Movie Mayhem with God: Silence

The experience of watching the film “Silence” was one that is beyond words. Viewing this tale of conflict between faith and doubt, self and others, and how in extreme situations, their entire definitions are perverted, was a very harrowing one. Discomfort is not even the remotely related to the turmoil going through my mind. And the afterthoughts lingered coming to two weeks before I could pen this.

I have never been a good believer, be it whether I was with the Protestant church from 2006 till 2015, or my conversion to Catholicism since 2016. Somehow I was never able to get that kind of ease of assurance of God’s love for myself, and God’s providence for me for the future. While some of my believer friends are gloriously proclaiming of the surety of their hearts for God, I just did not have that confidence. What was I doubting?

I do not doubt the presence of God. Even before I became a believer, my mindset was more skewed towards that of agnostics and theism, than atheism. It is glaringly obvious to me at least. This world despite of its flaws, is already so magnificent. How could randomness give rise to all this?

However, on a more personal level with God, things are complicated. Till this day, I cannot be settled with how God’s providence for everyone works, including myself. In recent times, I have undergone quite a few experiences where God’s providence for me is really… warped is the best word. It is this same tortured warpedness of the situation that torments Father Ferreira and Father Rodrigues in the film. Everything straightforward about their faith has been horribly bent beyond their recognition, and they cannot make sense of the suffering (both of themselves and the others) going on.

In the light of such perturbations, what do we do? (Spoilers ahead) Father Rodrigues prays fervently in desperation for answers, met with long periods of silence, till finally he supposedly seems to receive an answer. Was the voice from God, himself, or worse the devil? At the end of the film, director Martin Scorsese seems to suggest a certain answer through the final shot. However, in the original novel written by Shusaku Endo, there is no such clear mention.

And maybe that is the entire point. The point of faith first falls squarely on the premise of Man’s neediness for God, without which we need not bother about faith at all. In the film, the character of Kichijiro repeatedly does acts of betrayal and apostatising, while only to go beg and pray for confession for absolution of his sins. His character even became comic relief of sorts in this emotionally heavy laden film, emitting chuckles from the audience whenever he started to beg for Father Rodrigues for yet another confession session. While Kochijiro’s manner of conduct is one which we do not hold in much regards, as compared to the courage of the other three Japanese martyrs Ichizo and Mokichi, we must not ignore his character. An earlier article in Christianity Today (http://bit.ly/2kGBQ0R) helps explain it better. This faithlessness indicates a desperate neediness for God, which is a form of faith, as there is absence of doubt.

When I first started out as a believer, I was in a very wretched state, being unable to care for myself in any aspect. Father Erbin from the diocese in Singapore has mentioned quite a few times on the importance of the burning bush moment.  And maybe now that I am in new stage of test of faith, plagued with doubt, I should revisit my former despicable self, and look for what she has to offer me, afterall she was the one who had experienced that burning bush moment. As Father Rodrigues slowly grew to appreciate the friendship and solidarity he had with Kochijiro whom he had earlier detested, it is time to embrace desperation again. Maybe then, will the silence be the sound of peace. 

Movie Mayhem with God: Manchester by the Sea

I watched “Manchester by the Sea” last night, and was left with a “and so it goes” kind of nonchalance. Upon some reflection this morning, I was curious about this indifference, considering how there is considerable critical acclaim about “Manchester by the Sea”. And it is only with more self-probing that I realized some uncomfortable truths.

 “Manchester by the Sea” is a “shit happens” reality driven film. I recall a month ago watching “Moonlight” with my boyfriend, and afterwhich the two of us discussing how we felt the movie was realistic, thematic and plot wise perfectly woven, visually well shot, into a masterpiece. After viewing “Manchester by the Sea”, though it may not match up to “Moonlight” in terms of themes, plot and even technical aspects, there is one aspect which it trumps the other hands down. The raw, muted yet gritty realism. (Major spoilers ahead.)

At the end of the film, Lee Chandler (played by Casey Affleck) does not miraculously turn his life around. His life remains more or less the way it is. He is still a janitor in Boston, and eventually does not move back to Manchester. He transfers custodianship of his nephew Patrick over to a common family friend instead. The way the people back there regard him has not improved much (e.g. the scene where a friend’s wife tells her husband “I do not want him around here”, and the scene of yet another bar fight in the final act of the movie). Lee and his ex-wife Randi’s tortured conversation at the finale of the film definitely attests to the fact that both him and her and still aching with baggage of the past, such that their talk disintegrates in the way it does.

And perhaps it was this realism which had been a bit too much for me to bear. When watching I attempted to disengage myself and watch the film like from a clinical perspective of a psychological professional. I had even remarked about how the film is an excellent piece for a study into grieving. This detached callous attitude towards the film only served to mask an uncomfortable indicator for myself.

Just like Lee Chandler, my current life is no miracle story which I can use to praise the glory of God. Some basic elements of my life have been adequately handled, but other pertinent issues lie unresolved, and look set to remain that way. This echoes what the commentator in Screen Junkies’ “Movie Fight” said about “Manchester by the Sea”, that it is a film that dares to tell you shit happens, and it looks set to remain that way for quite a while, without any markedly positive resolution.

The film concludes with Lee Chandler and Patrick playing bouncing of a ball on the way back to Patrick’s place, after attending Patrick’s father’s burial. This seemingly insignificant scene gives both myself and other viewers some solace and respite from the aches from bearing the daily weight of this world. At this point, Lee and Patrick are completely comfortable with each other, despite how the arrangements at the end of the film are anything but ideal. This ease and comfortable echoes the beginning of the film, when during Patrick’s childhood days when everything was the best scenario, Lee and his dad took him out for fun-filled days sailing by the sea. And ultimately this is what matters. Shit happens, and it looks set to stay that way. However, you are still by my side. Here is a big thank you to those who are bouncing the ball with me as I trudge along. Amen.

Movie Mayhem with God: Hidden Figures

I had watched Hidden Figures on 15 February 2017 Wednesday, and while I was not particularly blown away by the film, the inspiring stories of the three female protagonists were nice enough for the viewing experience to end on a positive note. I just did not know there was an essential afterthought relating to the film yet to be discovered. Over the next two days I happened to help a trainer at my work organization facilitate her talks, which involved appreciation and communication between different generational groups. And while doing my work, my thoughts soft of wandered over to a friend’s sister (I’ll address her as G to keep anonymity) who I had “mother-hened” for the past two weeks.

G is in the 25-30 year old range, graduated out from an Australian university since last year. Since then, times have been bad in Singapore economically speaking. G had managed to do a probation for copywriting, though she never made it through to confirmation. She is now still struggling to find another job. I suppose there is a sense of perverted irony, as when I was giving her those support and guidance talks over the phone, I had a “Back-to-the-Future” moment. It was like speaking to myself when I was in 2005, when I blew my probation opportunity at People’s Association big time, ending up in a mental institution for a while. My behavior then was quite reprehensible. It seemed as the entire world was not giving me my due world, everyone (family, friends, the public) owed me everything, they were all bullies who did not recognize my brilliance and intelligence, and these morons should have been prostrating at my feet, cowering at my anger.

When G was telling me last Tuesday on how she found her situation hopeless, I had asked her of what exactly she wanted in her career life. Of course everyone wants a well-paid job, but how do you define “well paying”? What is the bottom line amount which can feed her comfortably? This question was left unanswered. Also, when I threw out many options to delve into, she dismissed the nature of all those options, either stating that the nature of those jobs were restrictive ones which “allowed for no out of it” or were “beneath her”, as she needed to maintain some form of basic dignity, without having her peers look down on her.

I cannot help but muse about differentiating between “pride” and “dignity”. If my past ten years have taught me, it is that pride is a luxury good, which may even have negative effects on your life, whereas dignity is a necessity for livelihood. We need to be discerning about the two, especially when accessing your situation in life, and not mistake one for the other.

I would say there is minimal pride in my current job, and maybe actually it is for the best. It has a basic yet critical amount of dignity, because it pays me comfortable for this full 2017 at least, whilst also being in an environment of direct yet kind colleagues, letting me be able to work and rest healthily. Thus my advice to G is still, to ask her what is important now, because at this very moment the looming presence of continued unemployment in feeding herself day to day still stalks her. If she cannot even bring herself to look at this, what is the relevance of how others look at her. Resolve this immediate issue, and regain that dignity and well-being. Pride can wait.
      

For myself it has been a fully decade, and I hope I have changed for the better. I wish I could tell a miracle turnabout story, but my life is not a bed of roses. In terms of career development and sustainability, the work I do is under grave danger. The project’s funding ends in March 2018, and current signs of performance of the project itself are not in funding renewal’s favour, putting my job security in peril. I also still harbor melancholy whenever I recall two earlier jobs which I loved their nature very much. The complexity of the politicking in those two environments was beyond me, and the members wanted me gone despite reasonable performances, leading to me being forced to resign. I often wonder whether I will ever get another opportunity to serve another cause, which is as fulfilling as those two. I see no such chance over any horizon yet.

When this mixed caldron surfaced again while I was reflecting on how I well or unwell I had assist G, solace came from the character of Dorothy Vaughan in Hidden Figures(played by Octavia Spencer, on the fair right of the poster) . Dorothy treasured mentoring and managing role her department of computers (as in female staff computing figures in an era without calculators), despite being looked upon with disdain and lack of official recognition by the fellow white female colleagues in NASA. Being very alert to what is happening on the horizon of the nature of work in her environment, she seized upon the opportunity to carve out new duties and role for herself and her fellow coloured staff, by securing a coup with the department manning the IBM Main Frame Computers in NASA, to not only become the official supervisor, but also securing all her previous female staff in the computing figures department positions over in the new department.

At the setup for today’s training session, I had a casual talk with the trainer who enquired about my future direction in career development. I honestly confided with her the “feeling of being stranded and lost”, which she kindly acknowledged, stating that times are so unpredictable and volatile with changes. While I am unable to foresee what is happening, because of my past unique experience, I do tend to notice somethings which my peers would readily and easily dismiss. Hopefully these things I notice are doorways to the opportunities in the future that I have been praying for so badly.

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.