Libertarian Movies

Always great to see when movies have major themes that reflect our times, as art should reflect and comment on our times. Even moreso, it's the recent big blockbuster movies, and that means they resonate and connect with the majority of the public. Here are some recent ones:

SPOILER warning.


Zootopia
The civilized public fears a certain classification of the public when the cops blame "predators" (lions, tigers, foxes) as inherently vicious, saying it's in their DNA. This could be said about govn't racial profiling muslims, black and brown people, natives, japanese/asians, etc. and the fear spreads in the public. Authorities say they're not racist or ignorant, but they are, and the public knows it.


 
Bridge of Spies
Even prisoners (of war) deserve due process and civil rights. I was thinking about Guantanamo throughout watching it.
And, as shown in the negotiations, war is always about a show of force, a dick size contest. The US, East Germany, Russia all want to look powerful.


Jurassic World
Vincent D'Onofrio wants to make the raptors a military weapon. Bad guys always seem to want to turn things into a weapon, don't they... Govn't wants to equip and arm "moderate" rebels? Psh, good luck. Look where it's gotten us.


Captain America The Winter Soldier
Redford/Hydra wants to take away freedom for security, calls for pre-emptive attacks, drone bombing, to kill people that a database labels as enemies, without due process. Sounds like obamadrones, and obama's matrix.
One of Captain America's great lines is, "By holding a gun at everyone on Earth and calling it protection."
Captain America is on our side, his friend Bucky is mind-controlled on the other side.


 
Mad Max: Fury Road
Many great themes here.
Man nuked itself. Wars for oil.
Water controls the people.
The brides want freedom and liberty from patriarchy.



 
The Lego Movie
Freedom and liberty from the rules and regulations of the father figure.

Star Wars
Rebels against a fascist empire.

The Hunger Games
Rebels against a fascist empire.

Citizenfour
about Edward Snowden. Just pointing out that is got the Academy Award. Nuff said.

Dirty Wars
US war crimes.
nominated for Academy Award

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
anti-war themes

Ender's Game
war games. War is all a game.

The World's End
Simon Pegg does a long speech at the end about freedom and liberty.

My Defense of The Prequels

   This is a collection of my thoughts on The Prequels, of Star Wars. That is to say Episode 1 The Phantom Menace, Episode 2 Attack of the Clones, and Episode 3 Revenge of the Sith. Perhaps I'm the only one in the world who likes them, whatever. I mean, I don't think they're the greatest of the Star Wars films, but I find the major aspects of them (the art, Palpatines' politics, Anakin's journey towards the dark side intertwining with the government's journey toward the dark side) fascinating, moving, entertaining, and fitting, because it is straight from the creator, George Lucas. I think the stories work. I think the art works.
   As of this writing, I've seen the Episode 7 The Force Awakens twice, but I may or may not write about it yet here in this post. But as always and at any rate, SPOILER WARNING.
   The whole of Star Wars has personal meaning to everyone, and it's totally subjective. People may say Star Wars is about this and that, or it SHOULD be about this and that, that the Prequels weren't about this and that. Well so, this is my opinion.
   People say Star Wars is about the hero's journey, about Luke. Well, yes and no. I mean, yeah for ANH, but now it's much bigger than that. The Star Wars series is about the Skywalker family and how they fit with the Republic/Empire. It's both intimate (about family) and big (about society). I think it's kind of that simple. It's how all these things relate, as the Force relates to everything, surrounds, binds the galaxy together. It's operatic, it's mythic. Also, it is melodramatic. It has always been. It's pulp.
  The Galactic Republic, probably most exemplified by the look of Naboo and Coruscant, is SUPPOSED TO BE glossy, grand, not dirty, rich, etc. It's the height of society. I have like 15 "art of" and "making of" Star Wars books I've read cover to cover, and the concept design is thought out and fitting for the SW universe. Naboo is decorative like art nouveau and classic Greco-Roman, as in contrast, the Empire is cold and sterile, like the inside of a computer. After the Senate and Jedis are crushed and the Emperor takes over, the world goes to shit. Infrastructure goes to shit, things become rusty and dirty. After a war, people salvage, people make-do. The Rebel Alliance are scappers, cobbling together old parts to make their vehicles, because they are not the Empire with money. When there is a totalitarian regime, the lower and middle classes are neglected, competition and entrepreneurship is squashed. You just get what the government allows you to have. You barter, salvage, smuggle, run a black market, as Han does.
   Little Anakin used to be a good innocent boy, saying "Yippees" as someone from the '50's might, like Lucas, or someone from a Norman Rockwell painting, as Lucas and Spielberg both have Rockwell collections. And it's so interesting to see this kid become the most evil mofo of the universe, Darth Vader. So, Jake Lloyd wasn't the greatest actor. Neither was Mark Hamill. And certainly many of the Imperial officers in the Classic Trilogy (ANH, ESB, ROTJ). But, Lloyd did have some great moments of anger, at the Jedi Temple, and this was probably key in him getting the part. I think his character attributes were great -- a kid piloting a dangerous pod racer (showing Jedi reflexes), a generous being wanting to help strangers and a kid in love (innocence), and someone who can fix anything mechanical (but can't fix life and death of his loved ones, and also becomes mechanical himself). His life is turned upside down by leaving his mother to go with the Jedi. Perhaps it's one the reasons he hates the Jedi later. They make him lose attachments.
   Hayden Christensen, like Mark Hamill, I think looked older than the age they actually play. From complaining about not getting to go to Tosche Station, or complaining about being held back by Obi-Wan and the Jedis, they are both impetulant brats (like father, like son) that probably should look younger, however the actors probably needed to bridge the span from teen to adult. Christensen's Anakin comes across strong, and creepy, to Padme because the Jedi's don't get out much. They are celibate monks. And he's a teenager with emotional problems, seduced by power. I have more of a problem with Natalie Portman's acting, as she only plays being weirded out, one note, but her character needs to have a glimmer of interest even before her love confession at the top of the Geonosis gladiator arena scene.
   The greatest thing about the Prequels is the political intrigue. It's the aspect most hated by most, but their loss. It's the story that mirrors and entwines the Skywalker's. Senator Palpatine plays both sides (multiple sides) of the trade conflict to start a crisis to create a situation where he could move in as Supreme Chancellor, and then Emperor. Anakin would be Palpatines' muscle in the end. Anakin's drive for power for control stems from the things he couldn't control in life (his mom's plight, vision of Padme's death, how the Jedi's don't really like him). And so, Palpatine's story of the Sith Lord Darth Plagueis and the knowledge to "cheat death" to peak Anakin's interest is probably one of the best scenes in the series. Ian McDiarmid should've gotten some sort of Academy Award. After Anakin becomes Darth Vader and terrorizes the galaxy, HE is the one to kill the Emperor and find redemption. It's an amazing arc.
   Other aspects that I love about the Prequels were the lightsaber fights of Jedi's and Sith in their prime, Darth Maul, the podrace, the Clone Wars, the brotherly feud between Anakin and Obi-Wan also mirroring the Jedi and Sith point of views, how the Clone Army story-wise and visually becomes the Imperial Stormtroopers, the portrayal of democracy dissolving into a dictatorship by imperialism, militarism. If you know anything about history (kings in general, Napolean, Hitler, USA, etc.), it's the history of our world told over again and again. War motivating a fascist security police state. Bureacracy and corruption motivating calls for more executive power. This is both universal, and personal. It's Anakin's story. It's the Galactic Republic/Empire's story. I think it's genius.
   Jar Jar Binks was innocence (and slapstick), but sometimes "too much." But so is C3PO, a character I can't stand. There is "cheese" to be found in the Classic Trilogy -- the "you rebel scrum" lines, Chewie's cowardice of the dianoga, the antics as they all run around the Death Star, the Ewoks hijinks. A lot of it is campy. It's fun. The Battle of Naboo had "accidental" victories because it was still a innocent time. The Clone Wars is where the Civil War starts to get serious. Well, as serious as SW can be. By ROTJ, things got the most dark, more was at stake; it came to a head for the Skywalkers. The series had to have a progression.
   Lucas' world of Star Wars, his visual choices, is a certain aesthetic. His choices are appealing and popular. I don't like Star Trek aliens; I like Star Wars aliens. Many concept artists can present designs in front of Lucas, but he is the one calling the shots. Joe Johnston and Ralph McQuarrie, Doug Chiang, Terryl Whitlach, Iain McCaig, and Ryan Church worked on many other films, but I'm not crazy about any of their other designs, they weren't as memorable as the Star Wars films. Disney had an eye for design and how it appeals to the majority of audiences as well, and had his artists almost make a science out of it, using proportions and style. For the lack of a better word or explanation, it was an aesthetic. The character designs of these greats, Lucas and Disney, sell mechandise. They are appealing to the masses. I can't say any designs of Don Bluth or Dreamworks appeal to me. I don't have a desire to purchase their toys, if they had any.
  I should probably write another separate post of my thoughts on Episode 7 The Force Awakens, which is mostly positive, but briefly my thoughts on the designs were kinda...meh. The orangey-ET Maz was ugly with small eyes and thin lips. The tentacle ball was ugly and stupid, like something from JJ's Star Trek movies. The stormtroopers looked like cheetahs. Kylo Ren was a bit racist, looking like Omar Sharif in Lawrence of Arabia. The Supreme Leader Snoke looked like ass. Captain Phasma belongs with the cylons. However, BB-8's design was genius. Rey's speeder was great simplcity. Jakku the junk planet was awesome.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus DECON PART 1

The first time I saw Parnassus, I think I had mixed feelings. It was an awesome adventure, felt it was layered and meaningful, but also confusing. I wasn’t sure I understood the plot entirely. I’ve read and listened to reviews and podcasts floundering about as well, trying to make sense of it, but always talking around it, never about what exactly is going on and what is seen. As I researched more into esoteric and occult subjects and got the blu-ray and listened to Terry Gilliam’s commentary a few times, I’ve seen the movie around 5 times now. I think TG is a genius, always have. Movie-wise, dialog wise and scriptwriting wise, it’s a little rough on the edges because characters sometimes flatly state their intentions and repeat information a lot, but really I wouldn‘t have known because the accents, mumbling, and overlapping lines make it difficult to understand what’s going on, so watching it with subtitles was extremely helpful. But as far as the ideas and potential of the film - brilliant, amazing, awesome, enlightening.

Jumping right into some analysis, all the imagery in the Imaginarium has meaning. It’s a reflection of the imaginations and thoughts of the people who go inside that mirror on the stage. In the beginning, the drunk trudges through bottles. I think the jellyfish and space is like an underwater feeling of being drunk. When the boy enters, it’s all toys, candy things, and air-inflated things for the video-game playing kid to blow up. The shoppers (the tall one is Brienne of Tarth , btw) dream of jewelry and baubles, etc. As the movie goes on, more and more people enter the mirror, aka the Dr.’s mind (not sure how) who polices it, and so there are a mixture of people’s imagery competing for attention, as well as the competing Mr. Nick, a type of devil character. The imagery represents the temptations, the distractions, the decadence, and they are respectively dazzled, lured like a fish. It is unless they drop it all, sacrifice worldly things, choose the Dr.’s long hard road path, they'll come out an enlightened changed person. It’s about reclaiming spirituality in a time of ignorance, hence the odd traveling wagon show juxtaposed near modern settings.

TG’s commentary explains that Dr. P came from a monastery of ancient jewish/tibetan monks (who say “om vei“), and believe their role is to tell the story to define the world. The tree stump Dr. P sits on is the Tree of Life that was cut down, and the monks feel, quite arrogantly, that they replace its role - they are the lifeblood of the world and their story is the only story. Mr. Nick enters, proves them wrong by shutting their mouths, but Dr. P supposes someone else in the world is telling a story. So TG states his feelings on religion - all the Christians and Jews, etc. have got it wrong. It’s ALL of our stories. I believe there is a truth, an enlightenment, to be found in all things; the ancients knew it, but it was broken apart long ago. And also, it’s an ancient idea that we manifest events and things, past, present, future, that we are all part of a one-consciousness. The story of Dr. P is really a story of the lost and found-ness of the ancient mystery schools, i.e. pre-religion. And he is trying to tell us again, as Anton says in that mystical phrase, "for those with eyes to see and ears to hear."

The Wagon: The wagon is loaded with symbols, from ancient Egyptian, Greek, Buddhist, etc. The illuminated great all-seeing eye in pyramid, twin pillars, Anton dressed as Mercury, etc. Dr.P, in various Asian and exotic garb, has acquired all this through his immortal years, and it’s just so dense, it’s indecipherable, and yet maybe that's the point. This is antiquated spiritual imagery that most people are ignorant of and do not care. Dr. P and friends have a very hard time gaining an audience in the modern world that worships consumerism. Later, Tony, Heath Ledger’s character, a smoothtalker chameleon that adapts to situations, comes in and changes up the design of the stage, to modernize it, and it does the trick. And the new stage will have other symbols. More on that later.

The Deal: Mr. Nick and Dr. P make various gambles to spice up life, TG explains. In Dr. P’s ancient book, he explains to his daughter Valentina that Mr. Nick wagers that it is fear that runs the world and how to control it (Mr. Nick portrayed amongst priests, very telling of what TG says about the rise of religion). Mr. Nick believes in the “necessities of danger, fear and the fabled bliss of ignorance.” However, according to TG, Dr. P says it’s about joy, “the power of the imagination to transform and illuminate our lives.” First to 12 disciples wins, Dr. P wins immortality. BTW, Anton, I think, is an extension of Dr. P, for Andrew Garfield plays everything in a fun and playful way. Mr. Nick, TG explains, isn’t really the devil, he’s somewhat below that, some second-rate figure. The two immortals run these battles with mankind, they gamble because it’s interesting to them, or else things get boring. Percy is like Jiminy Cricket, the conscience. And, I don’t think Dr. P, the protagonist, is entirely that good of a person actually, for he wagers lives for selfish reasons. Evil Mr. Nick even seems to have a heart near the end, offering to gamble again so Dr. P can get his daughter back. These main story elements about what pushes and pulls mankind through the ages, and which school of thought governs us, saves us or destroys us, is probably the main interesting and powerful thing about the movie

 Well, that’s just part of my first page of my 5 pages of notes. I’ll split this up into several posts.

THE FILMS OF CHRISTOPHER NOLAN part 2

The Dark Knight Rises continued.

[spoilers]

The quotes below are transcribed from a podcast called /FILMCAST.

“Colin writes in:
The film makes a number of allusions to the French Revolution in a event where the common people overthrew the wealthy yet suffered under the hands of their own disorganization. The liberation in the prison in the film is liberation of the Bastille where the peasants and convicts began looting and pillaging from the homes of the rich. Moreover the people’s court of law headed by Cillian Murphy sentenced citizens to death without fair trial similar to the way executions were carried out during the French Rev. Also, similar to Robespierre during his Reign of Terror, Bane was the intellectual giving compelling speeches to the masses while ruling Gotham as a dictator. You (the podcasters) addressed the notion as the 99% and suggested the film might antagonize the rich, however I think the film’s message is that while our economic institution and administrative structures are not perfect, they are preferable to anarchy, terror, and manipulation of the masses by a few, as was the case when the French Rev. resulted in oligarchy and despotism.”
“Well, you can read all those things. You can read the cultural revolution in China. I think what Nolan has said is the political side of things is little more open, because you can view it multiple ways and it’s not as definitive as ‘oh, this is pro-Occupy Wall St.” or against it or anything.”

The reason one "can read all those things" is because they all stem from the same thing. The French Revolution was started by the jacobins, who were largely freemasons (but again, I'm not bashing freemasonry, just illuminated freemasons). I have yet to do research on how Mao Zedong got into power. Wall St. and russian freemasons in the Great East of Peoples of Russia started the soviet revolution.


“David Su writes in:
One thing I wanted to chime in on is the nature of the 99% vs. the 1% theme. At one point, Dave referenced an editorial the purported the film to be in support of the 1% since they seem to be the primary victims of Bane’s uprising. However I think Nolan was making a much different statement on the socio-economic situation facing Gotham and thus America. With Batman gone for roughly 7 years and crime nearly nonexistent due to the harsh regulation imposed by the Dent Act, a new set of problems have emerged in Gotham; a widening wealth gap, growing unemployment and corruption in the financial institutions. Catwoman’s dialog in the ballroom scene reinforces this notion, and I think as an audience we are meant to bring our understanding of what’s going on in reality with things like the Occupy Wall St. movement to the film. As soon as we hear the phrase 1%, it’s safe to assume Nolan is drawing a clear parallel between Gotham’s woes and unfortunate economic truth which have become apparent in America over the last 4 years (well it's been decades or more really). Early in the film, the police discover the body of a young man outside a sewer drain, and we quickly learn through officer Blake that he “aged out” of a boy’s home that is no longer receiving funding from Wayne Enterprises. I believe the boy’s home represents the welfare programs and other social institutions that the 1% refuses to support by defying increases in taxes and corrupt financial practices. As soon as good men like Bruce Wayne stop paying attention to details, the corrupt can run amuck, much as they have in our own under regulated financial system.
The money is not trickling down to the people that need the safety net and the crippled economy is not offering those people an opportunity to make it on their own."

He has some good points, but this last part is typical mainstream misunderstanding. It's not that the financial system is "under regulated," it got that way through cronyism. Not capitalism -- crony capitalism. Regulations are written by corporations to hurt competitors and small businesses. De-regulation took off the brakes only because the FED was their guaranteed parachute. Also the idea of trickle-down is ridiculous, as I'll explain later. But these are 2 big false debates in mainstream media that for some reason people don't think through and do enough research, because they address the symptoms (Keynesianism band-aids) and not the cause of the economic crisis (cronyism).

"Enter Bane. With so many disenfranchised young men as well as unemployed members of the lower class having no where else to turn, Nolan is proposing a worst case scenario, a situation where people would actually turn to an anarchic leader with plans for a violent uprising. In this sense, the film isn’t victimizing the 1%, but warning them that if they don’t let things even out by paying their fair share, members of the 99% can organize this sort of violent revolt, literally engaging in class warfare."

I agree that's the movie is a warning to everyone that the disenfranchised and desperate may turn to a compelling leader, which they have in the past and present. We can list the names of all tyrannical leaders. But I don't agree with saying "1% paying their fair share" would prevent class warfare or solve the economic problem. If what they are saying is to raise taxes, it's the false paradigm that again the mainstream media would like to pit the left vs. the right as left or right stances. It would NOT even begin to scratch the debt or the spending problem. The debt is literally unpayable, it needs to be "forgiven." The FED needs to stop making and popping bubbles. I mean, there are many things that address the symptoms vs. the cause. And if people stop listening to mainstream corporate media, they'd join the people awake and address the causes.


"This interpretation really refrains or possibly conflicts with the final showdown between the police and Bane’s thugs. If you look at Bane’s army as misguided young people with no place to turn, it’s harder to see them as simply evil criminals that deserve an ass kicking from Batman. They may have gotten in over their heads and not realized Bane’s plan involved anything beyond an attack on Wall St. Granted much of the violence in the streets towards the end could’ve involved the released prisoners, but it was still pretty clear that Bane had amassed a large group of followers before taking control of the city. I wished we’d gotten a perspective of one of these young men, not that the film needed another character to track, and see how his allegiance to Bane was reluctant and regretful because it really would’ve added another layer to the whole 99%/1% them. I know there’s not a ton of evidence to support this interpretation, but I thought it was worth sharing.”
“Under David’s interpretation, the movie is not anti-99%, it’s just saying it’s anti-inequality.”

Which is what, a socialist view? Look, you're not going to solve inequality. Again, that's symptoms.

I agree that it's a shame most people are "followers." Sheeple will follow leader who speak well and are convincing, and that's what's interesting with Nolan's Bane. He a brute, but talks like a politician.