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.