Movie Mayhem with God: Split

The opportunity to watch Split came as an early Christmas present when I won tickets for its surprise screening (contestants did not know what the movie was during entry). Warning of some spoilers here. This blog entry is less of a review and critique, but really more of a personal reflection, since the theme of this movie delves into a very personal area, which is mental health.

As the name of the movie suggests, the main antagonist of the movie is someone who literally disintegrates into many different personalities (dissociative personality disorder), in a bid to deal with the childhood trauma. Of course the movie heavily dramatises and exaggerates the horror of the mental condition. However, it does point towards the very real topic of the vulnerability versus strength of the human psyche.

A month ago, while I was trying to help a friend M deal with her recent bipolar mania outburst, my mother was worried for me, stating she did not want me to be affected by M. Now that 2016 is coming to its close and I am doing so introspective reflecting, I think it is time to take stock of some ideas and emotions.

Firstly, it seems that no matter anything, big or small, good or bad, event or person, it seems that it will definitely have an effect on us. Even no effect, is not really no effect in a strict sense, but a lack of instead. Then if every event, person plays out on us so inescapably, what are we do to with it, since there is no hiding.

This then brings us to the next point. My Spiritual Director Roselie always emphasized to me on differentiating between reacting and responding. I was not too clear about distinguishing between them initially, though now I have a better idea. Reacting indicates a vulnerability in the self, whereas responding is a showcase of one’s strength.

Both protagonist Casey and antagonist Kevin have been subject to childhood abuse. However for Casey, despite being trapped in whatever dire situation she is, steels herself in strength, such that eventually she is able to free herself from physical, psychological and emotional entrapments. For Kevin, his entanglement in the dismal conditions causes him to psychologically and emotionally disintegrate, in his bid to seek vindication for all the ill treatment he had suffered. The key between both is not the brokenness, but whether one falls apart due to the impact of the blows.

There was no slack in the blows dealt to me in 2016. I can no longer look at the Singa Lion simplistically ever again. However, I now enjoy the snide and snarky jokes I crack with my boyfriend about Singa’s trousers. Maybe this verbal stripping gives me just the comfort I need against what had happened. The watermelon and water pipe jokes he cracks while referencing to Lionel Shriver’s “We Need to Talk about Kevin”, are oral punches which he helps me fling out, directed at how some closest to me, who perceived me as a monster while on one hand conducting a welcoming pretense. These jibing sessions of ours are cushioned in the comfort of our private fellowship with one another, away from others to maintain a respect distance not to offend and antagonise anyone.

I pray hard when I examine these broken pieces which lie in front of me. The cracks are very visible, but thankfully I know to take care not to exert too much pressure on them lest they finally snap. Indeed now is not the time yet for these pieces. Meanwhile I turn over to look at the huge fissures of my mental breakdowns in 2006 and 2012, and find to my delight that their traces have paled into patterns which are able to bear the weight of any gentle stroking. Meanwhile I wish M all the best in dealing with her own factures. I hope that she understands too these strokes of beauty, and that there needs not be any shame behind them. May God bless her such that they also slowly fade and dim away.

Jane Eyre, Beauty & the Beast and Passengers: How 2 worked while 1 did not

***First warning for anyone who has yet to watch Passengers and do not want to be spoilered. Second warning for anyone who is unfamiliar with the story of Jane Eyre, and do not want to be spoilered. Read this later!!!

I have watched Passengers during a preview and have proceeded onto read some scathing reviews blasting it. I do not need to repeat it again, and will share two articles which I feel have put the argument across very well, the first article being very negatively impassioned, the second being more analytical.

http://www.cbr.com/review-passengers-soils-its-escapism-with-repulsive-reveal/

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2016/dec/22/passengers-film-men-creepy-love-stories

I recall during the viewing of Passengers, a weird sort of familiarity, and upon reading those numerous negative reviews, some notion brewed about. I hit the eureka moment last night, realizing that I saw some shadows in two other of my favourite stories/films, Jane Eyre and Beauty & the Beast. However, those two have been lauded since time immemorial. Then what made them the paragons they are, while Passengers fell flat. After a bit of musing, I may have some inkling.

1. Perspective

Positive relatability really does work through osmosis. I recall once telling a friend that one of my favourite romances of all time is that between Jane Eyre and Rochester, and my friend asking “Why? He is a temperamental egoistical selfish man.” Rochester is indeed all that, but the dynamic or support for him does not lie with him, but with Jane. When reading the book, we are in awe of Jane’s coming of age since childhood, through her romance with Rochester, the heartache of having to leave him, till the happy resolution. We have befriended Jane along the way, we want her to be happy, and are cheering for her happy ending to as to speak. So it does not actually matter if the guy in question is not exactly a beacon of perfection. What matters is Jane loves him, and we love Jane, and do not wish her upset.

Similarly, the Disney classic Beauty and the Beast is told in a similar plot narrative perspective. We are introduced to Belle, her spunkiness, her curiosity, her courage and receptivity to look beyond appearances, as shown in her hobby of reading. It is actually through her point of view, that we begin to give the Beast a chance too, eventually shipping for their happy ending.

Imagine if these two stories had been retold from the perspectives of Rochester or the Beast instead. The element of support would have dwindled exponentially. And this is the critical mistake that the movie Passengers made.

I did still enjoy the first act of the movie which portrays Jim’s struggles. There was the basic amount of relatability and humour. However, because of the moral conflict made by his selfish act of waking Aurora up, his likability has been great diminished. The remnants of sympathy and relatability we have for him is insufficient for us to condone his actions, lest of all even grant him that happy ending. Usually for viewers to be willing to grant him forgiveness, his character would have to redeem himself somehow with an immensely selfless act and or bear some consequences for his immoral actions. This then leads me to my next point.

2. Consequences

The redemption curve of Jane Eyre and Beauty & the Beast are very steep ones. Rochester got his estate ruined in the fire set off by Bertha Mason. In the process of still trying to rescue Bertha Mason, he lost sight in both eyes. While trying to protect Belle, the Beast was captured and fatally injured by Gaston, dying as the rose wilted away, till in the nick of time, Belle acknowledged her love for him and reversed things.

Let us examine closely the dynamics of selflessness between all three stories. Rochester could jolly well have not bothered with saving Bertha Mason. In fact, it would be good riddance to have her finally dead. Nevertheless, the goodness in him made him do what he did. The selflessness of the Beast is so evident I need not explain it at all.

Meanwhile what about Jim in Passengers? Sure he does have that heroic deed in the final act, with the opening of the combustion engine valve door. If he decided not to take action, he and Aurora would definitely have still died due to eventual engine implosion, together with all 5000 other passengers onboard. The heroism element is severely reduced, and the act is not as selfless as Rochester or the Beast’s actions. This paltry atonement by Jim definitely does not win him as many fans. What is worse is the consequences count.

Before Belle came along, the Beast was trapped in an animal body for goodness knows how long, with his servants all transformed into cutesy cutlery and furniture, while being shunned by the outside world. And even his rescue by Belle was hairline tight and had the audience on the edge of our seats.

Rochester basically had a huge proportion of his estate value wiped out, such that when Jane returns later, her inheritance from her uncle actually surpasses that of his. There is also the issue of his blindness, though the author did eventually cut him some slack, by letting him regain sight in one eye in time to see the birth of his child with Jane.

For Passengers, Aurora managed to get Jim back to the cabin. Though clinically pronounced dead for a while, Jim is revived by Aurora and is largely unscathed. And finally, he basically departs into a “happily ever after” with her for the next 89 years on board the spaceship. Yes, I can already hear the “what the heck” coming out from myself. No wonder so many harsh critics have derided the film for being a fairy tale for males.

Conclusion

Well, there is a bit of bias. I still like Passengers quite a bit and think the casting choices of Chris Pratt versus Jennifer Lawrence is great. It is a pity that they got the structure of the film skewered in the wrong angle. If they had started the narrative structure from Aurora’s point of view, things could have been very different. I read so many reviews that bemoan the lack of character development for Aurora. I agree, and despite the minimal character development for Aurora, I already find myself liking her a lot (Jennifer Lawrence’s pleasant depiction adds value a lot). With more backstory on her (there were already hints of Aurora’s spunkiness in the scenes of Jim reading up on Aurora’s profile while she was still in hibernation), we would have a better understanding of why she made her eventual choice to forgive Jim in the way she did. Maybe then, we would not insist that she made her choice out of a defeated resignation to fate. Afterall, Jim did make it very clear in the ending that he had finally figured out a way to put her back in hibernation, and was letting her decide. Aurora willing relinquished her choice and choose to be with him. It is a pity we do not have a better idea of her feelings towards Jim, such that we’re able to fully forgive him too.

The Strange relationship between Goodness versus Perfection

This latest blockbuster season took off to a resoundingly positive start with Marvel’s Doctor Strange. To be honest, I was initially dreading it as the trailer had looked like “Inception done badly with a heavy dash of Orientalism mumbo jumbo”. Thankfully the actual execution of the movie was done nicely, with the right amount of entertainment with thought stimulation, which is what I will be musing about next. Spoilers ahead for any who has yet to watch the movie!

Around two third into the movie to build up the conflict, we discover together with Doctor Strange and his companion Mordu from the minor villain Kaecilius, that the Ancient One (played by Tilda Swinton), had managed to stay alive for as long as she did, through allowing for the existence of Dormammu of the Dark Dimension, and even drawing upon its power.

During my early interpretation of this turn of events, my sentiments were greatly akin to that of Mordu’s, who was utterly disappointed with the Ancient One. It was extremely difficult to reconcile the logic, if there was any, behind the Ancient One’s decision. This question nagged at me for quite a while till much later, days after watching the movie, that I realized where the crux of the issue was (looks like I’m still extremely dense, Doctor Strange was able to understand it much faster).

When we talk of the seven deadly sins, pride is the head of the pack, as it is not just traced to human beings, but the devil himself. In the book of Isaiah, it is briefly mentioned that the downfall of the devil, who was then one of God’s leading angels, is attributed to his pride of his perfection, which propelled him to eventually rebel against God.

When God created human beings in his image, as stated in Genesis, there is repeated emphasis on the “goodness” of human beings and the world in its origin form. However, nowhere was it mentioned that everything was “perfect”.  What then differentiates between perfection and goodness? Goodness indicates an element of positive dependency and teamwork, between all parties, that all parties involved are equally invested in the success of something. However perfection is of a more dismissive, isolationist nature, even with a suggestive hint of the destruction of other elements which do not conform.

And that is what differentiates the Ancient one and Doctor Strange, from Kaecilius and Mordu. Doctor Strange and the Ancient One’s ownership of their imperfections while trying to perform the greater good, is ironically what still grounds them as heroes, while contrasted with the self-righteous pride of Kaecilius and Mordu, who have sadly tipped into the villain zone.

During the final moments before the Ancient One’s death, she shares with Doctor Strange the heartache that she has carried all , musing that it was conflicting to do what she did, feeling especially wistful at how her decision has spurned former disciple Kaecilius to become so extremist in mindset, that he has now joined forces with Dormammu of the Dark Dimension. Nevertheless, she has no regrets as she acknowledges the goodness of the intentions behind her action, which were never self-serving in any manner, while at the same time also taking accountability over the consequences of her actions through death. Doctor Strange later takes up this mindset mantle of hers, when he “defeats” Dormammu the way he did, adding pensively to fellow compatriot Wong that there will be unfortunate consequences to this temporal victory.

Kaecilius ironically gets his wishes to assimilate into the Dark Dimentsion, though of course to his horror things are not as he envisioned. Meanwhile unfortunately Mordu has turned extremist in mindset like Kaecilius, taking on a vigilante mission to cleanse the world of any practitioners of the Mystic Arts who he deems have gone wayward and self-serving.  

So what lesson, does this movie has for us, beings made in the image of the Perfect One? To strive for goodness will do. Meanwhile, leave the perfecting of all things to Him. Maybe I should rename this blog altogether, and quit being bothered with perfect vision, amen.

Movie Mayhem with God: Hapless in the Desert? Maybe not.

Many reviewers, both secular and religious, were letdown with the movie “Last Days in the Desert”. For the secular reviewers, there was the issue of Hollywood whitewashing, which isn't what I’m discussing here. Meanwhile for the religious reviewers, there was the view that this movie had portrayed Jesus Christ as relatively weak-willed, too humanistic in an effort to relate to the audience, not enough depiction on his mental and moral steeliness in the face of temptation, being the Christ he is. Or is there actually a subtle depiction of this?

I had watched the movie as far back as 5 months ago in April, and my initial view towards the movie was that was of feeling lost and confounded, though there was this nagging notion that there’s was something “bigger” which I just couldn't shake it off.  And surprise surprise, it was a secular book aimed at deconstructing common negative myths about singlehood, which imparted me some concepts, which helped me appreciate the movie better (Side-point, loud shout-out for everyone to have a look at the book, “It’s Not You: 27 (Wrong) Reasons You’re Single” by Sara Eckel). In particular, it was this particular passage which had leapt out.

“We get angry when others infer those [negativity] about us, but we all know who the harshest judge is. Instead of trying to justify yourself or make someone else wrong in order to pump yourself up, try doing the completely counter intuitive thing: Let the demons in. Give those deep dark feelings about yourself some breathing room. Take your intellect out of it and allow yourself to feel whatever you've been resisting. Treat those sensations like they're part of a scientific experiment. Normally we treat difficult emotions like a judge or a boss, like punishment for some wrong we've committed... When you no longer fear the feelings behind the judgments, then they become manageable. The demons feed on resistance, so when you aren't afraid of them - when you can simply see them objectively and name them - they have nothing to work with. And when that happens, they very slowly leave.”

Pages 156-158

In the light of re-interpreting the movie with this passage in mind, the movie now takes a whole new and more clarified meaning.

The movie is rather slow moving, showing Jesus’ journey through the desert during that 40 days, his fictional interactions with a random nomadic family. And of course there’s the appearance of the devil, personified in the image of an alter-image. This alterego would purpose latch onto whatever suffering that the nomadic family was going through, as opportunities to get Jesus to question and doubt his conviction and faith.

This is where Father Robert Barron took issue with, what was felt as an over-emphasis on Jesus’ humanism and vulnerability. However, this lack of offense-defense against the devil, seemingly consenting to relentless attack after attack, may actually be a form of Jesus’ deep-rooted self-assuredness.  Of course as the Son of God, Jesus is great enough to easily dismiss the devil. Why waste 40 days’ worth of precious time? Maybe during those 40 days, Jesus was as hapless as we think he was, mistakenly interpreting the inactivity of the movie as such. In fact Jesus had understood that 40 days was a precious opportunity given to him, to be up close and personal with the devil, looking at it squarely in the face, observing it, taking it in fully for what it was, to prepare him for the cross later, as hinted in the movie’s fleeting final scene.

There’s often the talk about the fight or flight mode in human nature. Both are very focused on the “doing”. It seems like I should explore “being” more. Amen. 

Movie Mayhem with God: Gladiator & Django Unchained

I will start off this piece with an apology first. Many years ago, I had suffered an extremely unpleasant experience at a former workplace, in particular with regards to an ex-colleague MK. After having endured there after a year and upon leaving that place, whenever I recounted this past experience to anyone, I had termed her mindset as that of schadenfreude, aka pleasure derived from my suffering. Now in retrospect after my latest experience at another workplace, I truly understood what schadenfreude meant. MK had indeed who put me through agony but it was not schadenfreude, because now I realised pleasure at witnessing my suffering was not her ultimate aim. Her ultimate aim had been that of wanting to see me gone from that workplace and that is not schadenfreude. She wanted pleasure from having me gone, not having me go through misery. The suffering she had put me through was merely a tool in itself. Turns out I’ve been maligning MK’s mindset for the past few years. What then is schadenfreude? I’d think the best way to illustrate this would be using two movies, namely Gladiator and Django Unchained. Of course the Hunger Games trilogy movie is also a very good example to demonstrate this, but I think I’ll reserve that for future use in exploring other topics instead. Alright, let us begin with Gladiator.

The plot of Gladiator namely is about General Maximus’ betrayal at the hands of the newly crowned Emperor Commodus, being sold into slavery and eventually purchased to become a professional gladiator. Due to his past years of having led countless battles, gladiator fighting is a piece of cake to him, and he wows the audience so much that he has a superstar following amongst the Roman public, which once again threatens the Emperor Commodus. Now we may be tempted to assume that it is Commodus who is the one exacting schadenfreude on Maximus. However, Commodus has no pleasure in any existence of Maximus. Having Maximus eradicated from the world would be his greatest satisfaction. During the finale scene where he tries to take on Maximus personally in a duel, Commodus does not derive pleasure in killing Maximus personally as of itself. In fact Commodus is far more concerned with the perception of those other Roman spectators, proving to them that he is a far worthier man, such that he is able to vanquish Maximus.

Thus, those deriving schadenfreude from this entire episode, are actually the Roman spectators, captivated by Maximus’ gladiator fights. Despite being ardent supporters of Maximus, these spectators also take pleasure in anticipating Maximus’ battles with yet another opponent, thus infinitely prolonging Maximus’ misery and suffering so as to speak. This dynamics is also similar to that of the Hunger Games trilogy, Katniss Everdeen’s popularity with the Capital viewers, with President Snow having a more similar role to that of Commodus.

Early on in life, I had always thought of schadenfreude as a “crush you like a cockcroach” type of mentality to quote “Masters of the Seas”. It is only later now in life, I realise coackcroach crushing was actually more revenge based and antagonistic. Schadenfreude is far more subtle, perverted and dismissive in nature, taking no personal interest in the party’s suffering, as that is viewed as mere entertainment. Precisely due to this lack of personal investment in the cause, those people deriving schadenfreude are not concerned about the concept of time at all. When the sufferer fails to survive, the people deriving schadenfreude will just “move on to the next show”; when the sufferer is still kicking and living, they will “grab popcorn and see what happens next”, as the playout is interesting.

In fact, this element of schadenfreude plays an important role is the entertainment industry, especially when you examine forms like reality television and certain drama serials. We all dabble in schadenfreude when we are glued to that popular drama, waiting to see what happens next to the protagonist, and in fact we would not be too pleased if things were resolved far too easily for him or her. I suppose this disregard and lack of empathy is absolutely not of an issue when we are following entertainment like that of those mentioned above. Afterall, it is the profession of actors, actresses, scriptwriters, producer and directors, to ensure that we audiences are enthralled by the ups and downs of these shows. They are aware, willing participants together with us.

However, when the stage is that life, quoting Shakespeare’s line from As You Like It, where “All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players”, this schadenfreude-ish viewership of other players’ anguish gets a tad too cruel and difficult to stomach, and I’ll now talk about Django Unchained, a movie is about an escaped black slave Django (Jamie Foxx), who trains under bounty hunter Dr King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) to become a supreme marksman, and his search to rescue his wife Broomhilda. We find out that Broomhilda is serving notorious slave owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), who has dabbles in the sadistic hobby of Mandingo fighting, a form of gladiator-ish fighting forced upon black slaves.

Many have praised DiCaprio’s performance of Calvin Candie, saying how well he portrays the character’s callousness. Indeed Calvin Candie injects apathy with a very toxic dose of cruelty. There is a particular scene where Candie views a Mandingo match and its aftermath struck me especially memorable and greatly demonstrative of schadenfreude. The ease as which Candie goes up to congratulate the slave who has survived, giving him a gentle reminder to rest and recover for the next upcoming match, while the bloodied corpse of the other slave lies beside barely turned cold, is the most representative example of schadenfreude I can think of. In fact it is ranked in cinematically as one of the most disturbing moments ever. Also to note is Candie's black butler Stephen. He is a grim example of someone who has survived this past evil and come to "naturalise" it, thinking this treatment of other fellow blacks as normal as the tides of the ocean. 

In a rather interesting turn, Quentin Tarantino the director of this movie takes the notion of schadenfreude and turns it upon its head. In the movie, Django exacts his own form of schadenfreude on the Southern whites and Stephen, both for himself and also on behalf of all his fellow black compatriots. In fact the only white man who met an honourable death in the movie was Dr Schultz, a stark reminder of the respect he bestowed upon the blacks.

And this is where I’d like to conclude. My most recent former workplace had seemed like a massive intense gladiator ring or Mandingo fighting ground. There were numerous permutations of matches, with the roles of everyone changing incessantly, sometimes being that of gladiators and Mandingo slave fighters, other times Roman spectator and white slave owner. You basically had to ensure you took on the seat of the Roman spectator cum white slave owner more frequently through surviving your own gladiator or Mandingo fights. Those who had thrived eventually became very gleeful Roman spectators, Calvin Candies or Stephens. It was an environment steeped in and reeking of  the filth and stench of schadenfreude.

A friend thriving in the corporate sector had been giving me worldly advice then, telling me about mastering the skills of aligning and realigning, playing the game of allies versus enemies, and even learning to relish spectator watching, all in order to secure my own survival. All this I vehemently rejected as I felt that it is a perverted cruelty I could not live with. And indeed I have not survived that place, being as dead in the fight as how Dr Schultz’s body had been ridden with bullets during his death. Despite all this, I think Dr Schultz did not regret his decision to treat the blacks respectfully and this can be seen in how Django took Dr Schultz’s demise. Django’s reverence for Dr Schultz was more than evident in the scene when he closed Dr Schultz’s eyes, while not giving a damn about all the other dead bodies of the white men lying about him. God close my weary eyes now while I rest and proceed on to a next and hopefully more merciful workplace. I hope this latest Tarantino movie chapter in my life has come to a close. Amen.

Awestruck

“You must really count your blessings.”

Those were the words of my friend D before we parted ways while on our way home. After musing about what have passed in the two days, I remark to myself, “Actually not only count, but just believe in them.”

I think I’d lost the ability to believe in blessings sometime earlier in my life during that fateful April 2011. After God managed to save me from that incident, I was still a faithful believer in Christ, but somehow with regard to blessings, I had become a diehard cynic. Ironically, it did not manifest itself in the direct way of dismissing blessings as falsehood and lies. It stemmed more from the fundamental knowledge that blessings are transient. Perhaps the best person to quote from the Bible with regard to my mindset would be Job with his famous

“Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised.”

Job 1:21-22 (NIV)

I was not wrong in being aware of the transience of blessings. They are indeed impermanent and come and go. However, I had become so hung up on their brevity, that I was in a perpetual state of panic that I even as I have come to learnt to take care of myself better and better, while respecting other, my fear would get in the way regularly and disturb me from fully appreciating what I have been blessed with.

I think God had enough. Being pleased with my willingness to serve him was not enough. He wanted me to reclaim the joy I had lost that May five years ago. Being the master planner He is, He did not reveal the plans immediately. Instead he laid the foundations much earlier, with the situation at times looking unstable, erratic, and even dismal at times. And meanwhile I was wondering whether I was really incorrigible, a case doomed for failure.

During this past five years of unravelling, I had not recognized the gift at first. It really took a while to see it, here, there. Now my eyes are blinded by the majesty of it. Indeed His ways are really beyond any comprehension. It is at the revelation of their totality and completeness that you are left gaping in awe and wonder.

I am still awestruck in joy, and I pray to God to help me always hold this moment in my heart. Amen!