. And it also deals with the issue of acceptance of those whom we deem “losers” because they can be among the most kind or giving people. But also, it is a journey for Sully who discovers quality people are more important than “cool people,” and he is just as frail with his own securities and fears as anyone else in the world. And Mike learns that you can’t always achieve what you want just by hard work, but you can apply your special skills in a way that achieves a special result anyway.

Both Mike and Sully learn that being a part of a team is more important than being a celebrity individual as they both fight to be the team leader (and therefore derail their success), until they learn to use their talents together. In fact, at the big climax, Mike, who seems to be cursed with the inability to EVER BE SCARY (the little monster is so lovable), finally learns to use his passionate book knowledge and study of scaring to help orchestrate Sully’s natural scaring skills to end up creating the biggest scare in the history of the University. Together, Mike uses his brains, and Sullivan his brawn to be the successful team they could not be alone.

So there is a lot of great heartwarming stuff about the value of being a team player and the selfishness of our individualistic “celebrity” culture mindset. The monsters don’t start “winning” until they embrace their specialness and utilize what talents they DO have as a team to accomplish their goal. And everyone has specialness, even the nerdiest nerds and the dorkiest dorks. And that is what results in success. But it doesn’t wrap up too easily or without some pain – just like real life.

SPOILER: One particularly poignant plot element is that Oozma Kappa does not win the tournament because of cheating by Sully, who wanted to help Mike. BUT, we see that they quit the school and work their way up at Monsters Inc. from the mailroom department to be the Scarers they are in Monsters Inc. This is a wonderful positive rejection of our bigoted “higher education” society that breeds the monstrous lie of the Enlightenment that Education is Salvation: Everyone needs a college education to make it in this world. But the fact is that entrepreneurs with passion who don’t fit in with that world of college (Like Bill Gates, AHEM) can achieve great things through their passionate pursuit and dedication to excellence and hard work.

For the Losers in all of us, this is a must see.

World War Z: Zombies Prove the Existence of God

Posted on by admin

I love the zombie movie genre. And when I think of what great things can be done on the usual cheap zombie movie budget like a 28 Days Later, or Rec, or Mutants (the French one), it is a shame to see the monumental waste of money on a megabudget zombie movie like this. I’m not saying WWZ wasn’t a good movie. It was a suspenseful, fast paced horror thriller with a cool new idea about zombies (namely, that they can operate like hordes of insects in their rage). But if that’s all you can offer with a gazillion dollar budget and superstar Brad Pitt (of whom I am a fan I might add), I’ll stick with 28 Weeks Later, The Horde, and even Warm Bodies, thank you.

What I mean to say is that WWZ is a shallow hero’s journey without an interesting character that we care about or any character arc that makes us empathize with him. Beyond a basic set up of Brad Pitt having a loving family of wife and two little girls, we know nothing else about this man’s soul to care about him, other than him being a guy who is trying to find the cure. There’s just nothing else to the story. Nothing much to say about it. It left me with an unsatisfied feeling. And that makes it another shallow big budget misuse of a good genre.

What? You may ask. Is there anything BUT a shallow zombie movie? Oh yes indeed. If you don’t know this, you are obviously not educated on the benefits of zombie movies for cultural enhancement and spiritual values. And I am NOT being facetious. So hang in there.

Zombie movies are a powerful genre to explore some rather penetrating ideas about our humanity and our ethics as a society. The basic thematic playground that the genre explores is:
What makes human exceptionalism? How are we different from mere animals? The ethic of survival versus self-sacrifice is played out in a tale of survival against those who have lost their humanity. When humans become consuming machines (Dawn of the Dead), or mindless wasteful youth (Sean of the Dead), or macho militarism without restraint (28 Days Later), or focused on our own survival over others (28 Weeks Later), then that is what denies our human dignity and turns us into mere animals, which leads to our ultimate demise. The actual cause of zombies is usually some kind of virus or bacteria like a human Rabies, but the way the survivors deal with their dilemma reflects the spiritual ramifications of that loss of humanity at large. By exercising the ethic of self-sacrifice is how we as a society will transcend animal nature and be redeemed (like love in Warm Bodies).

For example, 28 Weeks Later has a main character save himself at the expense of his wife, only to be haunted in his conscience by his selfish actions. Meanwhile, throughout the story, we see that what makes us human is our elevation of others above our own survival. Those who act selfishly tend to die, those who sacrifice themselves to save others, often die, but are the humanized redeemed ones.

In this same sense, WWZ is not without its positive traits. For the very drive of Brad Pitt’s character to protect his family, and ultimately the human race is what causes him, and others in the story, to make decisions of self sacrifice for others. It is love that rises above natural instinct.

Zombie movies are not just about survival. They are usually about a conflict of ethics: The evolutionary ethic of survival of the fittest without morality versus the Christian ethic of self sacrifice. They often encourage values that reinforce human exceptionalism. If humans are more than mere animals, then we have to ask ourselves, what is it that makes us so exceptional? How do we transcend mere material animality? Lurking in the background of that question is the ancient answer that has been dismissed, nay despised, by atheism, materialism, naturalism, and the modern Left of the University and politics: That we are created in the image of God.

When you indoctrinate and condition a society to believe that morality is a social construct, that there are no transcendent ethics to which we are accountable because we are just another animal in the great evolving chain of being, then you should not be surprised when you reap the consequences of a society of people acting like zombies.

And that is why Zombie movies are arguments for the existence of God.

Beautiful Creatures: Ugly Monsters, Anti-Christian Hate Speech

Posted on by admin

Beautiful Creatures is a YA (young adult) paranormal romance, coming of age story about a teen, Ethan, who falls for troubled girl, Lena, who happens to be a witch. In just a matter of weeks, Lena is about to reach her 16th birthday, where she will be “claimed” by either the dark side or the good side of the powerful forces that control their lives.  Her uncle, Macon (on the good side) and her mother, Serafine (the wickedest witch of the west) both fight over her soul to pull her to their respective sides. The problem is that this Claiming for good or evil is beyond the powers of the witches themselves. It seems to be connected to some innate essence in them, but nobody knows which side will achieve the Claiming.

This is a tale of Fate vs. Choice and the belief that humans have the power to “make their own lives,” or “control their own fate.” It is a story about identity.

It sets up a world in the South of hackneyed stereotypes and cliché occultic powers. Christians are made out to be religious bigots who ban books to keep children from experiencing the wonderfully liberating glories of Kurt Vonnegut Jr., spout self righteous mean words about witches, reject outsiders, and of course, are racists (Since they are depicted as rejecting the book “To Kill a Mockingbird.” – Puh-leeze) In other words, they are the trumped up tired old boogeyman and whipping boy of secular bigots and Hollywood hicks who have no clue of the real world outside their cloistered mansions of vanity and self-righteousness.

Topping it all off, is the villain, who is the mean witch inhabiting the body of the most religious and uptight church lady of them all, Mrs. Lincoln, played by the otherwise inimitable Emma Thompson. The filmmakers go out of their way to show Lincoln using the name of Jesus and praying, as if we should all be aware of such “evil” people who love Jesus. Children’s prayers are shown as powerless against the young Lena, who can blow out windows with a mighty power. Hey, let’s all be pagans cause they have a more powerful religion!

Okay, so if you can get past this anti-Christian hate speech J, the movie deals with some other universal issues of coming of age and choosing our destiny for good over evil. Of course, there are good witches and bad witches, another modern bias, so it’s all about what you do with the powers you’ve been given. That’s why they like to call themselves “Casters,” (of spells) rather than the negative term “witch.” Ah, that liberal talent for euphemism and thought control through language.

But the entire dramatic question through the movie is: Can Lena control her own fate or is she subject to natural causes? The old free will debate.

This brings up a rather obvious undercurrent of theme to the entire movie, namely about the hormonal changes in young women as they come of age (the “curse” as they say), and whether or not they will give in to their emotional instability or master it. Politically incorrect, but truthful. Okay, this movie isn’t all bad. Boys and men are relentlessly chastised in our feminized society to learn how to suppress their natural urges for sex from their destructive tendencies. Finally, a story that admits girls and women have to fight their natural urges for emotional excess from their destructive tendencies. One merit.

But there’s another kind of redeeming theme that this movie wrestles with: Sacrifice. The problem that Lena struggles with is a curse brought upon her by her ancestor who was a witch during the Civil War. When this witch violated the natural order by casting a spell to bring her beloved back from the dead, she brought this curse that Lena now struggles with.

At one point in the movie, there is a scene of a preacher explaining to his congregation the power of sacrifice. He says that “Some people believe sacrifice is loss, giving up things in a world where we are supposed to be able to have it all. But I believe true sacrifice is a victory. It is giving up something you love for someone you love more than yourself.” And Lena realizes that to break the curse, she must do the opposite of her ancestor: She must let someone she loves die. She must give up what she loves most, and that will have to be her new love, Ethan.

Okay, now sacrifice is not an explicitly Christian notion. Pagans also believe in sacrifice. All religions have it through all of history, because the Creator embedded it into reality. But I still have to give some kudos for the film portraying ONE PERSON, ONE MOMENT of a real Christian speaking truth. Two merits.

And I have to give some credit to the fact that the villainess does say ONE LINE that actually resonated truth as well. Now keep in mind that what the villainess believes will be the worldview that is critiqued because the bad guy (girl) believes bad things. Got it? So when Serafine says, “Love is a spell created by mortals to give females something to play with beside power,” we see a rather poignant damnation of feminism. I’m not saying the filmmakers were deliberate here. They may not have realized it. I just don’t know. But that claim is precisely the bitterness and false accusation that feminism projects onto western culture. It is a bitterness that one of the heroes says sacrifice wins the battle against.  Again, it ain’t ALL bad. Three merits.

My ultimate gripe comes with the metanarrative that drives the worldview of this story, and that is the belief that our destiny is ultimately in our own hands. We “claim ourselves,” we don’t have to be claimed by anything outside ourselves, such as society, or other people, or even natural law – or even, dare I say — GOD?

Well I have an idea where that self-righteous view of human autonomy comes from. As the SNL Church Lady used to say, “Could it be – Satan?”

Cloud Atlas: Freedom, Dystopias, and Sex Change Operations

Posted on by admin

On DVD. As a movie fan, I have a love/detest relationship with the Wachowskis. Sometimes, they poop out very terrible pieces of excrement with bad philosophy, like V For Vendetta, and sometimes they make visually stunning, thought-provoking films — with bad philosophy, like The Matrix (I give them a break. No one is a 100% hitter). Cloud Atlas is one of the latter. One thing is for sure, they always deliver consistently bad philosophy. However, like Nietzsche, their hero (they are Nietzschean after all), they are great with words. And they are excellent at embodying their bad philosophy into story. They are great storytellers, these two.

Cloud Atlas is an adaptation of the novel by David Mitchell. The film is a quite fascinating intercutting of six stories that all take place in different time periods and sometimes different planets, yet are all interconnected in their theme because as one of their dialogue memes goes, “Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb, we are bound to others, past and present.” The brilliant hook they provide is that in each story, the same handful of actors play the lead characters in different roles. This is a very creative tactic to embody one of their themes that I will address in a moment.

1) One story takes place in the 1800s about an Englishman’s awakening to the horrors of slavery.

2) Another story takes place in the 1970s about a black American reporter uncovering a scandal by “Big Oil” to ruin the advent of nuclear power.

3) Another story takes place in the Victorian period, I think, about a homosexual music student that transcribes for an old famous composer, who uses the kid’s genius for his own benefit.

4) Another story takes place in the present, where an old geezer is forced into an old folks home by his brother and plans to escape with a motely band of other marginalized oldsters.

5) Another story takes place in the future, where a “fabricant” created for the pleasure of humans becomes self aware and turns into a sort of female messiah of revolution (One of the Wachowskis’ favorite themes)

6) Yet another story takes place in the distant future, after the apocalypse caused by that big oil scam, where a primitive man interacts with an alien humanoid and turns from a coward into a hero.

Whew! That might look like too much to follow, but it really isn’t. They do quite an excellent job of intercutting between cliff hangers of each story and bouncing around between the stories in such a way as to tie them all together in a thematic montage about freedom, oppression, dystopia, and identity politics. “We are bound to others, past and present.”

All the stories are about individuals who discover or live under some kind of oppression, whether its slavery, big corporations, old people in an old folks home, or the government in the future. They each have a unique individuality that causes them to feel constrained by their world and want to break out. Though my personal favorite was the post-apocalyptic story of a man who turns from coward to hero, the most philosophically blatant story is the futuristic dystopia.  There, the society is called “Unanimity,” which obviously represents homogeneity where everyone is the same in one big “unanimous” entity. Wachowskis are GREAT with working quotes elegantly into their storylines, and Cloud Atlas is full of them. Solzhenitsyn, the famous Russian intellect who wrote of Soviet Communist oppression of their own people in the post WWII era is quoted, “You can maintain power over people as along as you give them something. Rob a man of everything and you no longer have any power over him.” Beautiful truth that punches through.

Another beautiful phrase is spoken by the old man in the old folks home: “Freedom is the fatuous jingle of our civilization. Only those deprived of it have the barest inkling what it really is.” Yet another line that echoes through the stories in different character’s mouths as the revolutionary inspiration is the line of a movie, “I will not be subjected to criminal abuse.”

Like good Nietzscheans, they struggle against the very nihilism of a naturalistic world without God as several villains repeat, “Only one principle on earth. The weak are meat and the strong do eat.” The characters in this world are shaped by forces that “began long before we are born and go on long after we die.” In the future, fabricants are “expired” by being told they are going to “exaltation” (read: “heaven”), but they are only being processed into food to be given to other fabricants. In other words, transcendent beliefs are delusion. All there is is here and now and the naturalistic processes of life.

Now comes their magic trick. They attach that naturalism, a philosophy that believes in the existence of only natural causation, and therefore no supernatural, and they attach it to the villains in the stories who reiterate the philosophy that “There is a natural order to this world, and it must be protected.” They ask the question that if God created the world, then what changes and what is sacred and inviolable, and they conclude that our identities are socially, or more importantly, individually constructed.

This is identity politics, and I think is the main thematic thrust of the movie. As one character says, “All boundaries are conventions waiting to be transcended,” and “My life extends far beyond the limitations of me.” And lastly, as another says, “I can feel your heart beating as my own, and I know separation is an illusion.”

I think the import here is definitely the notion that our identities as humans is plastic. It is shaped by our own self-definition, not by God through his natural created order, because they believe there is no natural order of things. To them, the natural order is an oppression. And those who believe in natural law are the villains. So therefore to be a man or woman, gay or straight is oppression and we should be able to craft ourselves as anything we want, an obvious dominant theme in the Wachowski brother’s bad philosophy, and the obvious justification for Lana’s own real world body mutilation to change his gender. I suspect it will be a theme of just about every movie they make since it is at least Lana’s religion.

The way they embody this belief of theirs in the story is quite ingenious though. The same lead characters play the different leads of each story. But more importantly, just about every character plays both a male and female character (with make up of course), and a different race as well in the different stories. So Blacks and Asians play whites and visa versa. They incarnate the plasticity of human identity into their very filming, in order to show that there is no difference between men and women, different races, or even good guy and bad guy, as characters are good guys in one story and bad guys in another. While this certainly holds true for race because race is itself an artificial human construct that is of no significance, it is also applied to things that truly are significantly different, such as gender. So we create ourselves according to this postmodern nonsense.

Now, of course, this is a mixed bag, because the question of freedom and the individual is clearly a powerful and beautiful theme to reveal oppression and totalitarian control of the collective. There is much truth to this story and much beauty in its revelation of the abuse of power and order and the collective. Unfortunately, the filmmakers provide an answer of equal monstrosity, namely the absoluteness of the individual without accountability. They don’t realize that their statement about all of us being connected from womb to tomb by forces beyond us is in fact a statement about the very natural order, boundaries, and collective reality they condemn. Either we are connected to a transcendant order or we are not. Make up your minds, Wachowskis.

It represents the perpetual quest of man to reject God’s order and God’s Law as boundary conditions for our betterment. It is the Edenic rebellion of personal autonomy from our Creator.

Man of Steel: Jesus Was an Ancient Alien?

Posted on by admin

The previous Superman movie, what was it called? What was it about again? Eh, forgettable. Except that Bryan Singer clearly played up the religious connections of Superman with Jesus. He did miracles, resurrected from the dead, heard prayers, yada yada. In this one, Superman is age 33 at the time of the current story, and the director places him in front of a stain glass image of Christ in a scene in a church where he struggles with his identity and purpose. We all now know that Superman is a metaphor for Christ, and Man of Steel has a couple of religious elements in it, but with a twist. And that twist is the ancient aliens myth.

Thanks to Christopher Nolan, no doubt, this Superman finally has a richer character development and deeper moral struggle at the heart of his story. Superman is taught by his father to suppress his instinct to retaliate in order to mature in his character so he is capable of handling such great power (Shades of Spiderman! That’s okay. It’s an appropriate theme). Superman’s father doesn’t believe the world was ready for a man of such greatness who would change the world. But young Clark just wants to do good and protect people. He must hide himself in his secret identity because such great power out in the open will only be exploited by others for selfish ends.

The General Zod character is also much richer and a more genuine character in this film than the one we know of from years ago. He is not a mere “villain” who wants to pillage and destroy, he actually wants to save his people of Krypton, which makes him much more real of a character. The only problem is, he wants to do it by displacing us in-the-way earthlings through genocide. The moral dilemma of do you kill others to save your own? Great moral dilemma, which Nolan is always good at.

And a particular moment in the film was quite satisfying. As Superman is fighting with a female bad guy – I mean bad girl – from Krypton, she basically says that his weakness is that he has morality, which they do not have, and that is why he will lose, because evolution always wins. I believe that this is probably the single most widespread idea in the hearts and minds of criminal behavior in our era. Namely, that they justify their immorality by an appeal to what they were taught in their public schools and colleges: We are mere animals and evolution means there is no moral truth that transcends power and survival of the fittest. So if that is true, then there is no justification for moral restraint. Superman is the pinnacle argument against this evolutionary religious philosophy. Nice.

At one moment in Clark’s moral struggle, he has to decide if he should come out of hiding, and give himself over to Zod, or Zod will destroy the world. Then Clark says he doesn’t trust Zod, or for that matter, humans on earth. Clark confesses who he is to a priest who then tells him he has to take a leap of faith before he can find the trust. Didn’t make much sense to me. Too weak of a spiritual understanding to have much meaning. But Superman’s overwhelming motive comes from a love for people to protect them. And the moral of the film is spoken by Jor-el that he believes everyone has the potential to do good with their choices. Pretty bland generic theme without much grist. And if you ask me, it really doesn’t address the fallenness of mankind.

However, this film hosts THE BEST mano a mano superhero fights YET. It makes The Avengers look like, well, a mere comic book. The power and destruction of their battling carries a formidable and fascinating weight to them. One cannot help but draw a connection between Superman’s fighting and the need to fight terrorism in our era, Islamists who would overthrow everyone and kill them indiscriminately for the advancement of their own religious Sharia culture.

Another element that is appropriated in Man of Steel is Transhumanism. On the planet of Krypton, they have overcome natural birth and now create babies in artificial wombs to be genetically programmed to be workers or leaders or what have you (Shades of Brave New World!). The cool thing is that Jor-el, Superman’s father, has Kal-el (Superman’s name on Krypton) born naturally because he values freedom of the human will to decide for itself rather than being engineered by those in power. Quite the indictment of our Socialist mindset of social engineering and egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is the belief that every person should have equal outcomes, not merely freedom to pursue whatever one is best at, but the redistribution of power and wealth and ultimately personal identity through things like multiculturalism, feminism, victimization and other “ism” atrocities taught in modern universities. But egalitarianism is an immoral fraud perpetuated by the hegemony because those in power are the ones who are “more equal than others.” (Another Orwellian reference, Animal Farm). Excellence is dragged down to mediocrity, the health and wealth of ALL is ruined in the name of helping the poor, male and female differences are denied and males denigrated, and the only thing that grows is Big Government, NOT freedom, and all in the name of equality.

Jor-el uploads his consciousness into a computer, which creates another cool way to keep Russell Crowe in the story and communicating with Superman, which I’m all for keeping Russell Crowe in as long as possible. Unfortunately, this transhumanist notion of the reduction of human consciousness to physical digital properties of ‘I’s and ‘O’s is ultimately a materialist belief that humanity does not have a transcendant or spiritual component to us. Oh well, you can’t have it all.

Now for my complaint.

My number one mantra: Movies are not made in a cultural vacuum. And in particular, franchise movies that keep getting remade, often reflect the zeitgeist of the time in their fresh approach to the retold story. And one of the dominant memes of this era is the ancient alien mythology. I’m not talking about alien movies in general, we’ve always had those. I am talking about the belief that was first made popular by Von Daniken in the 1970s with Chariots of Gods, which then became more popular lately with Zechariah Sitchin, and the Ancient Aliens TV series on The Fairy Tale Channel – I mean the History Channel.

Ancient Alien mythology is the belief that religions originated because ancient man was visited by aliens from another planet, and because he was too ignorant and unscientific, he interpreted aliens as gods, and that’s where we got our notions of deity!  These “gods” exploited us to mine our planet for energy, and may come back. Lots of movies are built on this mythos, from Stargate, to Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull to Cowboys and Aliens. It’s all quite – a religious belief – these days – even by an increasing number of scientists. And they say Christians believe in made up stories! Sometimes I really think our “educated” sophisticated “scientific” culture is the most religiously superstitious ever.

I’m not gonna say that this movie is a propaganda piece for ancient alien mythology but merely that it reflects that zeitgeist in it’s new depiction. The entire atmosphere of the movie was that of Close Encounters with ships that looked like they were taken out of Prometheus (another ancient aliens story that literally claimed Jesus was an extraterrestrial alien!). So it’s feel is more about aliens and the destruction of natural resources (another zeitgeist theme of our era) than it is a traditional superhero story. But of course superhero stories are reflections of our cultural mythos. Jor-El, Superman’s Krypton father says that when his son gets to earth and experiences his extraordinary powers, the people will “think him a god.” But of course, we know better. He’s just an alien.

When Zod first makes contact with earth to try to get Superman, we see UFO shots and then Zod broadcasts onto all electronic media: “YOU ARE NOT ALONE.” This of course is the meme made famous by Carl Sagan in Contact, which caught on with alien mythology. This meme represents the attempt of secular materialists to replace spiritual hunger with an alien mythology in order to satisfy the inner longing in man to be more than mere particles in the universe. If only we knew that there are aliens, then we would know we are not alone, and somehow feel better. Of course, any honest person would admit that this does not solve our loneliness one bit, because our longing is a spiritual longing. Two lonely beings does not solve loneliness, it merely doubles it. We know that if we are mere animals without moral transcendence in an evolving universe, then our entire existence has no meaning and is empty. THAT is the loneliness we feel. And finding other lonely aliens in need of redemption would never satisfy that inner emptiness. And that is why the Ancient Alien mythology is ultimately a dishonest “god” replacement that does not satisfy the inner need for spiritual redemption.

While it wouldn’t surprise me to see Christopher Nolan, the producer and story originator, to be challenging such secular notions, it would surprise me to see Zach Snyder doing so, since he completely derided religious belief in 300. So maybe this partnership reflects that tension in Man of Steel as well.

The Purge: Hate the Rich Agitprop

Posted on by admin

Great concept, but terribly morally confused and untruthful. This film is in the satirical tradition of Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal, where Swift suggested they sell the children of poor people as food in order ease the economic burden of poverty and the growing underclasses. In this movie, the idea is very simple and high concept: In the near future, one night a year, called The Purge, everyone is allowed to release their hatred upon one another and not be arrested for their violence. The goal is to purge the hatred through a cathartic release of “the Beast” within as people rape and kill one another. Supposedly this cleans up crime to only 1% during the rest of the year, by “sacrificing” those victims of the Purge to the “cleansing” of that Beast. This comes from a “reborn America,” that was instituted by the “New Founding Fathers,” who instituted the Purge to decrease crime and whose praise is chanted by Americans in the phrases, “Blessed be America. May God be with you all.” And of course, in good hypocritical fashion, all government officials are immune from the Purge, just as they always are unaccountable to the laws they pass to saddle everyone else.

Coulda been great.

The hero, James Sandin, is played by Ethan Hawke, as the inventor of the new security systems that most rich people have to “lock down” their homes with steel doors and such. He believes in the Purge and is also excessively prepared to survive the night, with back up firearms and plans – oh, you know, kinda like those whacky survivalist types. The problem comes with a black homeless man who is being chased by some rich kids cries out to helped. One of Sandin’s kids lets him into their home, which sets in motion a violent bloodfest as a group of killers threaten Sandin to let the black homeless man into their hands or they will kill his entire family.  And the killers want to kill him because he is a “worthless non-contributing member of society.” And he is black, so they are also racists.

Well, I have to say this was a great concept to explore some complex moral issues such as how far do we go to defend ourselves? What do we do if presented with the impossible options of protecting our family vs. endangering that entire family to save one person. One versus the many. And especially how evil people can be when they think they are not accountable for their actions or if they think they can get away with their behavior. Not that the movie is saying this, but I think this is a powerful argument for the rule of law, as well as, the belief God. If people think that they will ultimately not be punished for what they do in this life, they will do heinous things – even those who seem like nice people on the surface, because the human heart hides a dark sinfulness.

The problem with the movie lies in its confused political morality.

It is an obvious parable about how the rich shelter themselves in their safety and “let the rest of the poor” fend for themselves. Some good potential there too. Which kinda made me think. Well, the most relevant example of that would have been to have the hero be a Hollywood celebrity in his rich protected mansion – not caring about the world they feed off of, or the poor they kick off their curbs – oh wait, those are the people making the movie. We can’t have that. Take two…

But the thing that makes this story fall flat with a lack of authenticity and true original thinking is the Hollywood Political B.S. of trying to tie this Purge concept and all the evil rich people to the Tea Party. Yes, that’s right. The obvious religious language and references to the Founding Fathers, just like the Tea Party always talks about returning to the vision of the Founding Fathers, and God and all that. But the problem is that the immorality of anarchic destruction and lawlessness is the antithesis of Tea Partiers who promote the rule of law peacefully. But lawlessness is more like that of the Occupy Movement with its laundry list of violent crimes like rape, theft, vandalism, and murder that plagues its hateful protests. This rhetorical connection is so opposite of reality that it makes the movie laughable propaganda instead of thoughtful moral exploration. The kind of thinking that results in such violent notions of catharsis and anarchic crime do not come from the Christian religious folk, but from the antichristian Leftist universities and Media machine that dominates this country. One of the few things this movie gets right is having the lead sociopath wearing some kind of prep school jacket or such, to try to show that the evil is just as much from the educated upperclass. Well, actually, it is precisely from that Marxist Leftist hatred of the rich and victimization philosophy that comes from the Universities that would breed this (atheist) French Revolution notion of The Purge. “The rich” are mostly not religious, but secular, so that whole “God bless America” rhetoric just doesn’t ring true. Too bad. It coulda been a thoughtful story.

And I just don’t see this desperate and consistent obsession to connect the “rich” with the Tea Party conservatives or the Republican party. It’s completely counterfactual. The top richest people in congress are almost all Democrats. Wall Street and Big Business give far more money to the Democratic party than the Republican party. The richest people in America tend to be liberals and leftists. All the above the line people of that very movie are statistically all liberal or leftists and they make profits far beyond “fair” compared to the little guys who work below the line. A story has to ring true to be good. This story doesn’t ring true.

SPOILER: At the end when the worst villains turn out to be Sandin’s rich neighbors who kill all the killers because they want the Sandin’s for themselves. And why? Because he got rich off of all of them of course! Really?! I think they are trying to say that the rich like to exploit but they don’t like being exploited. Okay, fair enough. But again, I think that the storytellers may not realize that they are inadvertently proving the point that the real evil that results in all this violence of our society is the victimization that results from the Politics of Envy. The fact is that it was not wrong for Sandin to become rich off an invention of protection that he provided the world. The profit motive is not what is evil, envy and theft is. The belief that getting rich is inherently evil is becoming so woven into our social fabric through government propaganda, media, and entertainment, that people are actually starting to believe the Lie. And that is the lie that justifies in their minds the evil they engage in to “purge” their own hatred with violent desires. The irony of it all is that it is the policies of the secular Left that lead directly to the oppression and exploitation of the poor and minorities, not the religious Tea Party. In order to have been a good movie that dealt with a moral issue fairly, they should have avoided all the politicizing. But if they were going to be truthful or consistent, the phrases that should have been spouted as the slogans of America should have been more like “pay your fair share” “spread the wealth around” and other Socialist or Marxist phrases.

And then the ultimate moral confusion comes when, after the bloodbath, and the wife of Sandin and her kids have the upper hand over their rich neighbors who are trying to kill them, she refuses to kill their attackers because “there’s been enough bloodshed” tonight. She wants to hold them until morning. Obviously they are trying to say that you must stop the cycle of violence by not returning violence with violence. Fair enough. But the problem is that this denies the morality of self-defense. If you do not kill those who are trying to kill you as they are trying to kill you, they will not stop trying to kill you. It’s human nature. Self defense is morally justifiable homicide. Now, if this was a normal legal situation, where they could be brought in to pay for their crimes, then it would be entirely acceptable to “capture” them and bring them to the Law because justice would be done. But that is not the situation. These murderers would go home without justice served, so the wife is simply allowing them to live to kill them the next time, which is not protecting her family. Now, one of the killers tries to get the wife’s gun and she gives the killer a broken bloody nose, so she’s not above using violence to get some “justice.” Wanna stop the killing. But the filmmakers recognize our need to see some comeuppance to the killers, so that’s why they threw that in there. But it ain’t enough. Because we know they will come back to kill again. So there is some worthy stuff in that ending worth debating, but it’s not worth the rest of the untruthful story to get to it.

In case you’re wondering, no, I’m not rich or a member of the Tea Party.

Now You See Me: Don’t See It

Posted on by admin

So, here is another one of those movies with terrible morals that Hollywood filmmakers think must be okay cause all the stars are cocky and cool. Harrelson, his lovable selfish self; Jesse Eisenberg and Morgan Freeman and Mark Ruffalo are all clearly defined characters with strong presence and clever scenes. But it’s really all about inciting hatred and violence against corporations because of so-called “grievances.” It flirts — no, makes out — with Occupy morality, that peculiar violent Marxist ethic that thinks stealing and vandalizing corporations is morally justifiable because they are “greedy.” This is the Ends Justifying the Means and it is immoral and unsatisfying in a story like this.

I would like to note that the filmmakers are themselves one-percenters, so they fancy themselves on moral high horses because they promote hatred of corporations like banks and insurance companies, while hypocritically excusing their own Hollywood corporations.

In this movie, criminals are good guys, and the good guys are the ultimate bad guys. In the end, all the people you think are good guys justify the crime and don’t care about justice. Oh wait, there is ONE partial good guy, played by Morgan Freeman, who ends up in jail for life, and apart from his own money self interest, is the only good guy who wants to expose the lies of the Occupy Magic stars.

So the morality here is all upside down, which means the storytellers are trying to misdirect us like a magic trick to accept their terrible immoral ethics inside a glitzy thriller movie package.

Don’t let them do it to you! Don’t watch this poor magic trick.