Chariots of Fire 1981

So patriotism and religion both play roles in any individuals life, being patriotic towards their country to stand with their fellow man against all odds. Or while praying and believing in what their creator and made before them. On the other hand, what of the man who would put both aside for the pursuit of excellence, to oppose cultural norms in order to be the very best that they are capable of? With that the 1981 movie Chariots of Fire.

Now the Chariot of Fire could more of less be summed up by two extraordinary people with the pursuit of glory. Yet that would be down playing for what these two individuals had gone through. In life, the course of action that is taken by any individual is likely cause by their value priorities and behaviors. Now Abraham could easily be seen as a heretic for seeking the help of a professional, as seen by the lunch meeting he had with some of the aristocrats. Here lies two opposing ideas, one that the pursuit of excellence should be by one's on effort without the assistance of external help (the aristocrats) and two which is to achieve and surpass their own current limits by any means necessary in order to achieve their full capabilities (Abraham). 

So two every contradicting ideas, one by their own efforts and other by any means necessary. If you were to look at the movie, Abraham was always portrayed as a Jew with prestige given to him. Yet you could see the type of values priorities he has. Standing against the prejudice against him for a religion he practices by simply earning the respect he rightful desires by simply being the best. The determination for him to achieve. Hence it was seen when Abraham decided to oppose the aristocrats and their old ideas by hiring a professional to further his personal training and abilities. The value priorities that he holds simply outweigh the ideas of others held against him.

This was similarly seen for Eric, however it was opposing those in authority when he was required to run during the Sabbath.  Given Eric was born of a missionary, he too decides to continue in his fathers work to spread the work of God. Given such, upholding the practices of his religion regardless of what is expected or required of him. In his case of value priorities, Eric's religious beliefs hold far greater priority over his need to run and succeed or even patriotism towards his Majesty the King. So in the end, priorities of an individual can easily shape the actions that they would likely take.  

Would you sacrifice everything in order to achieve glory? or stand above all others in your own beliefs. Either way, I think that the priorities of an individual should be the business of the individual and none other. For we are but men which equal desires, just placed in different areas. 

Schindler's List 1993

War, now war is a nasty thing. It can bring out the best of some men, or it can bring out the worst. Perfectly shown by the 1993 movie Schindler's List, the human being when pushed to the limit, can do incredible things, incredibly good and incredibly evil too.

Now here is an interesting thought, agency suggest that how we view something as a live is dependent on something that is viewed with purposeful movement. However, as long as something act as if it has agency, we will likely treat it as if it does and this extends to empathy. In the movie Schindler's List, you are exposed to multiple scenes that procedurally dehumanize the Jews from the Germans. First by making it a mandatory requirement for the Jews to display the star on their clothing and failure to comply will result in being shot on sight. This first act creates an in-group and out-group, an us against them mentality between the superior species (Germans) against the inferior species (Jews). Later on, the concentration camps, the special articles of clothing, numbers given to each individual. All these serves the purpose to dehumanize the Jews when viewed by the Germans.

That instead of viewing the Jews as their fellow man, they view them as nothing more than a subclass of humans that do not deserve to live. Hence how freely we can see our Nazi Party Amon Goeth, freely kill Jews without remorse. But this is not necessarily so, when Oskar suggested that difference between power and justice is that justice is acting in accordance to what is just, however power is ability to go above and beyond that and to pardon or forgive. We did see Amon Goeth pardon quite a few people that he would have normally shot without hesitation, but this short window of empathy, ended with another body on the floor. 

War can bring out the worst and best of some people, so for me, this thought popped in my head during that short scene. Could it have been possible that after dehumanizing the Jews for such a long time, and also to the point that he could kill them similarly to game animals. That during that short time of him being empathetic and understanding toward Jews, that he slowly began to realize the consequences of his mentality towards them. Hence instead of facing the reality of killing an innocent or morally ambiguous person, he chose to continue this mentality and slaughter the Jews as he deems fit.

Funny enough, we could actually see the complete opposite with Oskar Schindler instead. As a business man, he would naturally see his work force as nothing more than his work force. Turning a profit and making as much money while cutting cost. But as the movie progresses, Oskar begins to grow empathetic towards them thanks to Ithzhak Stern that showed Oskar how his factory has the influence and capabilities to save lives. In a sense, you could say agency has grown beyond just viewing them as another laborer. On the contrary, it has grown to the point that Oskar felt responsible for them.

.Empathy.

The amount of empathy and responsibility that Oskar felt truly could be seen during the scene of how Oskar is mortified at how he could have save more lives. The "what if"s, "what could have been"s, and "what should have been"s. Yet it was because of this man, that roughly 1100 Jews were saved from Auschwitz. To add on, further using his money to buy shells to sell to the Germans while having his own factory manufactured duds that did no pass the safety standards in order to keep his company running and safe. Truly a man that showed how War can also bring out the best in some people. 

Sybil 1976

So D I D, no not the past tense of do but instead Disassociate Identity Disorder. Kinda like this guy >

Each different word bubble signifies a different entity that resides within the same body, so it is kinda like having multiple identities all housing in a single host. So this week, we shall be exploring the 1976 movie Sybil and how multiple personalities could vary.

Here is the interesting thing, so far as statistical evidence goes, it is suggested that D.I.D could very well be a phenomena that only occurs in places that has been exposed to the idea of D.I.D. With that said there are a few possible reasons to this, one of it suggests the possibility that D.I.D being an actual occurrence is due to some form of classification to explain this mental condition, whereas areas that have not been exposed to it before this might have lacked the classification to do so. However, considering how rare these cases are, I guess we are all left to hypothesize instead.

Now how D.I.D worked for Sybil in the movie is the fragmentation of her being into multiple separate entities in order to face the traumas that she has endured in her childhood. With that said these entities or different personalities will take over the host, in this case Sybil, during a particular event so that the host will not have to endure or face it him or herself. So instead of like how our Merc with a mouth does it where by all of the entities talk and interact with each other and then decides what to do, in Sybil's case however, is she instead completely taken over by her other personalities.

Okay so this raises an interesting question for me, can Deadpool also be considered a person with D.I.D? Both characters share different personalities or entities within a single body but one is able to interact between entities and host while the other is not able to do that until the last part of the movie with the help of a psychiatrist.

So in the movie, Sybil's different personalities are each entities that protect a special part of her. In Deadpool however this is also similar, the yellow box to serve as jokes and the white for seriousness and also his own voice. However during one of the story arches of Deadpool, is an issue in the Deadpool series that kills off these two entities. Leaving Deadpool or Wade with a new box, a red box that tells him to kill everything. I won't go too much into detail as to what happened but I just want to point this out. Those two entities the yellow and white box, served as a guideline for Deadpool to follow, giving him a variation between what he could do and should do. So I guess you could say collectively, the different entities, the yellow box and white box it is what made Deadpool. Similar to D.I.D yet not quite the same with Sybil's conditions. So with that, D.I.D just got a whole lot more interesting.

The Sixth Sense 1999

BOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you're reading this, the phrase in itself is not quite something you'd normally consider as scary. Even more so considering it is nothing more than text upon a computer screen. But what would happen, if these words that you are reading, belong not to the boy writing this blog, but to something else. Something not from this world? With that, this week, we have the 1999 movie "The Sixth Sense".

(But we only have five senses D= )

Okay so this week we'll be observing how the element of horror was introduced and used throughout the movie both as a story plot tool as well as a means to immerse the audience. So here is an interesting thing I've noticed about The Sixth Sense, is that no one ever comes with pre-existing empathy for the characters on screen. It is the job of the director to immerse the audience, create the bonds between the audience and the character in order for the audience to relate and feel a certain array of emotions for the characters. Now this could easily apply for almost any movie which revolves around a main protagonist. However as the movie progress, a kind of expectancy is created. A pattern rises and you, the audience will be able to follow it.

Now how The Sixth Sense has used this would be during the scenes in which the ghost appear. The music changes, a particular angle is used to focus or suggest that the focus of the frame is on something ominous in the background. This can easily be considered a pattern used to create immersion for the audience's viewing of the scene. But like how most horrors do it is, breaking the pattern. Of course how this works depends on how the director uses the elements of the story. Kinda of like

A to B to C to D

and then you proceed to do this 

          BOOOOO!!!

A to B to ^ C to D

So basically, what the director did was exactly that. This could be seen during the scene when Cole was inside his little safe place, and the little girl ghost was introduced. The music changes, the roof starting to break at the seems and the girl suddenly moving into frame behind him. Those were the build up, the patterns of what to expect and the girl suddenly appearing behind frame could be argued to be what interrupt the pattern. So how horror works in most cases would be to build an expectancy in the audience, where the scare was going to happen. And do exactly the opposite of it. Of course this does not necessarily work for every single individual, but with the right level of immersion, it should be easily achieved to give the audience a nice proper scaring. 

Now as a plot tool, horror or the depiction of horror in The Sixth Sense are the usual paranormal activity. It is scary cause we lack any form of understanding or comprehension of it. Or better yet the fear of the unknown. This was used as a plot tool by creating the image of ghost as frightening and scary dead people. For lack of better understanding, it only came to light when our Dr suggested to Cole that maybe they want something from him. In other words, plot twist. Yes they are scary but they are not necessarily evil, like how we have a tendency to associate ghost, violent deaths to things that are evil. In summary, the directors or writers in this case, show you something scary which you think might be evil or bad but is in actual reality simply something misunderstood.

Whale Rider 2002

Sexism, traditions and whale riding, I think none of these would matter if you want to ride a whale wouldn't you agree? So this week, the 2002 movie Whale Rider shall be our topic of interest.

(See even kids can ride whales =D ) 

So here is food for thought, at what stage of tradition does gender roles start encroaching into sexism? The perfect demonstration of how blurry the lines could be is shown by Koro also known as Paka and Paikea. 

(Miss ya Gramps) 

Now Paka is the current leader of the community faced with the very strong possibility of their tribe being lost in history. This is mainly due to the progress of man as it reaches their homelands. As any community through out history, theirs too begins to decay especially if the teachings and cultures of their community is not able to withstand the test of time. To past their knowledge, understanding and teachings to their decedents.

Here is the issue, given that Paka is tasked with such a large responsibility to find the next tribe leader since his own first son did not wish to take up the mantle after losing his child and wife. Given his current role as tribe chief to teach and find the next tribe leader, he fails to see the potential of his own granddaughter being a possible candidate,simply

becauseshewasbornaGIRL!

Now yes this could obviously can be viewed as hostile sexism given that Paka has not given equal opportunity to both genders because one genders does not belong amongst the title of tribe leader. To be the savior of the Maori Tribe.Now hold up, to begin with as the movie unfolds, can it be conclusively said that this blatant form of sexism is nothing more than Paka attempting to fulfill traditions which requires a certain gender instead simply dismissing Paikea as a person being unworthy? 

We could obviously see this throughout the movie the parts where Paikea shows great promise in being the next leader of the Maori Tribe. Managing to start the motorboat engine, her mastery of the taiaha (traditional fighting stick), to the most obvious demonstration of her abilities according to tradition ,the recovery of the rai puka (whale tooth) which is supposed to be brought back to signify the coming of the next leader. Lastly even literally riding a whale similar to how their ancestor Paikea did.

Here is the thing, although with the demonstration of her abilities even in public speaking, Paka still did not acknowledge her as a possible candidate because the role of tribe leader has traditionally always been a male. Even at the school when Paikea defended herself against Hemi and defeated him. Paka was furious at Paikea but it cannot be definitely said that it because Paikea had no respect for a sacred tradition or because she was a girl that had embarrassed a boy? I guess you could said it was a little of both maybe? 

Although the thing is, Paka throughout the movie cannot be said to demonstrate ambivalent sexism as to simply fulfilling traditions instead. So in some instances you could say that the traditions maybe sexist but Paka was not. Thankfully Paka finally came to accept the need to change tradition when he receives the rai puka from his wife. Upon which there was only one who managed the feat, and it was Paikea.

Forget Paris 1995

And this week on what movie we are watching, we have Forget Paris 1995,

-Forget Paris-

(Not Literally of course)

With that, we are a go. Alright, right off the bat, Mickey and Ellen can be said that they are not your everyday day love story. With Mickey's unique sense of humor and Ellen finding it oddly charming and attractive, this movie was interesting to say the least.

However, there are various ways to look at how Mickey and Ellen's relationship progressed throughout the movie. If you were to consider it from Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Some of the actions taken by both Mickey and Ellen can be easily consider extreme in order to make their relationship work. Or so they thought. Considering how Ellen gave up Paris, which includes her former husband, her job, her apartment, and more or less almost everything that she has ever had until that point . As such, several levels of the hierarchy has already been thrown out the window in order to be with Mickey. Yet as the relationship progresses, she was not happy to say the least considering all she had given up for in exchange was not living up to what she had anticipated.

With that in mind, Mickey was next to compromise instead for the sake of the relationship. With the year off from the league, selling cars, moving to a new place and Ellen finally being recognized for her qualifications. Again, several levels are being violated in order to satisfy the other. As time grew, more conflicts arises, Mickey wasn't happy and decided to return to the league. Both sides were on the verge of collapse and were giving up certain aspects of the hierarchy in order to be with one another. Which according to the basic hierarchy, did not make much sense.

So this is where relational dialects theory come into play. According to the theory, a relationship grows through the rise and collapse of contradictions within the couple. With each collapse of a contradiction, it is then re-balanced in totality and the relationship grows closer due to a better understanding of each other. While the couple's progressing and comprehending one another better, praxis is achieve where communications are effective and decisions are practical. Which is what can be seen through out the movie between Mickey and Ellen.

The constant contradictions and compromise between the two, how Ellen left Paris, Mickey attempting to adept to change, to Ellen sending her father to her brothers. The dedication and level of compromise shown by both of them is something anyone would consider admirable. Both growing, both changing, both figuring out how to make something wonderful work. That said, the level of dedication and compromise shown by these two really is something that we all could use in our modern day lives.

"I don't know, but I know we are better together than we are apart"

A toast to the lovely couple, and to Mickey's father.

Reference Relational Dialectics Theory. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2016, from http://communicationtheory.org/relational-dialectics-theory/Relational Dialectics 

Strictly Ballroom 1992

Due to illness and CNY holidays, I was unable to write past 2 weeks. However, lets get back in full swing of blog writing with the 1992 Strictly Ballroom

The usage of conformity, compliance and obedience is prominently seen throughout the entire movie. From the literal dancers leading and following, dancing the carefully crafted ADF (Australian Dance Federation) steps, to trickery and foul play. The directors of this movie were no stranger to the uses of conformity, compliance and obedience. 

What I would like to talk about however, is not necessarily where Scott, Fran, Shirley or even Barrey may have used conformity, compliance or obedience or even the subjugation of it. What I do applaud this movie for was the portrayal of characters and the choices the took in the face of such influence and subjugation. Better yet as Fran had said:

What struck me with this is regarding how each of these characters when faced with against the odds. Or in the other words, being force to conform, comply and obey. Is the astounding fact that majority of times, our beloved characters had complied and obeyed due to fear.

Shirley,when she didn't dance with Doug at their Pan Pacific due to Barry's insufferable ability to play with their fear. Fran, during the backstage, requested to go back by the group in order to not jeopardize Scott's chance of winning. Scott when Barry lied about the reason why Doug stopped dancing and what happened in the paste. All of them willing complied in those few moments due to the fact of fear.

 A life lived in fear

They will need to take a stand against their own fear, with the help of friends such as Fran with Scott. Or when the truth was revealed to Scott by Doug and what happened all those years ago. The decision to take action against their fears. If anything, during the finally competition, where Scott and Fran finally muster the courage to dance their steps.

To be willing enough to face and overcome your own fear. Catharsis, freedom to decide, to chase your desires and dreams. Personally, I am not able to do it yet, hopefully I'll gather the passion that Scott and Fran did during the Pan Pacific and do just the same.

Running On Empty 1988

This week on Kai Hung writes a Movie Blog, we have the 1988 movie Running On Empty

NO NOT THIS 

(even with the lowering gas prices)

But this one =D 

My immediate interest and take from the movie is revolving around our two love birds

Danny & Lorna 

What struck me as interesting is considering how their relationship grew and progress. As would any relationship, a certain degree of self disclosure is required between two people in order for trust to be built according to Routledge (n.d). However as our dear Danny and Lorna first met, it was almost chemistry. Subtle sparks that flare as they speak, yet an interest grew in one another. As their relationship progress and Danny learns more and more about Lorna as she willing shares in hopes that maybe Danny boy would too. Yet as Lorna shares, Danny did not reciprocate this self-disclose between the both of them. In a sense, the level of closeness or intimacy between the two hitting a stale point in which as Lorna has this to say:

"You don't transmit too much information"

However, how are you in heavens name going to disclose any form of information to the person you are slowly growing feelings for or in other words how does Danny tell Lorna "Hey, my parents are the ones on the run from the FBI, I'm sorry I can't talk about a lot of things, and I've been doing this since I was 2"

Yet that was exactly what Danny did, and this is what he had to add to it.

My take a way from this is vulnerability. To be vulnerable with the person you love or as I like to put it "Giving them the gun and hoping they don't pull the trigger on you"

Ah emotions, what a wonderful thing

Given the degree of trust and vulnerability Danny had shown to Lorna, this really does put into consideration what some people are willing to risk for others for love. Not only jeopardizing his family's safety but Lorna's as well. Should love be heartless and cold, where in which you do not allow yourself the room to be emotionally involved, to be indestructible, unable to be hurt. Yet from what we saw, that is not what love is actually about. Yes some argue the course of action taken by Danny is that of a selfish and foolish boy, yet a boy struck by love.

Can you blame him?

 Romantic relationships are not my forte, I for one am learning as I go. Vulnerability was not something that came easy to me, yet something that I had to learn as the pasting time. To be vulnerable is to love.

or as C.S Lewis said

"To Love At All Is To Be Vulnerable" 

Reference:

Routledge (n.d). Affective interdependence: Intimacy and commitment. Retrieved from: http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781848728943/student/CHAP%2012%20SUMMARY.pdf

Awakenings 1990

-We are but fools chasing sunsets-

If you are reading this, you either have to or find my writing some what interesting so welcome back to this week with the 1990 movie Awakenings.

How I will be approaching this movie will be my general take away from it and what I found of interest which is:

.Time.

Most of us at any given point in our lives would have felt the sensation that time has passed by unnoticed (like how most weekends goes sadly) or the "Where did all the time go". In the movie Awakenings it too faces this phenomena but sadly not in the way that we may have commonly face before. In the movie Awakenings, the way this phenomena was demonstrated was when the survivors of encephalitis epidemic finally had awaken thanks to the help of our dear Dr. Sayer through the usage of a new experimental drug.

 yes you aren't asleep anymore Leonard and it is because of 

.

 this guy right here ( awww look at the good doc =3 )

What has occurred to the victims of these disease that is they have shown similar affects to that of Parkinson's but also with what appears to be the lost of conscious awareness. If you were to think of time as a common video bar, now imagine what a bar worth of 30 years of content would look like. Now imagine that this was your life, that your memories are what those 30 years of content is. But in the case of the victim of this disease, it is waking up and realizing that someone had skipped forward that very same bar.

I guess you really can say time is relative.

However it isn't exactly that simple, cause according to Leonard in the movie, those 30 years were similar to dreaming. The only time he knew it wasn't a dream was when Leonard talked and Dr Sayer understood him. Yet as would any person, should they experience something such as this, would have every right to feel angry, scared and the injustice that life has swindled them and taken that in which should be theirs. But instead, the man has this to say:-

Yet life is but a harsh teacher in which the test is given but without the lesson before it. As time progresses, either the drug had lost its miracle magic or the awaken had begun to habituate to it. Which is to say, it is hard to tell. As they began the slow spiral, as they did before, slowly slipping, and slowly losing their consciousness once again. In a sense submerging and reemerging periods between the bar instead of experiencing it as would any other.

Our consciousness is in my opinion the very entity of our being, our soul, that which gives will to our bodies. We are the universe experiencing itself and it is hard to tell when this finite amount of time we have in this supposed existence runs out. Yet this time we are given, would hold no significant meaning other than a scale of measurement should we as humans not be able to appreciate and experience that in which has been given to us. Or as the good doc put it:-

-To enjoy the simplest things in life-

Life in which it gives,
It is life in which it takes.

Cinema Paradiso

Before we begin, Viewer Discretion is Advise, I will be covering certain interests which will display nudity while making a mockery of everything. With that lets get into the swing of things.

Cinema Paradiso

Some would consider this  rather obscene,

(Due to the obvious display of luscious boobs...

I mean the female mammary glands or breast)

While compared to this

(A passionate lovely kiss)

Not as much huh? 

Obscenity and censorship, now this brings up a rather interesting string of ideas. To begin, in the very early stages of the movie Cinema Paradiso, at the cinema we see our little Toto, the village priest and our dear Alfredo doing something rather peculiar.

Our dear priest and his mighty bell

Signaling Alfredo to remove pieces in which he deems inappropriate while little Toto stares on. 

Now who is it, who are these individuals that can consider themselves morally superior to their fellow man that they can set the standards to which they deem morally correct and appreciate for viewing?

The answer is,

NO ONE

Even in our modern day society, it takes the collective effort of a board of directives to censor appropriately according to our current movie rating system. As such, we are but human with ever growing and changing societies. We but grow with time. Earlier on our priest was signaling Alfredo about particular snippets to be removed from the film, this we can safely assume it is because the Father considered it immoral or sinful to be viewed at all. As later seen in the movie in the newly rebuilt cinema after the fire, the priest got up in an outrage stating that he will not watch pornography. Although the images shown in the cinema were that of passionate kissing and to some degree soft core porn, which he has previously been censoring, is it really as morally wrong as our dear Father believes?

Given the era in which this was set, during a time when movie censorship and regulation were not as tightly lip as now. My main question is, should a priest, a man with religious affiliations be allowed to decide what can be publicly displayed for viewing according to his own sense of morality? Assuming that the father does not have the vision and imaginary powers of director, will his act of censorship ruin a these pieces of work or the message that is being attempted to portray by the directors. In my opinion, pretty sure it did as we show too how the the audience were in a cheer when they finally saw their first kissing scene on the big screen.