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.

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.