Reconciliation in a Panther's sprint

There was definitely no initial intention to pen anything about "Black Panther", as it struck me as more or less what you would expect from Marvel, albeit with heavy dosages of black affirmation and women empowerment (though they were satisfactorily done). However upon deeper examination of the dynamics between T'challa and Killmonger, I have been increasingly moved to write something. Spoilers ahead of course.

Both characters have proven to be relatable in their own manner, with valid standpoints. In fact one could postulate that they are two sides of the same coin in relation to the burden of historical baggage. As an audience, I was originally quite upset with Killmonger's death, as it felt as if he was not given opportunity for closure and reconciliation with his family and nation, with the ending seeming like a one-sided politically correct ending with T'challa emerging triumphant.

In other conflict ridden relationships in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, producers have been willing to let things run their course to add value to all characters involved. Thor and Loki's sibling rivalry has moved beyond Greek tragedy cliche, to become more representative of the tongue-in-cheek jousting between siblings in daily life.  Captain America's tortured loyalty to his unlucky friend Bucky aka Winter Soldier has even been the center piece theme in Civil War, to get us to question ourselves, and our three way tug of war between professionalism versus past and present relationships. What bugged me was Marvel's stinginess to afford Killmonger time to let things develop and morph between him and T'challa. However upon deeper scrutiny of "reconciliation", especially the final scene between T'challa and Killmonger, I may have to rethink things.

Killmonger had grown up feeling severely displaced, perhaps due to how he esteems his ancestral roots, motivating him to conceptualise his masterplan of igniting civil unrest to all former colonial master nations.  After his fatally mortal wound by T'challa, Killmonger is brought by T'challa to his favourite personal spot, with hopes that he finally repents of his ways. And he does. It is only in that spot that Killmonger takes in the full majesty and beauty of his ancestral land, realising he had been too consumed with vindication and hatred, and neglected to appreciate his time there, lest to say assimilate and contribute. It is with this full awareness that Killmonger gets the humble clarity to decline his cousin T'challa's kind offer to preserve his life, taking accountability over the short-lived but grave carnage he inflicted upon his homeland. Death itself being the honourable act of reconciliation and coming to peace, with T'challa giving him a proper Wakandian warrior's burial.

This turn of events is swift and grim, and it is sad to see the character depart. However the convincing reconciliation's speed of a panther's sprint, makes this character's arc of development and dynamics with others extremely commendable, distinguishing it from all of other Marvel's conflicted relationships. After all quality need not be tied to the bondage of time.

The Florida Project: A cautionary tale to clip our Icarus wings lest we crash

Everyone wants to have a good time, and the film "The Florida Project" starts off with this premise, narrating Moonie's summer holiday at The Magic Castle Motel in Orlando, within close proximity to Disneyland. While Moonie and her friends' enjoyment feature heavily in the film's foreground, what is happening in the background and sideframes offer a much bleaker contrast (Spoilers ahead). 

Business at the motel is dwindling such that manager Bobby resorts to renting out room units to housing poor families, which have complicated backgrounds. Bobby sees this as a win-win arrangement for all , and is very sympathetic and accommodating to them, and even then he is forced to tow the line when matters infringe the law. While the adults like him and Ashley juggle burdens of being providers and protectors over the children (there is one particularly harrowing scene where we adults saw how close the kids were to impending danger if it were not for Bobby's efforts), the kids remain largely oblivious to such matters happening around them, completely basking in simple joys.

And this brings me to Halley, Moonie's mother. Plenty of audiences expressed immense sympathy for hers and Moonie's eventual turn of events. Despite how callous it may sound, it may actually be a necessary gamble taken by Social Welfare Services, to separate Moonie from her mother, cruel it may be, to give her a proper opportunity in life. Perhaps like the character Ashley, whatever early empathy  for Halley got worn off as events in the film progressed. While we do not negate how unfavourable conditions are stacked against Halley in life, she has displayed a chronic stubbornness against  taking ownership of her life, no better than a child.

The best examples demonstrating this are actually in the minor scenes of the film. When everyone gets to know news of a fire breaking out at the abandoned motels, she views this situation as a novelty, getting Moonie to go to the scene and even posing for selfies in front of the burning unit. She is completely oblivious to Moonie's discomfort and guilt, having been responsible for this prank gone wrong. Another example would be her feast with Moonie at the diners, out of spite for Ashley, spending extravagantly despite her already precarious financial situation. And we have not even touched upon her later physical assault on Ashley after the failed attempt to make amends while also soliciting financial assistance. Halley is indeed trapped in the throes of toxic financial impoverishment, but her impulsive and emotional nature and behaviour definitely exacerbated this downward spiral into despair.

 

Letting Moonie remain with Halley is akin to letting two children take care of each other, a recipe ripe for disaster. We can already see Moonie picking up some of Halley's very undesirable life principles and mindset. Sympathisers will of course protest, decrying that the cruelty of separation will only further toxify Moonie's growing up process. However as Halley does not display any intent to take ownership of her life and situation, the end process when staying with her mother may prove equally hopeless.

When hope is nowhere in sight, we would all like to behave as children do, flying on our Icarus wings into a beautiful land of fantasy, where magical beings miraculously help resolve all our troubles and woes. However in the process, we may not realise the wax holding our wings are slowly melting, and our eventual crash may only serve to plunge what seems like paradise into an inferno. To preserve the rainbow in paradise, we may have to grow up instead.

Anger containment: Finding peace despite the senselessness

No one likes to be on the receiving end of anger, no matter whether it is justified or not. After all that is what makes forgiveness so appealing, as it neutralises this load that no one dares to bear. Which brings me to examine the Oscar season movie focusing squarely on anger management, "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri", and how anger turn out to be a vehicle of goodness.

An interesting post I had read earlier from a fellow movie enthusiast, expressed immense personal dislike in particular towards the film's lead protagonist Mildred. In particular the view drew contrast between Mildred and the protagonist in an earlier Oscar winning movie in 2016 dealing also with anger and grief, namely Lee Chandler from "Manchester by the Sea". The thesis was that Lee Chandler is much more worthy of sympathy than Mildred as he self-directs his torment, unlike Mildred who has selfishly dragged the entire town into her pot of vengeance, such that everyone emerges a "loser", as in her words.  

If you examine solely the direction in which the anger is exacted, Mildred does appear extremely unreasonable. However upon scrutinising the origins behind the two different stories and characters' grief and anger, we may better understand and empathise with Mildred. Spoilers ahead for both films.

Lee Chandler originally had a happy family with wife Randi and three children. As you find out eventually in the course of "Manchester by the Sea"', it is unquestionably through Lee Chandler own negligence when being intoxicated, that the fire which engulfed and killed his children was ignited. Meanwhile, the situation for Mildred in Thee Billboards is markedly less clear-cut.

Mildred's early ill treatment at the hands of her former husband Charlie sets up the dysfunctional environment which her children Angela and Robbie grew up, leading them to have a conflicted relationship towards their mother. In the light of this setting, Angela rebels against Mildred by insisting on taking the family car without permission out for a drive unsupervised, which culminated in her very own rape and murder.

The similarity between Lee Chandler and Mildred is their grim realisation that nothing they can do will ever bring their children back to them, and this aspect of manifests as self-directed grief and anger, which both Lee Chandler and Mildred possess.

Mildred Hayes unfortunately has an additional baggage of other parties being also involved in the genesis of the tragedy (for example her fickle ex-husband Charlie who has quickly moved onward to a new relationship with a minor; her muted son Robbie who despite having done his part to help, was too little too late). Coupled with the chronic ineptitude of the town law enforcement team (namely Willoughby and Dixon) to solve the case, she has taken upon the huge mission of getting all these members to be accountable for their own part in this lack of closure.

Over the course of the film, despite the initial wrath Mildred had drawn from majority of the townsfolk, I would say things have worked out for the better for all involved in a weird way, all thanks to Mildred's efforts, extreme they may be. Through the final letters of Willoughby before his death, we sense empathetic comradeship between Mildred and him, notwithstanding their conflict with each other from a professional standpoint. It may very well have been Mildred's situation that prompted Willoughby to prioritise his family over all else in his last days. He even sponsors her for additional rent in putting up the billboards, indirectly conceding his remorse at not being able to do more. Robbie consents to showing grudging support for Mildred through a stoic calmness in school and helping her with setting up of the replacement billboards. Also, it is Mildred's case coupled with the departure of Willoughby, that starts Dixon's personal and professional journey to maturity. Even her ex-husband Charlie takes some ownership over his irresponsibility in the bar scene.

 

Midway in the film, there is a rare scene of Mildred displaying her vulnerability (the other being the scene where Willoughby coughs blood in front of her) , confiding with a deer. Through this we see her for exactly what she is, a woman who is unfortunately bearing way more than the usual load from family tragedy, questioning God, to whom should she pass the load onward and how to do it.

Then she had concluded in a exasperated manner her doubt in the existence and presence of God. Oddly though, from the outcome of everything, she may actually be the vehicle of God himself on others, as everyone has come to terms with themselves when the film ends. Let us hope that as she drives off with Dixon on that road trip, she also finally finds her own much needed peace. That peace which everyone gets, is the best victory for this senseless world.

Prelude to Oscars: This is the Greatest Show!

More than two months have passed since the opening screening of "The Greatest Showman", which shows no sign of abating, with its recent release of a "Sing-along" version in theaters (the only other recent movie to have done so was the wildly popular "Frozen"). This is perhaps the best testament to the origins of the entertainment industry, that no matter what the motivations driving the production of any film, all members behind the production unanimously agree that they definitely want the audience to have a great time. To get into the festive mood before the results get announced, I am penning this fun post of using the musical numbers from "The Greatest Showman" to have a look at the generic life lessons behind great shows, enjoy!

"A Million Dreams"

One may directly or indirectly draw encouragement, strength and even inspiration from film and its characters, be it whether the film is wholly fictional or inspired from true events. Films are ultimately stories about peoples, providing wisdom and insight on how to or how not to proceed onward during dilemmas, so that we can continue full speed ahead to pursue what is key to us.

"The Other Side"

Sometimes films may discovery journeys. They throw curve balls to push our limits, bring us down rabbit holes to venture into realms out of our usual comfort zones, introducing us to themes, issues which we were formerly oblivious to, unearthing principles and mindsets which lurking within us.

"This is Me"

Many use the film watching experience as a vehicle of escape or diversion from the burdens of life, and once in a while we encounter a film which seems to affirm our own efforts, making film watching a divine positive review of the movie of our current stage in life.  Coming of age, a theme present in many films, is actually a never-ending process, which we will only fully actualise at the end of our lives.

"Tightrope"

Rarely do films only set out in single mindedness, to teach us a sole lesson, mirroring how we try so hard to juggle and balance multiple identities, to fulfill many needs and wants in life. Meeting the expectations of all members of the film-going audience is also a precarious challenge, and there will definitely be some who will be lost along the way, just like how we may falter once in a while in life's balancing act.  

"From Now On"

Life is messy, and will sometimes leave us feeling like wrecks. This dissatisfaction may not be necessarily be a bad thing, as it may prompt us to scrutinise ourselves properly, identifying what we sorely lack, and direct us towards any much needed decisive changes that have been long overdue.

"The Greatest Show" 

Film making is ultimately an art, and it is very easy for critics like me to rip the product to pieces according to my own beliefs or preferences after a simple viewing session. Despite this, I still cannot negate all the hard work and team work that all members of the production team went into painstakingly putting on the show. To extend on this point, we also should bestow this basic recognition towards each other for the our own life's "Greatest Show". Let's give each other a hand of applause!

Our Harding-Kerrigan conflict in life

I have been trying to put off writing my thoughts for a quite a while (see the post on 20 Feb). However I have come across a quote by Elena Ferrante about how there should not be any need to contain our thoughts and feelings in our private spaces, and it is perhaps most appropriate for this post to be a movie which lays bare the uncomfortable thoughts and feelings of parties involved in an infamous sport scandal, "I Tonya".

The film is shot in a manner where we are asked to suspend our loyalties and preferences towards and against any of the characters first, and scrutinise the events from different perspectives of each character. What we are presented with is a series of mistake upon mistake culminating into an ultimate catastrophic finale, despite what had seemed so full of potential and promise.

Yet in life who has never made any mistakes, and how many of us ever do know of its full gravity? We are always trying to do our best as Tonya Harding did, regardless of whatever rules or conventions bind us. These rules and conventions may be harsh and merciless, yet they have their place and necessity. Which is why I agree with the final verdict of lifetime ban of Tonya Harding from figure skating, as the issue is not merely about her rivalry with Nancy Kerrigan, or that particular year's Winter Olympics, but about how the mistakes have led to a sacrilege of sportsmanship.

There are also other issues that I think of with regard to this film. Firstly, is life or truth always so clear-cut in a black versus white, Harding-Kerrigan narrative? What if in life we do not have such a fixed identity but actually alternate between the roles of Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan constantly? In fact it is very clear from the film, that Tonya Harding views herself as the "Nancy Kerrigan" of the unfortunate incident. If so, how do we put a decisive end to this sequence of unfortunate events, where we release everyone from the bondage of this Harding-Kerrigan narrative? 

The film does not end with any answers to those questions, and it seems that is the exact intent of the film. Life's narrative is supposed to be complicated and messy, and we will always find ourselves thrust to and fro into the discomforting throes of the Harding-Kerrigan narrative.

For those who are interested in finding more about the theory of the Harding-Kerrigan Narrative this is a fantastic introduction.

Movie Mayhem with God Part 13: The same vulnerable Wolverine; two very different outcomes

Friends of mine may know that I’ve had the honour of winning an online competition to get the opportunity to interview Hugh Jackman face-to-face live in Singapore, when he came down in May to promote X-Men Days of Future Past. He was a very friendly star with no airs, and it was after the interview, that I felt curious enough to look for his other works, such as the Prestige.

During my retreat in CISC over the past week, while I was mulling over the concept of “mercy” in the Beatitudes, when I was suddenly reminded of two very different characters played by Mr Jackman, in two films which could not have stated the contrast better, what it means to accept mercy and what it means to deny mercy.

In The Prestige, Hugh Jackman’s Robert Angier is so consumed with Christian Bale’s Alfred Borden at having caused his girlfriend’s drowning accident, he practically devotes his entire life towards getting back at him. In the movie poster, the tag line states, “are you watching closely?” Sad to say, for their characters in the film, are so concentrated on watching as each other as adversaries closely, they completely lose sight of themselves. In the process of this relentless duel, they sacrifice their physical health, career, friends, loved ones, and eventually themselves. What was initially a healthy devotion to professionalism for their vocation of performing magic, veers off course till they’re so possessed by the notion that the other party has trumped them, they fail to treasure what they have till all was lost. By refusing to show mercy to each other, they were actually denying themselves of mercy. A conversation in the movie sums things up quite nicely.

Nikola Tesla: Mr. Angier, have you considered the cost of such a machine?

Robert Angier: Price is not an object.

Nikola Tesla: Perhaps not, but have you considered the ‘cost’?

Robert Angier: I'm not sure I follow.

Nikola Tesla: Go home. Forget this thing. I can recognize an obsession, no good will come of it.

Robert Angier: Why, haven't good come of your obsessions?

Nikola Tesla: Well, at first. But I followed them too long. I'm their slave... and one day they'll choose to destroy me.

Robert Angier: If you understand an obsession, then you know you won't change my mind.

Les Miserables is a well-known epic by Victor Hugo, which has been adapted into films and even a staple Broadway musical. Hugh Jackman plays the role of protagonist Jean Valjean in the most recent film adaptation in 2012. A friend always jokes that the story is essentially about the rest of the life an ex-convict who had stolen a loaf of bread. Well, I’d like to add she missed out the critical “redemption through mercy” part in the equation, which without it, would quite frankly render the entire story meaningless.

Having been inspired by a kind bishop, after his release from prison, Jean Valjean turns his life around as mayor of a small town. However, his old enemy, the fanatic police inspector Javert is convinced that a leopard never changes his spots, and he makes it his personal mission to “stalk” Valjean. In the midst of this, Jean Valjean adopts Cosette, daughter of Fantine (an ill-treated factory worker of his), as he feels responsible over her descent into prostitution. As he tries his best to protect and provide for Cosette throughout the rest of his life, all members are swept into the political turmoil in 1830s France.

At the finale of the film, Jean Valjean passes away content and peaceful, knowing he has done it utmost to uphold his promise to the bishop and Fantine. However, things are much bleaker for Javert, who unable to reconcile his devotion to the law with his realisation that sometimes lawful course is immoral, takes his own life.

The movie poster has the caption “Fight Dream Hope Love”, each representing the life mottos of the characters of Javert, Fantine, Valjean and Cosette respectively. Fantine’s courage in asking Valjean for mercy in taking care of her daughter, as well as Valjean’s willingness to grant mercy, accounts for the peace granted to Valjean and Fantine as the end of their days. Meanwhile, Javert’s obsessive stubbornness at denying others that much needed mercy, is precisely the factor which drives him to suicide as he is unable to forgive himself when he discerns the error of his past beliefs.

I’ll conclude this entry with a snapshot of the process towards and away from God, which I had gotten from the retreat. Both journeys start from the same point and their various “symptoms” at each stage may mirror and contrast their corresponding stage in the alternative journey.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

Matthew 5:7 (NIV)

Movie Mayhem with God Part 12: Transcendence

Transcendence was another movie that I had wanted to write about when it had been on the screens in March this year, but I hadn’t been able to sort of my thoughts about it then though I was moved by it. Even though the movie wasn't fantastic (yes, Johnny Depp practically does most of his performance in a manner as if via Skype), the themes present in the movie are quite worth discussing. Now, I’ve finally been able to sift through it properly to write in a manner as coherent as I can.

A brief synopsis of it would be that scientist Dr Will Caster and his wife (a fellow scientist who also stands in to help him on PR duties), have been trying to invent this computer which is able to process human conscious, but at super human speed. They believe in the unlimited potential of the human consciousness, and how it can be used to do good. However, opponents of this idea, feel that they are literally trying to “play God”, and Will Caster gets assassinated by them during a presentation when he’s pitching the idea to both the scientific community as well as potential corporate sponsors. His grieving wife, out of an inability to accept his death, transplants his consciousness into the machine and then mayhem slowly ensues. Unfortunately no matter how hard I try to talk about this film, I’ll eventually spoiler the plot, so here goes…

The two main themes that struck me in this film, are the concept of “playing God”, and the concept of “being human”. Let’s start with “playing God”. “Playing God” suggests that the party in question, firstly over-estimated his or her abilities to handle something (the layman phrase for it is “you don’t know what you’re in store for” in the negative sense), and is acting out of sheer self-interest and nothing else. During the film, after Will Caster’s death, his wife impulsively uploads his consciousness in the computer system, in a way “resurrecting” him. Through the film, the resurrected Will Caster does increasingly astounding yet disturbing things, unsettling former colleagues, friends and eventually even his own wife.

Both acts on surface may seem to be “playing God” in a sense, but eventually as the plot unfolds, we see that only one act is “playing God” in the strict sense. Will Caster’s wife’s actions are the confirmed act of playing God. Her choice of “resurrecting” him to life, is solely out of her grief of losing him forever. She had not contemplated whether it was in accordance to Will’s wishes, or of anyone else’s, as well as the consequences of this action, apart from the fact that she’d be able to “keep him with her forever” in a sense. This is evidenced in the scene where she and a common friend were grieving and going to shut down the machine and leave. The friend encourages her to end the “experiment” and she is about to. However when the grief gets the better of her, she abruptly changes her mind and decides to persist.

Meanwhile, for the case of the resurrected Will Caster, his decisions and “actions” (if they can be deemed as such, since he is merely a “machine” in the strict sense) increasingly defy the understanding of everyone, thus scaring them. However through his final act of choosing to die, he proved himself to be who he was and is all along, merely that his abilities have been heightened and expanded beyond what anyone else in the film can grasp. So in an oxymoronic way, he resurrects the love and trust between him and his wife through dying. Dying is inevitable for human beings. However, it is through the very act of willingness to die, that Will Caster proves he is no longer “God” in the cruel sense of that of a mere machine, but is a human being who has the ability to love, made in the image of God.

On the movie poster, the advertisement line for the film reads “Yesterday, Dr. Will Caster was only human”. It is actually true, but not just in the conventional train of logic. Without having watched the film, just based on what we think we know of the film from the trailer, we tend to hastily jump into conclusion that that the “transcendence” of Will Caster is of his superhuman abilities. However the other “transcendence” of Will Caster, is of the grand vision he has for the future and the love for his wife, such that eventually when everyone else loses faith in him, he is willing to die again, in order to keep that vision and love alive. Hmm, I’d play with the movie poster line a bit. “Yesterday Dr. Will Caster was only human, he still is human, and yet he is not just human!”

Before I end this blog entry, I’d like to bring up this dear Bible verse which is my current motto in my walk with God, as well as the two famous new covenant commandments which appear in as many as three of the four Gospels of Christ. It is of no sheer coincidence that all these four verses are quoted directly from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself.

Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

Matthew 10:39 (NIV)

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV)

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

Mark 10:28-31 (NIV)

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

Luke 10:25-38 (NIV)

Movie Mayhem with God Part 11: Noah

The next movie I’m going to take on is going to be a highly provocative one, and I foresee getting lashings from some. Noah was shown during this March, with a respectable box office, but drawing a very mixed reception, especially within the Christian circle. It doesn’t help that the director Darren Aronofsky is an avowed atheist, making this a definite recipe for controversy. I had actually meant to write this right after watching the film, but was worried about how I could take on the balancing act, postponing this blog entry till only now. I’ll start by detailing my thought processes which led me to eventually decide to watch the movie, and my take on the movie itself.

Before the movie’s screening, there had already been quite a lot of hoo-haa, with calls by Christians to boycott the movie. Despite also harbouring fears of what the movie would depict, I eventually decided to go ahead and view it for myself. In my earlier walk as a believer, my fellow Christian mates had always advised me to steer clear from all stuff controversial to Christianity. Under this topics included philosophy, readings on other faiths, even taiji and wuxia! Now as a slightly more mature and assured Christian, I’ve dared to assert that staying faithful to God does not necessarily imply shunning all these, and they can be actually reconciled to the Christian faith. I exercise taiji at least once a week, and to me it is merely a form of physical exercise to enhance one’s blood circulation and breathing patterns, with the meaning of “yin yang” merely being “inhale exhale”. During my recent RCIA session, the Father from the church mentioned that other faiths are partial revelations of God’s truth, thus reaffirming my decision to continue reading books on them, just that I take care to look out for the elements of their teachings which parallel what the Bible states. I know some believers may dispute my methods, saying that this form of engagement may lead to spiritual chaos. However, here I’ll counter by saying ignorance is definitely no way to overcome fear either, as it is akin to an ostrich mentality, which I consider worse for myself.

It is with this same train of logic in mind that I finally decided to go ahead and watch the film. There’s some arguments put forth by other Christians on how un-Biblical it is. The examples they have stated are the blatantly pro-green message implying that Noah’s family were vegans, and the depiction of fallen angels turned stone monsters helping Noah build the ark. Personally I think these two points of contention are really juvenile. With regard to the vegan message, I’ll just shrug and say, the Bible never said they ate meat either, so there you have the ambiguity for narration. Darren Aronofsky simply wants to encourage us to go vegan, each to his own then. The stone giants argument is slightly more difficult to refute and resolve, though I’ll also use the same sequence of logic, saying that there was no mention of the exact way of manpower deployment of labour for construction work of the ark. We regular consumers of popular culture should be well aware that this part of narration helps create a wonderful opportunity for the production team to add in loads of actions sequences with 3D effects and thus is really a very market-related factor. I’d rather define these two areas as more Biblical-neutral, pardon me for the concoction of this hideous term. As for another major issue, that of God being eerily absent in the film, I'll speak in the film's defense, saying that the terms Creator comes up frequently enough, that being one of the many names God takes on.

However, if there are un-Biblical or even anti-Biblical themes in the film, I’d readily admit that there indeed are. Two major ones in fact, though surprisingly I’ve never seen them being mentioned in any articles pertaining to the film. First is the depiction of Noah’s emotional turmoil, climaxing with his inability to kill his grandchild. The early narration of Noah’s struggle was originally very relatable and touching for me, being a very realistic portrayal. I mean, definitely if God announced impending doom for the entire world with the sole exception of your family, one would at least feel slightly disturbed, no matter how much one doesn’t get along that well with the rest of the fallen world. Even mid-way when Noah goes on to misunderstand God’s message, thinking the “destroying of fallen mankind” implies that even his family not to be spared, it is a very convincing depiction. Many believers do not have the ability to comprehend the logic behind God’s commands, and read His motives off-key, though their actions carried out may still be in line with His orders,  I myself being admittedly one of them. The fact that in the film, Noah is humble enough to classify his family and himself to be fallen and sinful, actually proves how much of a believer he is, worthy to be chosen for the task. This brings up the famous verse by Paul in Romans, about how all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It is just that the devil played on Noah’s misinterpretation of God’s commands to lead him into spiritual confusion, as shown by his mistaken decision to forbid Shem from having a child with his wife.

However, I look upon the narrative sequence of the birth of the grandchild onwards to be openly contentious. If you watch it carefully, you’ll be able to see how this parallels and then perverts the Abraham sacrificing Issac test in Genesis. If we lay aside historical accuracy (after all biblically, we really don’t know exactly when Noah’s grandchildren were born, thus giving the director the chance for freedom of expression), I think the director purposely wrote this into the script to reflect his own views towards God, of how he is simply unable to accept a God who can command you to commit deeds out of a mere whim to assess your faith. Thus the actual Biblical character under attack is the Abraham, not Noah.

This is further evidenced by the depiction of the character of Ham, Noah’s second son in the film, which is a vivid magnifier of the director’s train of thoughts in relation to this. Perhaps, it is a “blessing” to the director that the Bible is generally silent on the nature of Noah’s sons, which gave him a prime opportunity of free rein over how he could choose to sculpt this character. Ham starts out alright, being the typical teenager he is, anxious about his impending adulthood, slightly envious of his brother’s blossoming romance with his future sister-in-law. Thus when news of the doomsday is confirmed, he naturally worries that he wouldn’t be able to enjoy this blessing now that practically all other women apart from his mother and future sister-in-law are not going to survive. He tries to go on a desperate search for a suitable wife, finds a girl he fancies enough, but yet she gets abandoned to death by Noah. Noah’s character development by that point in the film has missed the mark, with the character thinking that mankind must die as in really ALL mankind. This part is outright un-Biblical as it is very clearly specified in the Genesis 6:18 & 7:13 that Shem, Ham, Japeth, their wives and all family members were readily allowed in the ark. Midway in the film, as an act of rebellion and spite against Noah, Ham even sneaks the villain Tubal-Cain into the ark, and after things nearly go out of hand, he murders Tubal-Cain, with Tubal-Cain pronouncing something akin to a curse on him. During the grandchild dilemma, Ham adopts a highly cynical bystander attitude, and the film concludes with Ham’s decision to leave the family and go on his own, when he sees the resolve of Noah to kills the grandchild crumble, while Noah goes on to bless and ordain Shem’s family. Nevertheless, I’d still advise fellow believers to look out for the character of Ham when watching the film, as this character gives us great insight in the logic processes of many atheists, explaining to us the rationale behind their rejection of God, would assist us greatly during any future chances of engagement with them. Also, kudos to Logan Lerman for using of this blatantly anti-Biblical depiction of a Biblical character as an opportunity to showcase his acting abilities.

I’ll end off with this verse by Paul, telling us believers to rejoice as long as the Word is being preached, regardless of how pure or impure the intentions of those who preach the word are. It is the responsibility of us as mature believers to do the filtering of the message, since the period of time for spoon-fed understanding from God is finite. What matters is that God must always stay present to us, never falling into oblivion and indifference.

It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

Philippians 1:15-18 (NIV)

Movie Mayhem with God Part 10: Edge of Tomorrow

Just last week, I had been joking with a friend over his hamster. With regard to these creatures, a common image we have of them are their vigourous regimes on those wheels in their cages, as they bound apparently towards nowhere.

I’ve completed a latest cycle on this treadmill of life. It was three years ago that I watched the movie Source Code and was personally touched. Now in 2014, the movie Edge of Tomorrow has brought back the same effect, as it is perhaps of no coincidence that my current state of life is highly similar to that three years ago.

Seems like really nothing has changed. Just like William Cage in Edge of Tomorrow, I’ve been living this full cycle, and not being able to break out of it, and as the cycle comes to conclusion soon, it is time to “die again”. The sole, yet critical difference: it’s less shameful, painful and excruciating. As William Cage trains up in the movie, his survival span lengthens each time round, slowly and surely, and his methods of dying get less humiliating and more honourable along the way.

During the middle of the show, Rita asks him whether he knows what’s in store next, and he replies “Well, I’ve never gotten this far.” Indeed, I’ve also never gotten this far in my current state in life, despite the impending “death” in the cycle coming up.

It was a delight to watch the movie. In fact, I felt Edge of Tomorrow surpassed Source Code, as William Cage’s character is much more believable and relatable, being that he isn’t an out and out hero as the lead in Source Code. In fact in the early parts of the show displaying William Cage’s lack of effectiveness with cockiness (plentiful examples), I was laughing till my sides split, as I had déjà vu moments of looking through a time portal of sorts, replaying all those horrendous mistakes I’ve made in my past.

Then there are the latter parts of the show which made my heart ache for his character. His dejection as he doesn’t bother with training and escapes to a café to drown in his misery but is nevertheless killed again. And then his selfless brashness in deciding to take on the duty all by himself, as he doesn’t want to get any other people involved to spare them the torture. At the risk of coming across as though I’m boasting, on certain days in life, I personally experience emotions and thoughts along these frequencies on a regular basis.

In the trailer’s monologue, William Cage states simply “For me, it’s been an eternity”. Indeed it has seems like I’m perpetually getting nowhere in life. When thinking along these lines, I can really envision God smirking at me saying “Be careful when you define the term ‘eternal life’, and pray carefully…” This year marks the 6^th year of my life as a daughter of Christ, and I guess the fact that at completion of the latest three year cycle, I’m still bothering to want to identify myself as a believer, is already cause enough for rejoicing. Think the conversation between Rita and William in the movie kind of summarises what God has up his sleeve for me, though frankly, I still don’t get it that clear. Well, if I got it that clear, I wouldn’t still be dying I guess. However, yes, this is an official announcement of sorts that the Movie Mayhem with God series is resurrected. Amen!

William: But I’m not a soldier!

Rita: Of course you’re not a soldier! You’re a weapon.

There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens:

a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot, a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance, a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing, a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away, a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak, a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.

Ecclesiastes 3: 1-8 (NIV)

A Most Dangerous Dynamics

Since I'd been down with a terrible bout of cold cough last weekend, this "torture" had actually presented me with a wonderful opportunity to catch up on my reading, one of which is this book. Frankly speaking, I had started off reading merely to "preview" the movie version. This experience has so far taken off into another enjoyment of its own.

To summarise the plot of this autobiography, it would be how the interplay of dynamics between Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, complicated with the presence of Sabina Spielrein, altered what and how pyschoanalysis was to be defined henceforth. Of course there is the underground romance between Jung and Spielrein, where the two's identities of physician versus patient get increasingly muddled up as the events proceed.  However, lest we dismiss this autobiography to be simply that of a physician breaking moral norms, we need to examine how this issue itself ends up being a brokering chip, in Jung's mutating professional relationship with Freud, especially towards their eventual fallout. To equate Freud as a "Grand Master" enforcing strict professionalism within physician-patient relations would be incorrect, as we see later on in the book more and more, as Freud too does not conduct himself in the most impartial manner possible. In fact, Freud's interpretive arrangements within the International Pyschoanaylsis Association smack of outright dictatorship in a "schism" or "movement" not unlike that of politics, which is definitely not the way in which "science" goes about.

The most objective person in the sequence of events, Eugen Bleuler, one of Jung's first mentors in the Swiss psychology circle, who had repeatedly warned all parties that despite the merits of psychoanalysis, it was a seemingly dangerous method, as till then there had been no way to justify it to be classified as a "science". Thus the most pressing issue would be to resolve this crux of the problem. However, in the midst of the clash of personalities and power struggle between Freud and Jung, this critical issue has been swept under the carpet till this very day.

At the risk of reading too much into an otherwise riveting autobiography of two renown men, I cannot help but draw parallels between their power play and conventional office politics, myself greatly empathising with sometimes Jung, sometimes Freud, as the events in the autobiography proceeded.

All too often personality preferences and styles, end up making critical issues take a back seat for too long, festering in the dark like an over-ripe fruit. And by the time the stench is noticed, it may have already been too late, as the leaders involved will have long since passed on and the industry squandered a precious opportunity to rectify the situation. I guess the only conclusion I can draw from this book is that famous scripture verse from Romans 3:23 "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". If great men like Freud and Jung suffer from mistakes like these, what more we mere insignificant workers in our workplaces.

Workplace relations is neither a science, where rival point of views are essential to meaningful progress towards productivity, because it would hamper overall direction of the organisation. However it is not an art too, where the higher authorities have the sole right to enforce and dicate every single decision pertaining to the implementation of the daily operations, as their level of participation in it is restricted, sometimes hindering the wisdom of their choices. I would opt to say that workplace relations is a craft, where all members of the organisation adopt a unifying generic practical attitude of professionalism in line with the orgnisation's vision and mission as they go about operations, while leaving room for other essential matters of accomodation of styles, preferences, personalities to be flexible. However in many cases, the way in which an orgnisation runs has been held sway by a markedly few leaders for too long, such that their preferred manner of operations has constricted how the organisation is run, while simultaneously ingraining a conformed political mindset within employees of how to conduct themselves, with the sole aim of maintaining this constriction and nothing else.

I'll finish off this entry with a collection of my personal favourite abridged excerpts from the books, from which I got the inspiration to write my conclusion. The book is available in all bookshops and most branches of the National Library Board. Meanwhile I'd better start on watching the film version too.


In effect, Freud and Jung were contending to see which was the analyser, which the one anaylsed. What had once been a collaborative arrangement had collapsed into a situation in which only one of them could be the authority, only one the possessor of pyschoanalytic truth. Accordingly, each man now posed a special kind of psychological threat to the other, a kind of threat that was perhaps historically unprecedented. For not only was each man claiming to know the other better than he knew himself, but by that very act he was appropriating the other's right to his own identity as a psychoanalyst... The possibility of playing for such terrible, savage stakes was implicit in how psychoanalysis had evolved- without empirical checks or methodological safeguards, the right to discern the unconscious motives of another belonged to whoever was strong enough to seize it. Yet, paradoxically, the very nature of the psychoanalysis identity they were trying to wrest from each other demanded that they not indulge their fiercer passions any further. The identity of a psychoanalyst was a corporate one. If the two men wrecked institutional psychoanalysis with their different polemics, then neither would achieve the thing he was after.

"The Rest is Silence" pg. 434-5

Was pyschoanalysis a science, in which rival hypotheses were essential to a meaningful examination of the data? Or was it an art, in which case the original artist had the right to enforce to how his creation should best be completed? A case could have been made that the actual practice of psychoanalysis was neither an art nor a science, but a craft... indicated the practical attitude which the analyst should adopt toward basic phenomena...while they left more essential matters...completely hanging. Moreover, in such a conception of psychoanalysis, the theoretical and practical innovations of Freud, Jung and others would still have had their place as that which distinguished the craft of psychoanalytic psychotheraphy from other forms.

As brillant as it was, Jung's innovation stopped short of truly turning psychoanalysis from the path that it was on. For he was not arguing that different types of patients might require different modes of understanding and even different types of intervention, which would have been a truly clinical approach. Instead, he was arguing that different kinds of theorists produce different kinds of theories, Which was a different matter. The evolution of psychoanalysis theory had been under the sway of its two giants for so long that the primacy of the theorist over the patient continued to be inadvertently maintained even as the effort was being made to understand what was going on.

From "This History of the Psychoanalytic Movement" pg.443, 464

All this was not supposed to happen in psychoanalysis, for psychoanalysis was, it was said, a science. In science, neither the vision of the founder nor the counter-vision of the disciple is of any movement. this in a way is science's great consolation. What is established rest on replicatable experience, and though it may later be amended or even overthrowbn by yet more penetrating investigations, one does not have to worry about other issues, such as personal temperament or religious tradition. Indeed this wqas the great hope... perhaps finally one culd put all conjectures about man's essential nature on an empirical footing. Early in their association, both Freud and Jung counted on just this protection... their differences would work themselves out as data continued to come in. But the data came in, and things only got worse...the fact that Freud and Jung could ultimately arrive at two different schools of depth pyschology indicates that psychoanalysis, despite its claims, was not a science...The problem lay between the theory and the data; it lay in the method... whe the time came, he (Freud) found he could not even describe the rules for interpretation, let alone prove their scientific sturdiness. The use of scientific language did nothing to resolve Freud's methodological problems... The real tragedy of Freud and Jung is not that they failed to create a science... The real tragedy is what they did to pyschoanalysis as a clinical method. They allowed the interpretive range of psychoanalysis to be woefully constricted while simultaneously creating a political organisation that ensured this constriction would endure.

From "Afterword" pg. 508-511

Movie Mayhem with God Part 8: The Ides of March

Alright, a final movie to wrap up for 2012. Sorry, for only writing it now as I think it's most probably off from the theatres by now, though for those determined ones, you can still try your luck with Cathay. Good luck!

My feelings towards this movie are very mixed. I had watched it as early as 10 weeks ago and was utterly dejected when I walked out. Not disappointed with the movie. In fact, it was a great movie. I had gained another two actors to follow (Ryan Gosling and George Clooney). More of disappointed with myself as I knew how much I could relate to Ryan Gosling's character in the film. I was greatly in danger of being totally disillusioned and jaded with my work then... Yup, Ryan Gosling's character ends up that way, after a series of tumultous events which totally changes his outlook towards what he had believed in and served so passionately then. I do not wish to give spoilers, so please check out the film at your DVD shop three months later or try your luck at Cathay cinemas asap...

I'd like to delve deeper into where I think Ryan Gosling's character had gone wrong in the start, which would ultimately lead to eventual disappointment no matter what. He was worshipping and serving people (which includes not just his colleagues but also himself) and the work itself, not God. Ok, very difficult to explain what is the difference, but to just to simplify matters, he idolised people (himself and/or others) and the work itself.

However, no matter what or who we idolise, we'll eventually end up being disappointed with it or them, period. Simply because they are not God. Thus, they will have the capacity to fail and disappoint. Just as God blessed us with them, we must keep in mind that they are from God, but they are not God... I know this is very hard to explain in concrete terms... To get a bit of relevant support, maybe this blog of mine "Work ≠ War" may help shed more light unto what I'm trying to get at...
http://workneednotencompasswar.blogspot.com/

We just have to keep our focus on God. Then everything will be alright. Period. It is by no coincidence that 2012 begins on a sunday. Sunday is Sabbath, basically a day of rest as decided by God himself. Let's all give ourselves a good rest on the first day of 2012, so that we can focus on God for 2012, and leave it for Him to pave the way for us. All we need to do is make sure we look out for his voice and obey his words. It's always about God, never about how, what, why, us, them or it...

but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus 20:10-11 (NIV)

What do workers gain from their toil? I have seen the burden God has laid on the human race. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end. I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live. That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil—this is the gift of God. I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that people will fear him.
Ecclesiastes 3:9-14 (NIV)