Category Archives: Movie Review

Breakfast at Tiffany’s (a movie reflection)

I enjoyed this movie, I recently saw it for the first time.  It made a startling commentary on the American Dream, and what it means to form the Identity of self.  I rank it as impactful of a movie as “Death of a Salesmen”.

In case you are unfamiliar with the movie, the movie is centered around Audrey Hepburn. she plays a rambunctious party girl who makes her living by playing on the sentiments of would-be playboys.  She is a copious flirt, who has no value in men other than what they can provide for her as far as lifestyle and status.  She is an interesting character in so much as she doesn’t place much value in her own feelings or emotions.  There is one point in the movie, where she chooses to be with a wealthy politician as opposed to the man she has fallen in love with, simply for the superficial life-style, that she doesn’t so much value.  She came from nothing, in fact, her first marriage was the product of a man who rescued her from stealing scraps in his field.  And she ran away from this marriage to seek bigger and better things in the world.  in fact, that is a repeating theme in the movie, Audrey’s character is constantly running from things.

She met her first husband by running away from her destitute life.  She ran away from this husband to pursue a lofty social status.  She ran away from this socialite life to seek a life with a foreign politician.Her love interest in the movie is a writer by the name of Paul Varjak,  She fell in love with him ran away from this because she wanted something better.  Eventually, her male co-star caught up to her and confronted her about all of this running.  And this is where I found so much value in the movie.  The movie deals much with the ideas of identity, social status, morality, self-sustainability, love and fulfillment.  When the co-star, who she fell in love with, finally catches up with her, she is forced to confront all of these issues.  She is forced to decide what she really places value in and what she will choose to cherish in life.

Is status really important, or is it all a facade in the long run?

Who exactly is she?

She has changed her name on multiple occasions because she was never satisfied with who she was to begin with.  She was in constant search of someone to be, when in actuality all she needed to do was discover who she was and value and be that.  She had to reconcile the fact that a man can have a greater value than just a provider of “things”.  A man can be a purveyor of love and companionship, something beyond the superficial role of provider that society has deemed him.  She had to reconcile this truth and accept it, only then could she understand what love is and accept the fact that she deserves this type of healthy love.

In one scene, she symbolically comes to terms with all of these truths.

Aside from the commentary this film provides on social aspects of society, it is well written and has a great comedic aspect to it.  I would recommend this movie to anyone on any level of viewership.  Like poetry, most art is subjective and the viewer of the art can derive any meaning they want from the art.  It just takes and a willing mind and shaping of perspective.

The Fountain (a movie reflection)

The Fountain:

This is a movie starring Hugh Jackman. he plays a scientist named Tom Creo who is losing his wife, Izzy, to cancer.

This movie is yet another movie that contains particular elements that I enjoy to discuss.  If you have read my other movie blogs, you can probably guess where this is headed.  Although, depicted with a twist, this is another movie that depicts gnostic ideals intertwined with messianic themes.  Although, one can say they are the same because to an extinct gnostics or those involved in mystery schools believe men can become their own Savior.  They belief this process and knowledge is reserved for the worthy or those in the know and like Jesus said “let those who have ears to hear, hear and eyes to see, see”

The movie is broken in up into a Trinity of sorts.  Tom lives out three different lives within this film.  And like the last movie that I reviewed, Sublime, the three story lines are told concurrently and tend to intertwine.  So that the viewer does not know where one ends and the next begins.  Tom’s three lives consist of that of mid-evil times representing his lower man–lower self.  That of contemporary time–representing his current state of mental progression–a machine like being where the belief in technology can save all.  And that of a spiritual time–outside of time and space–representing his higher self–ascension.

Thus, Hugh Jackman plays multiple roles within this movie; he plays himself, but throughout different past life regressions or in this case progressions. He starts off as a Spaniard invading a Mayan Temple, in which he is mortally wounded in an epic battle at the top of a Mayan ziggurat.  He is stabbed below the ribs, in the same location as Jesus was when Jesus was upon the Cross.  The Mayan that stabs him says the first step to enlightenment is self-sacrifice.  Alluding to the gnostic belief that Jesus indeed “killed” himself (by allowing himself to die on the Cross when he had the power to save himself) to achieve enlightenment.

Another prevalent Gnostic belief is that we are spiritual beings that are held  prisoner on this plane of existence by our spiritual body. A quote in the movie that reflects this belief is stated by a Priest during the time of inquisition he states “The body is a prison and ‘death’ frees every soul.” This sentiment is also repeated by Iz, Tom’s wife.  She also plays multiple roles throughout the film.  She is Tom’s queen during the Mid-evil period, she is his dying lover in present time, and in the spiritual time she is represented as being the “Tree of Life”.  And as she is dying of cancer she echoes the gnostic sentiment that she is not afraid of death because she sees it as a freedom an opportunity for renewal–essentially reincarnation in the liberal sense.

Tom is seeking a cure for his wife’s brain tumor. He ends up finding a cure but not before his wife passes away.  Concurrently, when she dies in real life she dies in the spiritual life.  This happens while Tom is in this bubble being transported towards a state of Nirvana or ascending towards Shibalba (state of nirvana beyond the nebula of a dying star) this is the state in which all things upon the earth was created.Capture1  The state is of renewal or a Phoenix like rebirth-from-the-ashes state.  Encased in this bubble is Tom and “Tree of life”. he is completely bald headed as though he is in a state of being initiated.  On his arms are tattoos like rings of bark on a tree, symbolizing all of the past life regressions that he has lived through.  Iz dies and it becomes a lesson learned for Tom.  As she dies from the tumor concurrently does the Tree of life begin to wilt.  Tom panics and begins to scale the “Tree of life”.  He revisits a past life–reshapes a memory–and consequently he scales the tree of life and burst out of the bubble, levitating into Shibalba (Eternity-renewal).  At the same time he reshapes the initial scene of the movie, in which he receives the mortal wound.  As he is struck by the Mayan priest, Tom ascends to a state of levitation (symbolizing his higher self) and the Mayan warrior/priest who struck him falls to his knees in praise/worship and offers himself up in sacrifice.  After slicing the warriors neck, a revitalized tree of life is revealed at the back of the Mayan temple. Tom stabs the tree and draws sap, the sap hits the ground and flowers immediately begin to blossom, he puts some of the sap on his wound and it is immediately healed. As so, Tom drinks as much of the sap as possible and realizes the tree is Iz.  The sap overcomes him, his mortal body dies and is overcome by rebirth in the form of plants growing feverishly from his body.  At this point he finally reaches Shibalba and his body is no more and he is one with Nirvana.


This movie did not his as poignantly as other movies I’ve seen, say like Sublime but it offered insight nonetheless.  There were no prominent characters of color, so I really could not analyze the movie from my common white-male-patriarchal perspective.  But did offer great insight into my belief that the female energy is the purveyor of Creation.  She, essentially is the source of Creation, as being the first human like being on this planet. It is through her all things came and through her all things shall be sustained. As Tom’s role, I believe is the man’s job to protect this sacred feminine energy by any mean’s necessary, even  if it means self-sacrifice–laying down one’s life.  All and all, I found this to be a solid movie–very insightful to a specific belief structure–that I tend to hold as being more truthful than naught.

Sublime ( a movie response)


Is a very layered and symbolic movie, It is intentionally designed for the thinking man.  In fact, the director describes the movie as a thinking man’s horror film.  The film is like an onion, in that it has layers on top of layers, and really, depending on what mind set you are bringing to the movie that which you derive from the movie will be different.  I will explore some of the themes that I felt spoke to me.

The main theme of the movie is FEAR.  The film explores the power of fear, and how fear drives our life on an subconscious level, which eventually bleeds over to a conscious level.  It shows how these fears swallow us up so much that they eventually become the sole purpose of our existence.

This movie is unique, in not so much that it is told from the Patriarchal-White-Male perspective, but that it gives this Archetype vulnerability—It finally gives perspective to the truth of this archetype.    That despite how much power it has assumed, it is helpless in so many ways, because fear dictates its actions. The film also makes a bold statement: that perhaps this archetype need not to exist in order to save the world. This film gives insight into the white male psyche, all of his fears, EXCEPT PERHAPS ITS GREATEST, is placed into one progressive narrative. The film is a purge of sorts that has many levels to it. I will delve into but a few, the same general themes that I like to embark upon, although, the ironic part about this movie was that there was no BLACK FEMALE ARCHTYPE in this movie (Which I hold true to be the White-male-patriarchal archetype’s antithesis) .

The story is centered around the main character, George Grieves. He is a liberal, upper-middle class white male. The day after his 40th birthday he goes in to have a routine colonoscopy, but do to iatrogenic complications he has a series of unfortunate occurrences. This is when the movie splits into its many dualisms.  The primary dualism is the narrative inside of George’s subconscious mind juxtaposed to the narrative of George’s actual life. In his subconscious life, he has a botched routine surgery that leads to him having his spleen removed erroneously, and he also gets staph infection leading to leg amputation. In his actual life he has a botched surgery that leads to him being thrown into a coma/vegetative state for several months.

The majority of the film takes place in the subconscious of George. Of course the viewing audience is not aware of this because, as a viewer, you are not sure what is real and what is not until the end of the movie, because the narratives are shown conjointly.

As in most of the movies I have commented on, the protagonist is casted in the light of Jesus or rather the Christ Archetype. At his birthday party before his surgery, he literally recreates the last supper scene with a photograph, with him being Jesus. He also received an olive tree, which is representative of the garden of Gethsemane, the final place Jesus roamed freely before he was captured and crucified. Even his botched surgery scar is located in the same place that Jesus was pierced by the spear while on the Cross.

In the opening sequence of the movie there are two paintings. Directly above his head when he awakens from a dream is a painting of Adam and Eve, and as the camera rotates there is a painting of an incubus assuming a dominating position atop a helpless woman. This theme is reverberated throughout the movie and recreated in various ways–always, George in the helpless role and various characters in the role of the incubus. The incubus, of course, is a symbolism of George’s fear. And George is a representation of the typical patriarchal-white-male archetype.

Now I will explore the FEARS of George as expressed in the film.

  • 1.  His number one fear is losing control (Power). In his actual life, George is well off.  He has a large house, is able to pretty much retire by the age of 40.  Even convinced his wife to stop pursuing her career and raise his kids—who are soon to leave the nest.  Yet, in the subconscious world he has no control.  He is completely bed ridden, and dependent on nurse and hospital staff for everything, to get around, to receiving nutrition, even to receive information as to what is going on with himself and the world around him.
  • A.  His Wife: in the beginning of the movie, during the “Last Supper” sequence his wife is depicted as Judas.  This fear of losing control of his wife is prevalent.  In fact, in the subconscious reality he ends up stumbling onto his wife having intercourse with the same doctor who botched his surgery, in the East Ward.
  • B. His Daughter: he is afraid of who his daughter may turn out to be. He raised a wholesome American girl.  Yet, in the subconscious reality his daughter brings a lesbian lover to his room, and she is actually the person who reveals to him that his leg had been amputated.
  • 2.   There is a male nurse in the film that is played by a strong black man. George is at first very skeptical of the man, but the skepticism turns into full blown fear very swiftly.  The black man is symbolic of the unknown, and every negative stereo-type that George has of a black male rolled up into one individual.  George asks the man what his name is and he replies that it is Mandingo.  Mandingo wears a bow tie, walks very prominently and is very stoic saying very little.  Until the final sequence of the movie, in which, he has quite a lengthy soliloquy.  He gives a diatribe confronting George about all his fears: saying that he is a representation of the disenfranchised, uneducated, under-cared-for, shoe-shining, under-privileged, under-class that has risen up to take back control.  He then begins a torture sequence which in turn allows George to be “freed” from his fears.
  • 3.    Losing his identity rather his place in the world. In one sequence shortly after his botched surgery. George has a dialogued with a masked man, who warns George of the dangers of the hospital.  Telling him that this place will strip you of your identity and dignity.  This eventually becomes true, because as the movie progresses, George becomes less and less in control.  And at one point he is completely emasculated and is called a “Kid” by the Mandingo character. George is afraid that he will lose his place in the Hierarchy of social dominance: on top of the pyramid.

 Another prominent figure in the movie was a female nurse named Chloe.  In the subconscious life she was responsible for George receiving the staph infection, because she accidentally cut his leg when transporting him for his initial surgery.  She ends up caring for George predominantly, and is his means of being transported around the hospital in a wheel chair.  She provides much of the answers to the questions that George ends up having, because no one else is around.  She is depicted in the real world as a relatively attractive young woman.  But in his subconscious life she is depicted as a sexy, flirtatious young woman.  Her attire becomes tighter, her dress becomes shorter etc.  She then becomes a representative of George’s fantasy. She is a living, breathing representation of George’s fantasies and desires.  At one point, after George is convinced his wife cheated on him, Chloe approaches him—this is near the end of the movie.  She is very appreciative George did not have her fired because of her being the reason his leg needed to be amputated.  George is helpless on the hospital bed and she begins to copulate with George.  She mounts him and is having sex with him while facing the opposite direction of him, she begins to disrobe and on her back is a tattoo of the “Tree of Life”.  George asks her what the tattoo is and she reveals to him what it is.    Shortly after this scene, comes in Mandingo. This is when he mounts George in a similar fashion as Chloe except that he is facing George.  George is even more helpless at this point; he cannot even speak because he has a feeding tube in his mouth. This is when he begins his soliloquy about being the sum of George’s fears.  Before he begins to torture George he hops off and pulls back a curtain to reveal the patient next to the George. It is an individual wrapped from head to toe in bandages, the person’s arms and legs are missing and they are badly disfigured.  Mandingo has a blade in his hand implicating that this disfigurement was done by him.  He then flips the body around and the “Tree of Life” tattoo is displayed on the characters back and George realizes it is Chloe.  Mandingo then remounts George and rips open his shirt and the “Tree of Life” tattoo is displayed on his chest.

The implication of this sequence is powerful and layered.  On one level, you have the idea that George’s fears were such a powerful force that they literally dismantled his fantasies.  He allowed his fear to be the most powerful force in his mind.  His “Tree of Life” no longer sprang forth from his fantasies but became hijacked by his fears.  Also, there is the homo-erotic aspect to the scene–George feeling emasculated and totally helpless in the presence of a Black man, and that Black man confronting him with all the ills that he has placed on society–“he” of course being a representation of the white-patriarchal-archetype–and Mandingo being a representation of the original man or all the exploited people of color around the world.  This foretelling one of the white-patriarchal-archetypes biggest  fears– that the disenfranchised will eventually rise up and destroy the “The American Dream”.

At the end of the torture sequence, Mandingo told George that he was now empowered and set free.  George then immediately limped out of the bed, hobbled to the window, and jumped to his death.  As he died in his subconsciously life he flat lined in his real life. (The as above so below concept) Ironically, enough this fulfills the Jesus or Christ Archetype.  Christ had the power to save himself but allowed himself to be killed (suicide) as George was burdened with all the fears of the world and he “freed” himself through death.  This film alludes to the fact that this white-male-patriarchal archetype needs not exist as well as it’s illusions of the “American Dream”.  This film clearly implicates, that this archetype needs to be sacrificed as is and re-birthed anew–and to take on a new role.  No longer, avant-garde of society but that of willing participant.

All in all, I found this to be an excellent film for the thinking man.  Although, I found it interesting that this film did not have the Black-Female Archetype. –Which coincidently, this film chose not to touch on any aspect of spirituality.  Which if you have read any of my past blogs; you understand that I feel the Black Woman is the mother/guardian of spirituality.  The fact that there is no black-female character in this film and no mention of God is no coincidence at all.  I just found it very glaring that the creator of this film chose not to acknowledge either.  That which is actually their greatest fear they chose not to put into the film.  That which could cause the sum of all their other fears to come to fruition was not put into the film.  Ironically enough, It also could have been the one thing that could have saved George from being swallowed by his fears–spirituality.

To me, that says so much.  But that is another blog, for another day. 

Snowpiercer (Movie Reflection)


–A movie that that provided more intrigue than I anticipated. It is a movie that is rich in theoretical launch points. Yet I will only reflect on a few.

It is yet another movie about a dystopian future, although it is framed with a twist.

The film revolves around a train called the Snowpiercer. It is a self-sustaining train that is home to the entirety of humanity–or what’s left of it. The entire population of earth was killed by an man-induced arctic age(in response to global warming), in true Noah’s arc fashion, the only survivors are those living on the train. The train circumnavigates the entire globe in a one year cycle. This is one of many biblical allusions that the film calls upon.

The train is divided into a social class hierarchy– the elites who are closer to the head of the train and the proletariat who are at the tail of the train. There supposedly is a middle class but to me they aren’t evident. Yet there is a clear divide between the have’s and have not’s.

As in many of the other movies that I have analyzed, it shares a common motif of the white-male patriarchal-dominated society within this condensed social ecosystem of a train.

At the very head of the train is a man named Wilford. He is depicted as a cyclical old white-man that utilizes psychological tactics to manipulate the whole of humanity(or what’s left). He has very little sympathy or empathy for any of the passengers on the train his only concern is to keep the train running. In fact his philosophy is that everyone has an arbitrary lot in life and they all must play their role, and that role isn’t chosen by them but chosen for them. He keeps himself imprisoned in the head of the train as a means of “self-sacrifice”, to show even the God of the train must suffer through isolation.

As in many of the other movies I’ve analyzed, Wilford uses the classic common ploys of secrecy, manipulation, scapegoats and violence to enact his will on to the people.

The fact that there is even an underclass was quite interesting. The underclass was reduced to starving and even cannibalism until the “generous” wil ford gave them rations of protein bars (which happened to be grounded up roaches). The underclass didn’t appear to provide much as far as labor. And the elite appeared to have an abundance of resources.
Wilford’s only justification for the mal treatment was “everyone has there preordained position in life.”

The dynamic created an odd ecosystem. Not one based on natural selection. Not really based on any selections process at all. It is simply an arbitrary social status put into place and all are attempting to survive the best way they know how. Wilford did exercise population control by manipulative means. He would work hand in hand with the leader of the underclass to incite various riots in which a portion of the population would then be massacred– justifiably.

Each social group is trapped in there own type of cage within a cage. The proletariat are in the back of the train, with very little resources. All they have to survive upon is their humanity and kindness for each other and the hope that they will one day have a successful revolt. The elite of the train are completely superficial, they have all the amenities but have no purpose in life. They too are stuck in the misery of living their entire existence on a train. No matter how you dress it up, you are on a train for the rest of your life. At the absolute head of the train is the Wilford– the god of the train. He keeps the engine running and although has all the “power” is completely sealed in isolation… He has very little interaction with the outside world, he simply stays in his castle pulling the puppet strings of the masses.

Another biblical allusion I found fascinating was the Trinity Motif. In which you have the main antagonist Wilford who sees himself as God but is actually satan, working in conjunction with the leader of the underclass who is depicted as a benevolent God like figure but is actually a devil because he leads his lambs to slaughter. And then you have the hope of the underclass, another young white man who is depicted as a Christ-like figure throughout the movie, he leads the revolt, but at the end of the movie it is revealed that he ate babies. It makes for an odd commentary about religion and the gods many of us serve. Where God and Christ were both used as instruments of hope by the manipulation of Satan to further his agenda.

Just kind of makes you wonder…

“We all die!” The children were indoctrinated to believe that if they left the train death was imminent… Any possibility of life outside of the box is null because there is no chance of survival outside of the train. I found this to be a great social commentary about the system we live in. Many of us believe this current way of life is the only manner of living. That without this globally established system we wouldn’t be able to take care of ourselves and chaos would ensue. But as the movie would later prove this idea was wrong.

I also found it ironic that the only way for humanity to escape this paradigm or system was to destroy the entire system and all that were slave to it.
At the end of the movie a massive train crash killed everyone except a small black boy and a late teen Asian woman. They were the lone survivors and survived outside of the train, and presumably were to usher in the next echelon of humanity (side note: the Asian gal was clairvoyant, if that means anything).

All and all I found this to be a great movie. Had many layers of thought provoking material and I only touched on a percentage of what it had to offer. I would recommend the movie for any thinker out there, for I’m sure you’ll find something worth your thoughts in this movie.


The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 (2014): Analysis of Power

The extremely popular action/drama Hunger Games is yet another depiction of a Dystopian society in which the working class revolts against the ruling elite. A la “V for Vendetta” an old white man is penned as the enemy– serving as the symbol of a patriarchal dominant society being ruled without balance.

Although, it would appear your typical underdog narrative, I will examine the story from a cynical eye, and perhaps the story isn’t so much what it is presumed to be.

Enter the Mockingjay. The pervading symbol and theme of the plebeian throughout the film. It is the representative of freedom, choice, and harmony– for the Mocking jay sings in harmonious unison with its peers.

But is freedom truly what they are fighting for?

Or is it simply the lesser of two evils that they are fighting for?

A duality is presented in the film. Dualities always provide a unique phenomenon to the human experience because on some level the mind automatically antagonizes the two sides against each other. The conscious mind would assume that they are opposing sides just because the two are juxtaposed. Yet these “opposing sides” within the film are more alike than dissimilar.

The phrase “Anyone can be replaced” is uttered by a prominent character within the plebeian hierarchy–Plutarch Heavensbee. This phrase alone implicates so much. It informs the viewer that we too are a machine and every cog in the machine is disposable and replaceable. Just because we are rebelling against a corrupt system we too are a system. We too have power that we will exercise and infringe upon the individual one way or another.

Thus, the outer shell of each system of rule may be slightly different, but the brain inside the monsters are eerily similar. The brain of the current system is headed by President Snow– who represents the patriarchal dominant elite. The brain of the system seeking to usurp the current system is Plutarch Heavensbee– which coincidence enough was once a prominent figure within the old system. They both use similar tactics and have similar mindsets. They both are obsessed with Katniss and want to use her as a means to further their cause. They both are heavy into using images as a means to manipulating public opinion. They both understand the strength Of symbols and use them to further their cause.

/home/wpcom/public_html/wp-content/blogs.dir/fdb/77017821/files/2014/12/img_3884.pngThey both realize the power of the superficial — the show and showmanship if you will, and what affect it has on the human psyche: presentation is everything. What happens on the surface inspires that which is below. As above so below is the principle that is utilized much throughout the film. Both sides seek to destroy the superficial in aims of securing what’s underneath, and this is done through the many psychological and emotional ploys used during the film.

Fear seemed to be the most prominent control mechanism used during the film. Both sides utilized it. The ruling party used fear to secure and maintain the status quo and to dissuade the rebellious. The rebels used fear to inspire said rebellion and to make “a statement” in the face of the ruling party.

An interesting point that the film highlighted were the challenges of detaching from the comfort of the norm and starting over–leaving all the comfort and amenities to start fresh and with nothing. The personal greed of the individual provides the foundation of class structured societies. Nobody wants to “lose” what they have in order to help the next man. They would much rather sacrifice the next man for their own sustainability. This transitionary period creates the most disdain. The period between leaving the old and beginning again is the hardship many do not want to bare. This can be paralleled with any class structured society, because the capturers provide enough reason for the captured to love being captive.

It is interesting enough that the rebels are quelling one system of bureaucracy to replace it with another. Propaganda is a strong tool utilized by both sides. Strict edicts are an effective tool utilized by both sides. Minus the hope and justified inspiration is one side anymore right? Ironically enough with the nature of power and the nature of systems the ultimate outcome will have an inevitable end.

The axiom that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely may always hold true when leadership is held by the unrighteous. The same class structures will persist. The same inequalities will find themselves manifesting and the monster simply will be rebirthing herself anew!

The monster will have a new exterior but the core makeup of the monster of the system has not changed at all. As above so below, and she will inevitably show her true nature.

So the question remains: how do we attain true freedom?

/home/wpcom/public_html/wp-content/blogs.dir/fdb/77017821/files/2014/12/img_3883-0.png Or is this a natural order of things? For man to destroy themselves in a cyclical manner. Man grows too big, man knocks itself down, man grows too big and the cycle continues. Is this just some sort of balance or natural order we innately maintain to keep some semblance of order upon the planet. We “can’t” be too big in a sense and the conquering spirit of man will not allow us to be too small either.

This film leaves me with more questions than answers. It does examine the pitfalls of big government. It is more than apparent that in order for a large government to work the freedoms of the majority must be sacrificed. And to trade freedoms for comforts is not what a true individual wants, but I can understand why very few choose to leave the comfort of passivity.

One thing for sure is that this film awakens a rebellious seed within all of us. It may never be brought to fruition for the majority of onlookers, but the fact that this film is grossly popular is proof that it does indeed exist.


Divergence vs. Transcendence (Movie Reflection)

Recently I watched two movies: “Divergence” and “Transcendence”. I will not give so much a summary of the movies in this blog entry, but I will give what I gathered from the movie.

Both movies are a foreshadowing of a dystopian future of some sorts. “Transcendence” alludes that in the future the earth will be comprised of one nation, under one man’s rule, under one man’s mindset, and all that will hope to survive have to be linked to this man in mind, body and soul via a digital sort of mind link. On the other hand, “Divergence” depicts a dystopia of a different nature. In this future setting people are controlled by their personality or output towards life. People are separated into distinct categories and only allowed to perform a predetermined set of functions. For example, you have your dauntless branch and their job is to protect the civilization, the erudite are seekers of knowledge and have more to do with managing the civilization etc. In this movie, individuals are not free to decide their fate (Yet free to choose which category they will live their life out as.) and any who shows signs of being a “divergent” or free thinker is killed.

These movies provided a strong commentary about those who are suggestible to being led and those incapable of being controlled…And the consequences of each.

These two movies also provide insight, from a social standpoint, of our perception or conception of what the function of God is. Or how some would like God to be. I have specific views about creativity, I personally do not believe that man is a creative being but merely a conductor of things considered “creative”. So when I view a particular work of art I filter it through a different lens. Not so much of a standalone work of art, but more of an ideal pulled from a pool of collective consciousness. So I see it as—there is some segment of society who readily identifies or will readily identify with what is being portrayed by the art form.

In the movie “Transcendence” we have this pale skin man who’s aim is to “make a better society for us all.” He feels that in order for the earth to run as it should there should be one mind in control of it all. One set of core values governed by one individual and one state mind. At one point of the movie they ask the character if he’s attempting to be like “God”. His response was something along the lines of isn’t man always attaining to such. From this we gather one segment of the society that we live in views on God.

–An authoritative figure who has all under his control. –A figure who is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. –A figure who cares for his subject but only those subjects that capitulate to his will. –A white male. –A figure who has access to all the earth’s resources and is in control of who receives what.
In the end of the movie the “God” character ends up sacrificing his own life for a greater love. But the end of the movie implies he’s not completely destroyed–a sort of resurrection is implied! Much like the Christ Motif.

In the movie “Divergence” we have a future of a different degree. In this movie we have no idea how encompassing this network of individuals are. How many populations are there beyond the walls of this community we don’t know. We simply have an isolated community that lives within a system– a system that is dominated by lack of free will. In this society the illusion of free will is granted. Yet anyone who has any true free will is slain. In this movie we have a small group seeking to usurp the power of the entire community and for what gain– it isn’t clear. Ultimately it is control for the sake of control.

In this movie we gather an alternative depiction of “God” or at least his methods.

–an unknown figure who sends others to do his bidding. –System oriented (does not want anything outside of the system in place to exist.) –Unquestionable authority.–Repays disobedience with violence. –Political. –Deceitful in nature.

Thus from these two movies one can gain insight as to the author and man’s perception of what it is to be god. The removing of free will… which is quite ironic because god is the definition of free will… Of choice… Of decision… To withdraw that and dictate circumstance is a confinement of the opposite orientation…To emasculate a people of their self-empowerment and awareness is anything but benevolent. If one truly had control one wouldn’t have to impose their will. Only those without any true authority have to constantly iterate how much authority they have.

Now if we look at the definitions of “God” that we gathered and apply it to some of themes we experience in everyday life, we can truly see who is trying to play god among us. We can see if the idea or perception that we ourselves have of god is truly a healthy one.

How much different is the God we were taught to pray to each night?

If we applied this definition to any particular organization, religious group, political state, or government– would it fit. If so, is that something you should follow without question?

I don’t have all the answers. But I sure have plenty of questions?

Are you a Divergent? Can you transcend your thoughts?