Coppola - Blog Posts
Ваал-насильник. Как герой кино и сериалов.
Baal the rapist. Like a hero from movies and TV series.
Ну для начала вглядитесь в лицо Валаала-демона со средневековой гравюры. А теперь на персонажа-архитектора, из последней картины Фрэнсиса Форда Копполы, Метролополис.
Well, first, look at the face of Valaal the demon from a medieval engraving. And now at the architect character from Francis Ford Coppola's latest film, Metropolis.
Узнаете знакомые черты? Сходство здесь не только внешнее конечно же, но и сценарий так сказать жизни весьма сопоставим. Вот кстати как рисует невеста Джулия, своего тогда еще только кумира Цезаря. Точнее, это ее карикатура, которую она ему прислала.
Do you recognize familiar features? The similarity here is not only external, of course, but also the scenario of life, so to speak, is quite comparable. By the way, this is how the bride Julia draws her then only idol Caesar. More precisely, this is her caricature, which she sent to him.
Не знаю видно ли на скрин, но там она пририсовала ему рога. А когда она делала этот шарж, ее подруга спросила ее - Дьявол?
I don't know if you can see it on the screen, but she drew horns on him. And when she was doing this cartoon, her friend asked her - The Devil?
А вот еще россиянский сериал с Милошем Биковичем в главной роли, Дайте Шоу. В котором сюжет метролополиса, повторен почти во всем. Но дело тут не в плагиат конечно же, а просто в том что персонаж, и соответственно перепетии его жизни одни и те же. Сам Бикович, так и сказал в интервью недавно - мой персонаж в сериале Дайте Шоу, это Валаал. Просто акценты в сериале смещены в сторону изнасилования. Ну фильм Копполы в целом про жизнь. Даже антогонисты в сериале и фильме очень похожи. И внешне и характеры, и эпизоды с ними. В мегалополис это брат Цезаря в исполнении Шайло Ла Бафа. В Дайте Шоу это Паша журналист, в исполнении Николая Савостюка.
Here is another Russian series with Milos Bikovic in the leading role, Give Ou. In which the plot of the metropolis is repeated in almost everything. But it is not a matter of plagiarism of course, but simply that the character, and accordingly the twists and turns of his life are the same. Bikovic himself said so in an interview recently - my character in the series Give Show is Valaal. It's just that the emphasis in the series is shifted towards rape. Well, Coppola's film is generally about life. Even the antagonists in the series and the film are very similar. Both in appearance and in characters, and in episodes with them. In the megalopolis it is Caesar's brother, played by Shiloh La Beauf. In Give Show it is Pasha the journalist, played by Nikolai Savostyuk.
Как в фильме Копполы, так и в сериале главный герой сталкивается с арестом и обвинениями в изнасиловании, фальсификациях со стороны своего антогониста, неудавшимся покушением на его жизнь в виде выстрела. Ну и рождением ребенка со своей влиятельной женой. И там и там он звезда, и в конечном итоге победитель. Супругу в нашем сериале исполнила Тостоганова.
In both Coppola's film and the series, the main character faces arrest and rape charges, falsifications by his antagonist, a failed attempt on his life in the form of a gunshot. And the birth of a child with his influential wife. In both cases, he is a star and ultimately a winner. The wife in our series is played by Tostoganova.
То есть в масонской повестке сейчас кино про Ваала. Обратимся же к Википедии о том что же это за персонаж.
Поклонение Ваалу было популярно в Египте с позднего Нового царства около 1400 г. до н. э. до его конца (1075 г. до н. э.). Благодаря влиянию арамейцев , которые заимствовали вавилонское произношение Бел, бог в конечном итоге стал известен как греческий Белос, отождествляемый с Зевсом.
Бог громовержец. С супругой Астартой, ставшей позднее Иштар.
Ваал по сути ассоциировался с солнцем и штормами, Астарот — с сексом и плодородием . Как боги природы, подпитываемые демоническими духами, они утверждали, что «развились» из первобытного водного хаоса. Поклонение обоим было одновременно и грубо распущенным, и крайне жестоким.
Этот бог описывался, как могущественный воин – на многочисленных дошедших до нас изображениях в одной руке над головой он держит булаву, а в другой – копье в виде молнии.
Вот кстати кадры из кино
So, the Masonic agenda now includes a movie about Baal. Let's turn to Wikipedia to find out what kind of character this is.
Baal worship was popular in Egypt from the late New Kingdom around 1400 BC to its end (1075 BC). Due to the influence of the Aramaeans, who borrowed the Babylonian pronunciation of Bel, the god eventually became known as the Greek Belos, identified with Zeus.
The thunder god. With his wife Astarte, who later became Ishtar.
Baal was essentially associated with the sun and storms, Astaroth with sex and fertility. As gods of nature, fueled by demonic spirits, they claimed to have "evolved" from the primeval watery chaos. The worship of both was both grossly licentious and extremely cruel.
This god was described as a powerful warrior - in numerous surviving images he holds a mace above his head in one hand and a spear in the form of lightning in the other.
Here are some stills from the movie
Ну и к Зевсу. And go Zeus.
Кстати в изнасилованиях и загулах частенько обвинялся.
Ну а Иштар-Венера. Это жена. Зевс это главный масонский бог и идол. Да и люди на мой взгляд по сути своей поклоняются ему до сих пор.
Возможно есть еще какие-то фильмы о нем родимом. Пишите в комментариях, может что вспомните.
By the way, he was often accused of rape and binges.
Well, and Ishtar-Venus. This is the wife. Zeus is the main Masonic god and idol. And people, in my opinion, essentially worship him to this day.
Perhaps there are some other films about him. Write in the comments, maybe you remember something.
I read Bram Stoker's Dracula right after changing the course of my studies. From a fine university I went to another brilliant one. Everything around me seemed to take new shape and I had to learn new customs. In this phase, when my brain was forced to let fresh things pass, I found myself absorbed in this piece of literature, which I had been meaning to read for quite some time then. And so it was, I read it and found it interesting and original. On the contrary, I felt it wasn't a perfect match for me, since it was set in and meant to be understood in another era.
Time passed and I concealed my Dracula experience in the back of my head. This period, however, came to an end, when, yesterday night, I stumbled upon Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula (1992), and I couldn't resist, so I watched it.
The cast is near perfect, Keanu Reeves being probably the only odd one out, since he looked way too young and inexperienced to take on the role of Jonathan Harker. But all in all, Gary Oldman (Dracula), Winona Ryder (Mina Harker) and Anthony Hopkins (van Helsing), acted so stupendously, that left me breathless at certain points of the film. The directing was also terrific--of course, what else could we anticipate seeing Coppola's name on the credit roll.
Before saying anything I must remark, that I'm a huge supporter of book adaptations, so I had a very positive attitude towards the movie beforehand. At the very end of the film, it sadly turned into bitter disappointment. But remember, I write this, having established, that it was almost perfectly made.
Dracula's original story operates with stereotypical characters and countless elements brought in from superstition--not strictly, just in comparison with contemporary ways. The story has its twists and mysteries but those aren't as shocking and sudden as it would be expected from a current book. It begins with a solicitor, Harker's visit at castle Dracula and an encounter with the monster, Dracula. From here the count goes to London, seeking new lands to hunt humans. Harker's fiance, Mina is staying at her friend's place, at the same time. This friend, Lucy, has a habit of sleepwalking. When Dracula arrives to England, she, conveniently, happens to be the easiest target. The count feeds on her regularly, killing her little by little, until it gets too suspicious and Lucy's noble admirers, joined by professor Abraham van Helsing, unite to discover what torments the woman. They come to a right conclusion eventually but then it's too late and Lucy's transformed into a hellish creature, so they are forced to kill her, in order to grant her eternal rest and avoidance of godly condemnation. The fellowship decides to hunt the original vampire down and through Mina they get acquinted with Harker, who just returned, having scarcely survived his stay at the count's castle but is now resolute to bring down destruction upon the demonic creature. Dracula, moving on from Lucy, also turns Mina into a vampire, or comes really close to it, and then the men (and Mina) enter into a tight chase him and kill him.
In Stoker's novel, Dracula is a very instinct-driven killer. He only seeks base things and is not a bit a human. We don't get to see his backstory’s smaller details, only that he used to be an important and extraordinary man, then, at some point, he attended the Scholomance and has been like this ever since, only growing greater in his abilities. The only thing he engages in, apart from killing and turning people into vampires, is experimenting with ways to become more efficient at his other pursuit. Stoker wrote him as someone, who is led by evil and nothing else.
Dracula has one equal: van Helsing, who is almost identical to him, with the crucial difference of being motivated by good--by christian ideas in this story, mixed with superstition.
The movie tried to remain true to the source material in regards of the plot and interfered where intellectually a renovation seemed due. For example Coppola kept the means, by which the mourners of Lucy hunted the count but fundamentally changed the motives of Dracula. He tried to give sense to the character and so came up with the idea, that it would be of bigger service to the plot if the count was led by romantic feelings. It is supposed to give depth and seriousness to the drama. However, it works only if we fail to understand Stoker's original intents or if we are reluctant.
In the movie the count is fueled by grief and longing, after his dead wife, tragically killed hundreds of years ago. This event is where the movie’s Dracula experiences his extreme disappointment in the church and turns to other sources. The director takes it even further: Mina is somehow the reincarnation of Dracula's dead wife--this is very explicit, since she has actual memories from her past life. They both recognize each other and are gravitated to each other, even so, love each other honestly.
The movie has another important aspect: All of the good characters are humanized. The screenwriter threw away the naive figures and applied contemporary materialist tools to repaint them.
Coppola took the good characters and made them as bad as any other man and took the evil one and made him as good as any other. But what are the vampire hunters without a high ground? Dracula, in the other hand, has a morose reason behind all his evil-doings and is thus legitimized, made the victim of the story.
Stoker painted a picture, that was clearly white and black and then came Coppola, saying 'Hey dude, life's more complicated, than that'. Of course life is more complicated, than that but Stoker had an entirely different meaning. In his story: There is a transcendent world, there are transcendent values. In Coppola's vision, what we get is very grounded: we all are the same (not equal but identical!), regardless from the appearances, and the idea that everyone faces something after they're dead is as old as Stoker's vampire, and just as much an entertaining element of folklore but nothing more.
The movie denied the concept of good and bad. It rationalized that if we were Dracula, we'd probably end up doing things that could be deemed wrong, yet we would be as valiant as humans ever were. This is not necessarily killing or whatnot but we wouldn't be perfect if our lives weren't perfect. Dracula was demonic but with a certain justification. He had to be killed, of course, but it was tragic, in contrast with Stoker's ending of the story, where it was a relief.
Originally I liked Dracula's story because everything the characters did, even when they killed the abominations created by the count, or the count himself, served other purposes, than to increase the spectacle of the story. The hunters freed souls and granted them such things, that were impossible for the victims to attain on earth any more but existed nonetheless. Stoker believed in morals that aren't based solely on practicality but on a grand concept, that there exists the metaphysical and good above the world we know--that there exists God.