Schindler's List

"I would like so much to reach out to you and touch you in your loneliness. What would it be like, I wonder? What would be wrong with that? I realize that you are not a person in the strictest sense of the word, but, um, maybe you're right about that too. Maybe what's wrong, it's not us, it's this...I mean, when they compare you to vermin, to rodents and to lice. I just, uh, you make a good point. You make a very good point. Is this the face of a rat? Are these the eyes of a rat? "Hath not a Jew eyes?" I feel for you Helen."


The above was a conversation between Goeth and well..himself. As Helen, his maid, stands helplessly and shaking with fear, he tells her what he feels about what it could be like being with her. Undoubtedly, Jews are vermin in his mind, but he finds in difficult to generalize that believe to Helen. His attraction for her has kept her alive thus long, but she is forbidden to wear the Star of David, as he wouldn't want anyone catching his admiration towards her. It appears that he is trying to reach out to her but in reality, he is simply satisfying his own needs. It was not help he was offering but rather, convincing himself that it was allowed to be attracted to a Jew. This monologue represents Goeth's inner conflict. He then turns the tables around and accuses her of coming on to him. He had almost given in to his impulse but suddenly loathes himself for his behavior and behaves aggressively towards her.


 I cannot help but wonder. If Jews were really considered vermin and so forth, how then, can one in the position of hate be attracted to such? It became evident to me that it was not a matter of disgust that could be rationalized logically. Because no human would ever be sexually attracted to a literal rat. In the vast extermination of Jews, methods that were used (the gas chambers, the camps, the ghettos) could really be applied to the extermination of literal rats. Goeth is an example of blind-hate, hate that is merely taught and a greed for power that further propels such illogical hatred. In my opinion, this inner conflict with his feelings for his maid is a product of confusion. Being brought up in an environment where you are constantly taught to despise, and further rewarded for it, and in the midst of all the loathe-expressive frenzy, he finds the enemy desirable. He acknowledges her positive attributes, but cannot accept such an attraction because it defies what he had been taught to believe.


In the movie, Inglorious Basterds, Col. Hans Landa provides his own distinctions between Germans and Jews: 


"Now if one were to determine what attribute the German people share with a beast, it would be the cunning and the predatory instinct of a hawk. But if one were to determine what attributes the Jews share with a beast, it would be that of a rat. If a rat were to walk in here right now as I;m talking, would you treat it to a saucer of your delicious milk?"


and proceeds by saying:


"You don't like them. You don't really know why you don't like them. All you know is you find them repulsive..."


Exactly my point on blind hate. Many despised Jews, but cannot even begin to provide concrete reasoning for such a strong emotion they possessed. It seemed to me that hate cultivated other negative and brash emotions and feelings such as disgust and repulsion. Why rats? Because rats are, to be fair, dirty creatures that carry diseases. They are unwanted because of their filth and their survival heavily depends on human wastes. Is that how Jews were once viewed? Filthy beasts who reaped the bounties of other human beings? Most importantly, can such hate ever see the light of logicality? Perhaps the exploration of some past theories or school of though might provide some insight on the issue.


"Who as inflicted this upon us? Who has made us Jews different from all other people? Who has allowed us to suffer so terribly up till now?" - Anne Frank


 The Ghost-people view:


Judeophobia was a term coined by Pinsker, and has been the deepest and longest hatred in human history. In Pinsker's eyes, Jews were "ghost people", as the world saw them in the ugliest image of walking corpses itself. Unity, structure, land, and flag were lacking in Jews thus they were regarded as a people who had ceased to exist, but lived with some sort of resemblance to what others called a life. The idea of "ghost people", according to Pinsker, is that the fear of ghosts are innate, and since that is so, we are asked to imagine the fear we ought to have for a dead nation that lives on. So where does this leave Jews? The fear is platonic, and abstract, and has led many nations to believe that Jews were responsible for real crimes. This terror for the Jewish community had marched its way into many generations. In his book, Judeophobia, by Gustavo Perednik, this Jewish ghost-fear has had its roots set deep in human race, what he calls heredity psychosis.


 Zionictic Approaches: The powerlessness theory


In the late 1940s, Judeophobia became past of society even when nothing was done to provoke it. Zionist thinkers formulated explanations, who saw Judeophobia as something that could be acquired by instinct toward the powerless Jews. The Jews during the Holocaust were truly powerless despite the Judeophobic myth; they were not able to save themselves from the Holocaust nor they were able to persuade Western government to destroy the concentration camps and their railroads. According to this view, if the Jews really had power as a group, and not just power from being an individual, that is, the power that came from being intermediaries of those who were in real position of power, they would have been able to interfere with the destruction of their people during World War 2. The reason these theories are called "Zionictic approaches" is because it aims to cure or to the very least, reduce the effects of Judeophobia. It aims to give power to Jews so they may defend themselves.


Sociological Theories:


These theories specify that certain roles in which Jews held in their society exposed them to special hatred. For illustration, in the Middle Ages, they were mostly moneylenders and served under authorities (kings and barons) as "serfs of the imperial leader". Part of the job scope included collecting taxes on the behalf of landlords from poor peasants. One explanation that could provide for Judeophobia is that it was mostly seen as hatred that is equivalent to grudges toward the wealthy attributed to the lower classes of society. Some economic explanations, like Pirenne's theory of the advent of modernity go the extent of extending Jews to the entire economic system, where they were considered the cause of capitalism. According to Gustavo Perednik in his book titled "Judeophobia-History and analysis of Antisemitism, Jew-Hate and anti- Zionism", Jews were very much hated in economic situations. Also, Jews were public faces of ruling elites. They held professions such as lawyers, doctors, teachers, psychologists and social workers, and thus appeared to posses power when in fact they really possessed such a power.

Gandhi

We all know who Gandhi was. From time to time, we all had to write biographies of great leaders as part of school assignments and most of us are all too familiar with this name. We may not have written about him, but surely, we had come across many articles and books written about this great man. Having had the opportunity to view a biographical piece on Gandhi provided insight and a more elaborate understanding and imagination of the duration in which he led his nation toward freedom.

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always."

Produced and written by Richard Attenborough, Ben Kingsley portrayed Gandhi with such frankness and quirkiness, and intertwined it all with such a sharp intellect. Such a character is sure to move its audiences far more that one would think. Although the film was a long one, the turmoils that shook the roots of Gandhi's leadership, and how he resisted all that stood in his way made me more or less glue my eyes on the screen the whole time. I was somewhat drawn to this character. He always answered a question with another question, but made perfect sense each time. He was ordinary in an extraordinary way. He had enough wit and wisdom to knock out an entire parliament. And his punch lines were always spot on. But on a more serious note, I admired his determination and willingness to self-sacrifice for the greater good. Gandhi had a vision and saw it through till he held his last breath. Like every great leader, there are bound to be devout followers, and Gandhi's fared well in that department. If you think about it, It was amazing how his followers opted for the non-violence approach when faced with the English authorities, despite getting beaten for moving forward in their march. That demonstration illustrated the deep respect and believe they held in their leader. 

I also admired how Gandhi never segregated people by their status and ranks. Whatever his workers did, he did too, and led a lifestyle that only fulfilled his most basic of needs. As I mentioned above, there was something very ordinary about him. As a young attorney, he seemed naive and gullible, his ideas were ambitious, but they seemed far-fetched to many.  However, as years passed and with an undying spirit, his goals became more attainable and he gained recognition and respect that at one time, seemed impossible to achieve. That is where extraordinary came in. In my view, Gandhi was just a regular man, who happened to experience a regular racial attack. The difference between him and thousands of others is that he decided to make a change, and a change he made.

I loved his philosophy: The only way to fight back is to not. That is the ultimate method of vengeance and getting back what was wrongfully taken. I found it spectacular how he kept finding himself in prison throughout the years, and how he could never be detained for long because of his genius arguments and stands. When he went back to his roots and visited much of India for the first time, I felt that he too had grown as an individual, and India became more and more like family to him. Despite being a Hindu, he never took favor on his Hindu followers. On the contrary, he preached oneness and unity for all religions, namely the Hindus and Muslims of India. His aim was to unite all of India, to spread fairness and peace to all, and most importantly, to obtain freedom for his people. Devastatingly, after India gained independence, riots and war broke out between the two religions. I think Gandhi was deeply disappointed by the incidences that followed the decision of creating a Muslim nation (Pakistan), which led him to his second fasting. I cannot say that I completely agree with the entire concept; it appeared a little blackmail-ish to me the extent that he went through to get the people of India to quit fighting among themselves. I suppose Gandhi was at his wits end and that seemed like the only hope. However, it did work. The dying Gandhi was informed that the war had ended and the citizens had finally agreed to stop. But was Gandhi really going to keep fasting every time something went horribly wrong? I felt that the people should owe him enough to stop on their own. Unfortunately, diversity is not always easy to come to terms with. Gandhi may have changed the mindsets of majority, but not everybody will be in favor. Aggression and violence is a cancer and after all, the simplest and fastest way to express hatred and displeasure. Take Alexander the Great. He wasn't a leader who wanted love and power all for himself. His aim was to unite people of different races, religions and backgrounds (Persians, Indians, Greeks ect) in order to eliminate disparities and to create a variety of inter-marital populations who could exist side-by-side while being ruled under one king. In fact, he himself married a Persian King's daughter to set an example. Like Gandhi, Alexander never just blundered into war in a brutal manner. Instead, he used tact, diplomacy and strategy. He also led his men with true finesse as he ate, drank and starved with them, and never acted like he was above them. Unfortunately, the people of different races and religions still hated one another and Alexander's ideals fell short. Similar can be applied to the people who did not respond positively to Gandhi's philosophies and teachings. 

Parenthood

Like many other movies and sitcoms shown on television nowadays, (one sitcom that comes to mind: Raising Hope and The Middle) Parenthood contains familial themes and values that most people are familiar with. What I have noticed about these films that portray struggles of parents in coping with their children is that there are big differences in how local or Asian cinema and television depict them and how the Western culture does. I will not generalize or state that cinematic depictions are indeed what happens in actual life, but to a certain extent, I suppose it's only logical to conclude so; culture plays a large role in what shapes a particular society which in return, influences the arts and many other sectors in societies.

From my cinematic experiences, I have noticed that Western parents place more emphasis on freedom of choice and speech, something most Asian parents would usually have more control of. Reviewing for instance, a Malay, Indonesian or Korean drama and an American sitcom or movie, there is an obviously massive dissimilarity between methods of communication, tones of speech and body language when speaking to one's elders or handling a family issue. Western parenting seems to cover a wide range of different options (therapy, grounding, serious family meetings ect) where children are actively involved in the decision making process whereas Asian parenting places emphasis on one sound judgement, usually made by either parent where the child does not contribute to the overall outcome when an issue arises. 

For some reason, it appears to me that Western parents fear harsh confrontation and almost always try ways to soften the blow.There seems to be a lot of emphasis on mental development and disorders. Western parents are portrayed to almost always seek the help of psychologists and self-help materials compared to Asian parents, who rather take matters into their own hands. One episode of Raising Hope showed Hope (the toddler) drawing on the house walls and breaking her grandmother's pig figurines. Virginia (the grandmother) was obviously upset but had a debate wit Jimmy (Hope's father) about who should "punish" her because both were afraid of seeming like the "bad cop" to Hope. Which leads me to this: Bad cop and good cop. I've never seen that concept in local/Asian theater. What would normally be the case is one parent would usually be portrayed as submissive, the other dominant, which seems to be tied to cultural norms.

Although Parenthood provides an array of different parenting styles, it pretty much boils down to the same thing. There's a vibe about how parenting styles are portrayed in Western media that emphasizes a wholesome and at times, submissive attitude toward their offspring. Another thing I have noticed is Western parents, once again, as portrayed in films, always seem to want to spend time with their children, and place great importance on spending at least once a week with their members, and at times, go through much hassle and lengths in doing so. That is one aspect I rarely see in films here. Local and Asian films have a somewhat controlled outlook where everyone is engaged in everyday routines and rituals because that seems to be priority. 

The Fisher King

Initial thoughts.
The movie kicked off with your everyday American movie radio studio atmosphere where a radio deejay seemed like he was going at it for years, experienced in every aspect of his job, and loves what he's doing. With crushing waves of arrogance and cynicism enough to submerge the entire building, the promising radio host boisterously delivered his solid and impenetrable "wisdom" of relationships to Edwin, a caller who I'm personally sure, dialed the wrong number. He had to! Why else would anyone want to speak to someone who was widely known for his ability to literally slaughter your every opinion mercilessly? And for the second time?

So this Jack Lucas seemed to be living the life. The scene in his bathroom where he kept reciting the words "Hey, forgive me" in order to master it for a possible TV show role, coupled with a sense of his everyday rituals in his fashionably dehumanized high-rise apartment, and the way he previously sneered at a panhandler behind dark glasses in his limousine instigated that Jack is instantly symbolic of the cold-hearted excess of his time. It was funny how years later, his quest for real forgiveness began which ultimately taught him a real lesson. "Hey, forgive me" indeed.

The characters.
The characters blended in and created a superb cinematic experience that highlighted each and every character's plight toward their ideals; the love-struck and strongly opinionated Anne who constantly failed at rekindling and lifting her boyfriend's spirits, the present day demoralized Jack who had nothing else to live for until meeting Parry and making the decision that will change both their lives forever, the optimistic and obviously traumatic Parry who was smitten for a woman from afar, and the shy and socially awkward Lydia who was highly inexperienced to all matters pertaining to love and romance.
Jack was visibly unable to forgive himself for the tragedy that struck the Manhattan restaurant and discovering that the homeless man who takes many of his cues from visions of "hundreds of the cutest little fat people floating right in front of me" was in actual fact a victim of his radio show masquerade made him feel that he could finally seek redemption for the grave consequences he had been living with for the longest time.

Jack had two main tasks: To bring Lydia and Perry together and to retrieve the Holy Grail, and needless to say, it was definitely one heck of a ride. The relationship that blossomed with Parry enabled even the cynical Jack to get off his high horse and view things from a more simplistic and emotionally-attuned spectrum. I think Jack was guided by something a little more than mere sympathy when he kept following Parry around despite his initial thoughts to just flee the scene; Jack spent an enormous amount of time Parry, even for the most trivial of matters , and at some points, even lost track of time when they were together.

The disorder.
In my opinion, the inconsistencies and abnormalities of Parry's everyday behavior was not very well thought in terms of portrayal and deliverance. I think that through the lenses of the producers, Parry's character was meant to embody these emotional disturbances as layman and as less serious as possible. Parry's character is what everyday people would describe as "crazy" or "emotionally disturbed", not "shizophrenic" or having a "delusional disorder" or "post traumatic stress disorder", as how we psychology majors would be able to identify. How would one classify Parry as having a real disorder when humor was injected in his every movement, his every speech?It would be different if this movie took on a more serious script, one that really captured a character's discrepancies clearly with notable symptoms. But if I really had to diagnose Parry, and based on what I have gathered, I would say that Parry was schizophrenic. In order to be categorized as possessing the disorder, one would have to be displaying at least 2 of the following for more than a 6 month period: delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, catatonic behavior and negative behavior, also known as loss of normal functioning. I would say that the only 2 characteristics that Parry embodied were hallucinating and having delusions. Although it wasn't clear when Parry began carrying these symptoms, or how they progressed over time, a safe bet would be to say it began not long after his wife's passing.

Parry's delusions took form in his beliefs about the existence of the Holy Grail and its majestic qualities. His hallucinations on the other hand, was his ability to "see" the fat little people that surrounding him and the symbolic Red Knight that he sometimes chased, and who sometimes chased him, which could be emblematic to him sometimes wanting to remember, and at other times, wanting to forget the traumatic experience. I believe that schizophrenia was a direct consequences of PTSD, which he still experiences alongside the schizo. The intrusive, distressing recollections happened at full force after Parry had walked Lydia home. The memory suddenly flooded his mind and the Red Knight appeared, this time, chasing Parry.

Last thoughts.
The film did fare well in portraying the enthusiasm of the mythological aspects that centralized it, and the central myth did seem pertinent in a modern-day setting. The Fisher King accommodated Medieval and Modern rather fascinatingly, though some parts were a little "clutter-ish" in terms of narrative. The film managed to take the very philosophy of redemption and forgiveness to a different level, twisting the very fibre of reality and rationality, and turning it into something every person could root for.

The Castle

This was certainly unlike anything I have ever watched before. There was something very simplistic and ordinary about it; I can easily imagine many households to have the kind of connection and tight-knit relationship the way the Kerrigans do. So the show starts off with Dale, narrating, telling the viewers about his family and their usual rituals. The way in which it was narrated made me feel like I was reading a children's book, as it was told in a very gullible and repetitive manner, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, just...different. Darryl was portrayed as a strikingly positive person, always looking at the glass as half full, never letting anything get to him, and had such respect from his family it would appear they'd put him on a pedestal, and worship the very ground he walked on. Shortly after, everything became topsy-turvy as they were threatened to give up their humble abode in the name of development, and the ever glorious, ever optimistic Daryl turned sour and grew weary, desperate to keep his home and family right where they belong. The rest of the film reveals Daryl's quest to fight the system alongside his supportive family, nutty neighbors, his even nuttier pro-bono self-proclaimed lawyer and eventually winning back his property with the help of the excellent retired royal attorney.

So what was the huge hype and what made this 1997 production so successful and withheld the test of time?
My guess is the humor and ironies of life which most can identify with. Secondly, the lack of any concrete and complex ideas behind the film would make it an easy watch, given the right mental state. Thirdly, I suppose many would find it relateable given the familial values that intertwined and themes that surrounded the film. And last but not least, who doesn't like a happy ending? My advice for those who had to sit through a horror flick and loathed every moment of it: This would be a darn good neutralizer. Finito.

The Sixth Sense

I remember watching The Sixth Sense when I was 12. And a hundred times more on HBO the following years. Naturally, I knew what and who to expect and of course, the well-known twist at the end. What I liked most about the film was the script and how it was directed. For some reason, horror producers these days seem to think that fear and disgust are interchangeable among viewers; throwing in a few spirits with ungodly amounts of blood oozing out of recently missing limbs is supposed to have the same effect as engaging the audiences deepest fears and playing with their imaginations. News flash: Gore is not synonym to actual thrill and fear. Which is why horror themed films like The sixth Sense is much appreciated. I would consider Syamalan a true architect for exactly those reasons. The Happening, Unbreakable, The Lady in the Water, The Signs and The Village do not scream out fast-paced progressions (some would protest that his productions are "head-numbingly" boring), nor do they exhibit those mainstream cinematic themes most people find comfort in watching. What I like about The Sixth Sense and the rest is that there is a certain eeriness about them, how he craftily manages to "trap" his viewers into believing a certain idea or concept while steadily diverting to what was "supposed to be", tapping into the unknown and unconventional, and never straying away from engaging viewers' imaginations. True horror/thrill is, in my opinion, how a film tells it, not what is shown.

So. Cole. The boy who "sees dead people" has the weight of the entire world on his shoulders. And that's believable too. When Cole is afraid, the whole cinema is afraid with him. When he had the breakthrough and was finally free from torment, his smile seemed like it lit the entire hall. The emotions displayed were not superficial and futile, they were raw and capturing. Largely a two-person show, Toni Collett lends a hand by playing a supportive and frumpy mother who knows her child is extraordinary but is confused by his demeanor and cannot begin to understand him. Cole's mother was obviously stressed out and mostly infuriated by the strange behavior of her son, and most of the conflict resulted from Cole's inability to meet her halfway. How could he anyway? His mother was the only one he had, and the last thing he wanted was her looking at him differently; a "freak", just like everyone else.  Nevertheless, their relationship is loving one, and the trust and protectiveness that exists between them got the better of the situation. The story cultivates many life lessons, although subtly.  It illustrates that everyone needs a second chance, and how life can be severely unfair but obstacles can be overcome, and how trust and believe can alter even the most dramatic of events.

Malcolm, at first, appeared to be a level-headed and calm doctor who was only concerned about the well-being of his patient. As far as it goes, it really seemed like a traditional professional-client relationship. It was not till mid of the show did I realise that it was actually a two-way street; as much as Cole needed him, he needed Cole to "set things right" and make amends for himself. I believe Malcolm, to a certain extent, transferred his guilt about Vincent into reaching out to Cole at full force. It made me filter out the entire gravity of their client-professional relationship and wonder who did Malcolm really do it for at the end of the day; was it out of sheer concern for a boy in desperate need, or was it for him who felt indebted and wanted to redeem himself.

On a lighter note, it was rather strange how all the other ghosts Cole encountered were either reliving their deaths (vomiting, slitting wrists),  as well as walking around exactly how they died (gapping hole at the back of the 70s kid's head, the hanging ghosts in the school ), and behaved how stereotypical ghosts would (disappearing and suddenly reappearing, not being able to communicate efficiently ect) when Malcolm did not possess any of those characteristics as a wandering spirit himself. Through Cole's lenses, all of them were frightening and approached him in a manner in which made him dreadfully fearful, but not Malcolm. It was also a little strange how Cole's mother never found out about this mysterious "doctor" given how he played such a huge part in "treating" her son. Hadn't Cole even mentioned him to his mother? Ghost Malcolm was even able to change his clothes, and not notice his wounded abdomen. I did not quite understand the relevance of his wife's ring when it fell, to the sudden  realization that he was indeed a spirit and that his time was up. There was somewhat a blurred reality to Malcolm's "existence'' as a ghost. But I suppose those gaps are not really something that has to be read so much into. 

Mississippi Burning

Following a report on 3 missing persons, special agent Ward and Mr. Anderson arrive to the small town of Mississippi to carry out an investigation. The first scene of the movie had already revealed that it was the doing of the Deputy Sheriff, and other officers but it was interesting to watch how they dealt with the press, how they denied any suspicion towards them and how they still proceeded with their cruel deeds despite the presence of two influential figures. Ward came across to me as the kind of agent that did everything by the book, followed a systematic approach, and took the law very seriously. This was proven by the way he would react to Anderson's assertive, hostile and street-savvy methods to acquire information. Although Anderson had numerously pleaded Ward to pack up and leave the town, for he believed no positive outcome would derive from the investigation, Ward's intuition, suspicion and determination only propelled him further to solve the mystery (eg. frenzied and angry townsmen, sheriff's department officers and the council regarding the uncontrollable press , how the hostility towards the blacks doubled since the interference of Ward and Anderson) regardless of how bad situations were getting.

After a series of unfortunate events, namely, the attack of Pell's wife by Pell himself, Ward surrendered the the situation to Anderson and agreed to carry out matters his way. So why abandon all rules and succumb to coercion and  illegal methods to finish the job? It seemed as if they were guided by something on a more personal level. Perhaps the consequences that derived from Pell's wife and Anderson's rendezvous was the last straw and Ward knew that if he didn't agree to let Anderson take matters into his own hands, Anderson's one-man-show would create an even bigger mess. But could their actions be justified? In this case, fighting fire with fire yielded victory for the most part. But maybe in the real world, this might not always be the case.

I liked what Pell's wife said in one of her passing statements about hatred. That it is taught and if you tell it enough times, you grow up believing it. Some of the experiences I have had and witnessed confirms the idea of brain-washing and the teaching of blind hate. It baffles me though, how some people from the same environment are able to seek the truth and question the belief system, whereas some end up just like their teachers.

So why racism? What had the blacks done so wrong to deserve such treatment? Why were they hauled all the way from their motherland, treated as slaves, then later frowned upon for merely being citizens of the population that mistreated them in the first place? How can the constitution brag about freedom for all when blacks were not given the same rights? In the movie, it was mentioned that if the blacks were to be cut, they would shed blood of the same color as the whites. It gave me the notion that in that era, time and place, the blacks were viewed as severely flawed human beings and an error in creation (religiously).

Many theories will explain how the superiority complex plays a role, how the detection of threat can spark such behavior, how the battle for resources is the primary reason behind conflict between in-groups and out-groups, and how anesthetic and biological qualities come to play. But in the movie, the blacks seemed oppressed and voiceless. Why was there still a need to further discriminate, attack and murder? When the press interviewed some of the townsmen, even the "justifications" they provided seemed like it was plucked out of thin air, and contained no sound and concrete rationale. Merely stating that one is deserving for what has come after them is in no way moral and seriously lacks premise. I suppose this is where education and exposure comes into play. If one were to be born and bred in the same place, especially a small town where collectivism is imperative to survival, and there is a lack of exposure to what lies outside familiarity, even the littlest bit of differentiation and distinction among people can be so very apparent. Perhaps that is how segregation became what it was in the movie.

It was horrifying how the leader of the KKK during a press interview stated that they stand against everything and everyone who do not share the same beliefs as them; the Jews, Orientals, the Muslims, the blacks and so on and so forth. It sounded more like "We sort to demolish all who are not us" to me.That was exactly how Hitler thought and taught, and 6 million people met their demise. People cannot choose their family, their race and skin color. But what they can do is be tolerant of one another and respect diversity.

Like Santayana once said, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. 

Forget Paris

Frankly, this movie was not memorable at all. In fact, compared to all the other movies shown in class, I had forgotten most of the scenes while driving home. Once I had reached, it was completely flushed out of my system. I suppose I found the story very predictable and the acting rather cliche (exaggerated emotions ect). The main character, Mickey had a very child-like sense of humor and innocence about him which made me wonder why the somewhat strong and ambitious Ellen found him attractive in the first place. In my opinion, they were a bad match from the beginning. Sure, it was all fun and games and laughter and romance in the city of love in the beginning. But what was Mickey expecting? A happily ever after in Neverland? Every romantic escapade must come to an end. Thats when life together really begins.

Even as a viewer, their relationship was exhausting to watch. Although both were undeniably stubborn about their views of the ideal relationship, I found Ellen a little more sacrificing compared to Mickey. I mean, she left her job in France to start something completely new and out of her comfort zone only to find herself jobless and alone most of the days. I felt she had every right to feel the way she did. What difference would it had made if she was still in France? Eventually Mickey gave in and took a break from his job but that made him the miserable one. He began to feel desperately unhappy when their free time clashed and he began to see less and less of Ellen.

I never really quite comprehended why he felt he had every right to express his dissatisfaction about his loneliness, when Ellen, once in that position, was viewed as petty and unreasonable? Things got heated up when her father came to live with them. And that too got me wondering. Why was it so unbearable in the first place? He was a sick, old man for goodness sake. Perhaps of Mickey's relationship (or lack of) with his father contributed to his lack of understanding towards the matter. Then came the baby-making problems, which only added salt to injury upon their already foundation-less relationship. Many goodbye's and tears later, they suddenly reunite and join their friends at the restaurant. The only time where Mickey gets epiphanies about his fondness towards Ellen is during games for some reason. And when she's millions of miles away. Like they say, distance makes the heart grow fonder. But not stronger.

My guess? They'd probably broken up 2 weeks after the last scene.

Whale Rider

This movie sparked my interest immensely. The characters were each distinct from one another, all carrying different perspectives about their culture, and somehow colliding with one another to create that edge and conflict that the film represents and aims to explore. Tragically, the only heir, or 'prophet' to carry on the traditions of the Maori dies, leaving behind his twin sister, Paikea. The traditionalist and possibly the only individual still concerned about the culture's future, Koro, was from time to time disappointed from all the setbacks he had to endure : death of grandson, his eldest son's refusal to assume leadership and Pai's refusal to withdraw from the idea that she could lead, which according to tradition, is severely unacceptable.

Koro I would say, possesses strong and impenetrable views on what is right and wrong, a somehow conservative perspective about the traditions and culture of the Maori people. One could not fault with that trait, as it is rather admirable to be so headstrong and determined, even when it was so evident how the people of his village hardly shared the same beliefs, namely his eldest son.

Porourangi, despite his father's wishes, broke away from customs and made his mark as an artist, and settled down with a girlfriend. All hell breaks loose after the slideshow where Koro displays his dissatisfaction to his son, and later lets out that Pai is of no use to him. I suppose years and years of resentment and bitterness lead to that final outburst, and even more now that Porourangi's girlfriend was pregnant; it meant that he was drifting further and further away from Koro's ideals. I would say that Koro's conflicts were mainly with himself. No matter how evident it was that Pai was the only child in the village who possessed the qualities he desired, and how well she was able to carry out the tasks and practices meant for the boys of the village (eg. finding the whale tooth), he considered her actions and capabilities as unworthy and a curse to the success of his training. I cannot help but think that his depression and bitterness resorted from his own rigid mindset, unrealistic expectations and his unwillingness to reconcile with his beloved granddaughter. 

Pai, I would say, possesses a mystical demeanor. Only 12 years of age, she is portrayed to be wiser than her years, and is gifted in matters of empathy, discipline and compassion. Throughout the entire show, she never once came across as a regular child with not a care in the world. Instead, she often carried a weary and wounded expression, as i believe, is the result of immense helplessness in dealing with the entire situation, namely, the disappointment of her grandfather. I would say that she possesses an old soul. Even as such a tender age, she is able to display such a deep understanding of her grandfather's emotions and her surroundings.Furthermore, she seemed as if she was one with the culture, as their religious and spiritual beliefs applied so naturally to her. I would predict that her source of inner conflict derived from the fact that she could not go all out in worshiping the holy ancestors, the way men could. Through the lenses of this little girl, leadership should be taught to all, so all may thrive in the knowledge and make for a better tomorrow. That to me, was very well said, and if I may say-spoken like a true leader. Secondly, she was very upset with the way Koro was treating and regarding her. The scene where Porourangi and Pai were seated on the dock after the slideshow incident made it clearer to me just how very opposite they are; Pai's heart lied with the culture and gaining the acceptance of Koro was of high importance, but she understood how she could never be given the opportunity express her true desires (conflict), and Porourangi who has the position of leadership on a silver platter, wanted nothing more than to flee from it (conflict).

I wouldn't say that Pai rode the whale into the sea. I think it was all just a matter of great timing that the whale decided to head back. But perhaps to the Maori people and Koro, it could be interpreted as symbolic to their beliefs of their ancestral legends, which I think what this film is mostly about.Nevertheless, I couldn't help but feel slightly annoyed with Koro. It took him the near death of his granddaughter to finally wake him up from his spell and to finally accept her with positive regard. It made me wonder about Koro's values; how was it possible to cut off from one's own flesh and blood, all in the name of tradition and customs? Was it fair to cast off Paikea merely because she wanted to be a part of something larger than life? I felt that it contradicted Koro's belief system and actions in trying to unite the people of Maori toward one goal, when he himself could not accept certain notions. Secretly, I wish the film ended with her riding into the sea, right after she said 'I am not afraid to die'. That could have provided for a more mystical and left-up-to-own-interpretation ending for the viewers. Besides, the look on Koro's face while she was drifting further and further away from the shore was priceless. 

Awakenings

The movie did spark my interest on many levels. First were the actors. Robert de Niro and Robin Williams really know how to put on a show, and have been among my favorites growing up. Having not watched this film before, I was intrigued by the psychological and psychiatric setting and theme that surrounded the film (quite natural for a psych major I would say!). A heartwarming tale injected with a tinge of humor, the movie, in my opinion, managed to capture the very essence of a somehow socially awkward doctor and his plight to cure a disorder, and making friends along the way. I liked how Dr. Sayer's and Leonard's relationship began developing since the L-Dopa drug took a positive toll on Leonard's condition. It was touching to see how a man who had not experienced life for 30 years, suddenly regained consciousnesses and awareness of his current state, with his oh-so-very dedicated and encouraging doctor guiding him every step of the way, rediscovering life together.

However, I was rather disturbed by Dr. Sayer's decision in administering an extra dosage of L-Dopa while Leonard was asleep. That raised a few questions about professional ethical behavior, as Dr. Sayer did not consult with his fellow doctors or Leonard's mother before taking matters into his own hands. Although it did produce intended outcomes, the risk of not knowing what to expect could have severed his patient's condition to an ever more unmanageable level. My point is that in professional decision-making, things like 'hunches' or 'intuition' should definitely merit a consultation, especially with the patient's relatives.

I honestly thought it was going to be one of those happy ending types but boy was I proved wrong. An especially devastating part was when Leonard's condition began taking a downfall once again, and his meeting with Paula went completely disastrous (or at least that was what he thought). Fighting thunderous jolts of involuntary movements, the desperation and frustration in Leonard's eyes as he looked at Paula, the obvious disappointment as he began trembling away from Paula at the cafeteria was indeed the recipe for massive teardrops! And when Paula got up and took him in her arms, and began slow dancing...need I say more? One  part which sort of made me go 'huh?' was Dr. Sayer's field trip. Why put 20 old people who had just risen from the underworld into a bus only moments after their 'recovery' with absolutely no observation period was beyond me. But oh well.

All in all, I rather liked the show. It wasn't some cliche film with a predictable ending which I would usually be turned off by. 4 stars (: