In a previous article that I wrote, I gave a splitting reference to the main theme of Annabelle Creation; though its validity canít be confirmed (as if any idea in any movie can be confirmed), the idea that was highlighted was to do with a copy ending a problem by not being part of the solution.
The idea can feel somewhat whimsy, but it worked for the article that it was part of. In hindsight, I think I may have now since come across a better, and a more emotional point of view of Annabelle Creation.
(And yes: a point of view thatís emotional even with respect to my past desire to be a guardian to the actress Talitha Bateman)
Maybe this isnít emotional, but letís see if it is: the gist, and the basic perception of the new idea is that evil has the right to be left alone. In Annabelle Creation, the prequel story about the real origin of the Annabelle doll, the most underlying, deep and important concept that defines the story is that evil is a force of nature that has rights of its own Ė and that these rights, or just that this fundamental right to exist neednít be at the expense of any opposite force of nature.
Overall, should this kind of concept be emotional? Instinct says that it should, but does logic say that it should?
Evil is the impossible. Many wouldnít come to that conclusion, or at least wouldnít feel the need to come to that conclusion, but itís a logical conclusion to arrive at. Evil is annihilation, and annihilation can be interpreted as just sheer and simple absence Ė the impossible.
In light of this, itís now the impossible that has rights. Since a right is an approval, the dynamic at play is the relationship between an approval and the impossible.
As the impossible is what canít happen, the impossible is an action that canít happen. An action that canít happen is an action that influences approval.
Approval is also action, which means that whilst an approval is a copy of an action that canít happen, itís only the action that canít happen which can control the action that can happen.
In other words: hierarchy is a copy of evil, but itís only evil that can serve hierarchy.
(Needless to say, this will need further examination)
An alternate version, of hierarchy being a copy of evil is equality being a detached force from evil. And then in ensuing logic, the substitute for just evil having the power to serve hierarchy is not just equality having the inability to hurt equality: thus, the updated dilemma is when evil and equality have nothing to do with one another, and yet evil canít possibly hurt equality.
Evil isnít a copy, and it canít hurt copy: a copy is evil, and a copy can hurt evil.
Evil is copy, and by being copy evil has the ability to end itself.
In Annabelle Creation, and in the story of Janice, the entire universe is nothing but a device that evil has created in order to end itself.
Planets, galaxies, science, mathematics and biology are all just follies, all just fictions that evil has created as an elaborate way to destroy its own existence.
This is where I ask if emotion is warranted; in actuality, this is where Iím currently asking if my past desire to be a father figure to Talitha Bateman is warranted.