Lesson 12 - Schindler's List

Q: What do the shows "Gandhi" from last week and "Schindler's List" from this week have in common? 

A : Ben Kingsley! 

 

Above: Ben Kingsley in "Gandhi" as an Indian, vs. Ben Kingsley in  Schindler's List as a Jew. Cool eh? 

All fun-facts aside, "Schindler's List" (1993) is about Oscar Schindler, a German who through his factory, saved many Polish-Jews by putting them to work. Initially though, Schindler's intention was to make a fortune out of them, but in the end, he realizes the gravity of what his actions could do - save the people! With Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley) as his administrator, many Jews were saved (through falsified documents too =s ). Schindler was kind to them, to the extent of allowing them to even celebrate the Sabbath. At that point his factory did not produce even one working shell, as he bribed officials and sold shells from other companies to keep his workers alive. Towards the end of the war however, he runs out of money and just as he came to that realization, the war ends. He is then a "criminal" and has to flee the Red Army as he is a member of the Nazi. The Jews however, give him a letter that explains he is not a criminal to them, and a ring with the words " " engraved on it. Schindler is deeply moved to tears, and wishes that he saved more of the Jews instead of wasting his wealth on material things.

The part that struck me the most about this movie was the role of Amon Goeth, the SS officer. It bewildered me how the man could be so emotionless and just kill, as if it were a sport, a hobby, something to just fill his free time! It pained me to see how another person was just reduced to nothing more than an animal in his eyes. Throughout the show he shot many women, and elderly, which brought to my mind the concept of double minorities. Firstly the people he shot were Jews, and secondly to add to that, they had other characteristics of a minority such as being of a (perceived) gender of lower status, and an age of lower power. As we see from Zimbardo's prison experiment, the notion that one posses power over another does in-fact spur one on to act even in ways that are inhumane!

In sum, the movie portrayed the scenarios very well, and was good in terms of depicting the torture and the cruel journey that the Nazis put the Jews through. However, I did cringe often at the cruelty of it all!




Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwfIf1WMhgc
For more info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/

Lesson 11 - Gandhi

Mahatma ~ Great Soul

Bapu  ~ Father 

These two words I have learned from watching Gandhi (1982), a movie based on the life of Mahatma Gandhi, the great soul.

The movie was a biography of the story of Gandhi and how he championed rights for the Indians but in a non-violent manner. The movie was somewhat representative of the life of Gandhi. A few significant moments in the show were the times where Gandhi lead the people through a peace protest, how he refused to eat until the fighting stopped between Hindus and Muslims, how he strives to unite both religions and how he was finally assassinated, a scene that really came as a shock to me.

What I really admire about Mahatma Gandhi is his perseverance. In the midst of hostility and violence amongst the Hindus and Muslims, Gandhi does not react with violence and harsh words, rather, he proves a point. He chose to go on a hunger strike, saying he would not eat until the fighting stopped. I really cannot comprehend why he would "hurt" himself in hopes that others would stop fighting as this matter is far out of his locus of control. However, I suppose he had made enough of an impact already and there were enough people supporting him and thus the fighting was stopped, but after quite some time.

It was interesting to see how the different in-groups and out-groups were formed and how strongly they were united with each other. For example, all it took was one person to attack a person from another group, and immediately the groups started attacking one another, scattered as they were.

It never ceases to amaze me how Gandhi was able to exert such a strong influence to the people so much so they followed him, worshiped him and obeyed him just like that. It puzzles me though that Gandhi would go through extremes to prove how strong he was, (ie: sleep with naked girls just to show that he could control himself- well that was not in the show). I personally think that point did not need to be taken to such an extreme.

All in all, I thought the show was okay. I'm quite neutral on this movie =)
For more info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083987/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha9MPLGo2YI

Lesson 10 - Departures

Death.

The last season in life on this side of earth.

The only experience that one would never be able to share with anyone else, for obvious reasons.

Departures (2008) is a Japanese film that tells the story of Daigo Kobayashi, a good-looking young man who was a cellist in a Tokyo based orchestra. To his dismay, the orchestra is suddenly disbanded, leaving Daigo feeling lost and jobless. He moves back to his hometown with his wife Mika where they start anew. His efforts to find a job paid off when he found an advertisement for "Departures" in the newspaper. Thinking the offer was too good to be true, he went to what he thought was a travel company for an interview. To his dismay, he found out that it was a casketing company, and the advertisement was supposed to read " The Departed". The movie then shares with us Daigo's journey back in his home town, which teaches him a lot about family, hope and life.

We all come from diverse cultures, and have our own rituals and procedures to mourn our loss. "Departures" shows us how death is portrayed in Japan and how different individuals respond to it.  The Japanese have an eye for detail, a need for perfection and a strive for beauty. Japanese in general show that they are a bit particular in everything they do. Everything they do is precise and not messy. Many a time in the show, the family of the deceased would provide a picture to Sasaki and Daigo who were preparing the bodies, and expect the corpse to look exactly like the person in the picture. This, Sasaki and eventually Daigo handled with much gentleness and skill. The act of preparing the body was always done with perfection especially in terms of appearance. 

Above: Daigo being shown how to prepare a body 

by his new boss, Sasaki

What was interesting is the writer's choice to use a change in career to demonstrate his point; from a musician, Daigo became a casketing agent. The irony lies in the differences of these two jobs; a musician being one of status and class, a casketing agent associated with having to humbly take orders from family members of the dead and only associated with death. However, the similarities lie in that both require precise attention to detail, style and beauty. Both roles are artistic in nature; making something beautiful. 

Above: Daigo was sent for cello lessons as a child.

What struck me a lot was the way Diago's wife was so submissive to him throughout the show and gave in to her husband so many times, despite him not telling her about certain things. The way she loved him and cared for him and just followed his decisions is something that is rarely seen nowadays. It was good, however, that the directors allowed a point where she did not wish to give in to her husband. It showed that she did have an opinion and was not just submitting blindly.

Above: Daigo and his lovely submissive wife, Mika

who finally puts her foot down when she hears about the 

job he was doing. 

Throughout the show we also see a progression - the people who are dying are closer and closer in relation to the protagonist, Daigo. When he mourns for those close to him, and subsequently becomes the one who prepares his father's body, we see that the process of preparation of the body and the casketing serves some psychological needs in response to the death. Also, the concept of death was often followed by a portrayal of life, which serves as reminders to us about mortality, and the appreciation of life, something we often overlook.


All in all, the show gets a thumbs up in my books. Definitely a show worth watching as it will challenge your views of death and life, maybe lead to a night full of introspection!


For more info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1069238/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBp4Mi53Tmc

Lesson 9 - Sybil

Sally Field plays many "roles" in this psychologically intense show, Sybil (1976). It tells a story of how a girl contracted DID ("dissociative identity disorder", or formerly known as "multiple personality disorder") as a result of childhood trauma cause by, what we see to be, mostly her mother. Eventually she sees a psychiatrist, Dr. Wilbur who helps her out of the disorder.

The portrayal of DID was in my opinion, quite accurate.

Whether the portrayal of DID was accurate?
Based on the DSM-IV-TR:
Criteria for DID:
1. Presence of 2 or more distinct identities, each with its own relatively enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and the self. Check!
2. At least 2 of the identities recurrently take control of the person's behaviour. Check!
3. Inability to recall important personal information that is too extensive to be explained by ordinary forgetfulness . Check!


Examples in the movie: 
1. Vanessa+Vicky+Peggy+Mike+Nancy+Ruthie++Ellen+Marcia+Mary+Clara+Sid+.... = Sybil
(You get the picture)
2. Vanessa, Vicky and Peggy very frequently emerge and take control of Sybil. 
3. During a therapy session, Sybil shared that there were times where she would wake up, and it would be 2 years later! The only logical explanation for it is that she lost all memory of those two years, too much to be an episode of ordinary forgetfulness! 

 

Above: Sybil often bursts into tears 

when she is with her psychiatrist as 

she frequently experiences vivid flashbacks. 

It is all often too confusing and scary for her. 

Consistent with the characteristics of DID, Sybil had more than 2 distinct identities which alternated in taking control of behaviour. She had inability to recall personal information that was in-explainable by normal forgetfulness. Each of her identities had their individual self-history, self-image and name. Her host identity was not always Sybil, more often than not, it was Vicky, the most well-adjusted personality. Her alter identities had striking differences in their age, gender, handedness, sexual orientation, need for corrective eye-wear, languages spoken and general knowledge. Each identity's needs and behaviours were also different; and Sybil would assume different roles at different points of the show, perhaps as and when the need arose.

Considering all the points above, yes! The portrayals of DID were quite accurate.

Whether or not the treatments were useful? 
In my opinion, what Dr. Wilbur did was fairly realistic. Treatments to DID is psychodynamic and focuses on working on resolving and uncovering past hurt and trauma that the patient has experienced, as well as working through these traumatic events in an insight-oriented manner. In the movie, Dr. Wilbur spent session after session talking to Sybil's multiple personalities and through these conversations, helped Sybil recover past memories and often traumatic childhood memories. We see that as these memories became more vivid, Sybil's alter egos would emerge as a reaction to deal with the "situation". After that, what Dr. Wilbur did was to integrate the identities/personalities back into one identity. Dr. Wilbur was patient and took the time to allow Sybil to be in a safe environment. This helped facilitate her transitions from personality to personality as Sybil was comfortable enough to allow those personalities to show. Though in the end Sybil did get better, we do not know to what extent she was better and whether the disorder relapsed in the future. Therefore based on what was portrayed in the film, I would say it was moderately useful.

All in all, the show was psychologically thrilling and enlightening a bit creeeeeepy and dark. Having said that, I think Sally Field pulled off each personality very well, as many find it hard to even play one character with full passion. She did multiple roles, and pretty well too! Thumbs up for her skills!


For more info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075296/
Sneak peek: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1_Z6-v4uT0
Reference: Butcher, J., Mineka, S. & Hooley, J.M. (2010). Abnormal Psychology. USA: Pearson Education Inc.

Lesson 8 - Parenthood

Parenthood (1989) was entertaining on so many different levels! 

To name a few priceless moments, there's:
1. Steve Martin running around with children in a cowboy suit making intestinal figures out of balloons.

 

2. Keanu Reeves looking nothing like and having a character that probably shames "Neo" in "The Matrix".

 

3. "The Diarrhoea Song", by Kevin Buckman. 'Nuff said.


This story is about a family...

 .....

Yup, this BIG, extended family =) 

... and the experiences of the siblings, (Gil, Susan, Helen, Larry) now married, and parents themselves. The main theme that is reflected in this movie would be different parenting styles that they practice. It also shows the interwoven relationships within the family and how though chaos may be prevalent, in the end, love is the thing that really keeps them together. 


According to Diana Baumrind, there is a three-group classification system for parenting, which was based on the dimensions of control/demandingness and responsiveness. You could say on a scale, that these parenting styles range from "too strict" to " too soft". Examples are as follows: 


1. Authoritarian 
- Parents are rigid and demanding, expecting children to be high in maturity, discipline and supervision.
We see this in Patty's father, Nathan, who expects his daughter to be "nurtured in the right environment" and therefore spends all his time educating her with extreme amounts of academic knowledge so much so that he deprives her of having a "normal childhood" until she loses the skills of relating to other children her age and does not know how to have fun. 

2. Authoritative
- Parents are moderately demanding and responsive. They are firm but not too rigid, they are permissive to a certain degree. They try their best to be involved however they do not overindulge their children. 
Gil and Karen were authoritative parents. They allowed their children to have fun, and even went the extra mile for them (ie: when Gil dressed up and acted as a cowboy during Kevin's birthday party; when Gil and Karen rummaged through the garbage for Kevin's retainers). Though we do not see them punishing their children, we see the effects of good parenting - their children are obedient and well behaved. 


3. Permissive 

- Parents are overly responsive and too supportive of their children to the extend where there are no boundaries and too many inconsistencies are present. This results in the children being spoiled and overindulgent as they constantly get their way and have no structure to their lives. 
Helen was overly permissive to her children, resulting in them growing up to be inconsiderate children who did as they pleased. They even did things behind their mother's back (Her daughter Julie brought home a boy, Todd, with her and did unspeakable things with him in her own room; her son who watched porn and smashed up his father's office one night). They had no regard for the feelings of others and bullied their mother even though she tried so hard to please them. 


Contemporary researchers have added another category to parenting styles, neglectful parenting, or parenting whereby the parent is not responsive nor are they controlling. We see that in Larry, who comes home with a boy he just found out is his son, whom he conveniently names "Cool". 


It is interesting to see the dynamics of the family and how experiences for them in their childhood manifest or become contributing factors in how they treat their children in the future. 
Research has shown significant associations in parenting styles across generations. Parenting habits, whether good or bad tend to be passed on to children. In the show, we see that in Gil's perspective, his father was not a good father to him as a child. He therefore tries to be a perfect dad and tries to give his children his best. However, he finds that it is close to impossible to be a perfect dad and feels discouraged when he slips up. However, he learns from his grandmother, that parenting life is like a roller coaster, one that takes you up and down; and in time, he finds there is much joy in that, and sharing the journey with his wonderful wife Karen makes it all the more, better. 


All in all, this show.....

Reminded me of my thesis, which happens to revolve around the same topic of parenting. 

So Yeah. 

BoOoOo =(

For more info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098067/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgrbuRNc-AQ

Reference: http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/bornsteinANGxp.pdf

Lesson 7 - The Fisher King

Robin Williams and Jeff Bridges star in this interestingly mystical, comedic-fantasy production, "The Fisher King" (1991). In layman's terms, Jeff Bridges plays Jack Lucas, an outspoken, sort of narcissistic, not-so-wise radio DJ, while Robin Williams plays Parry, a crazy man (Okay, he's not really crazy, just psychologically traumatized, leading him to start hallucinating and being delusional).

=)

One day, their (Jack and Parry's) pathways cross due to a horrific incident: a shooting, which results in Parry having to witness his wife's death, and Jack, who finds out that it was his comment over the radio that actually drove the shooter to go on the shooting spree. Meeting Parry by chance (Parry saved his life!), Jack
feels guilty and tries to redeem Parry and at the same time redeem his own life. To do this he goes through a series of events which teaches him a lesson or two about life and love.



First of all, this movie is reflective of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Schizophrenia on the part of Parry. He first experiences catatonia after experiencing the traumatic event, and subsequently experiences hallucinations and delusions (which will be elaborated in later paragraphs).

This movie is full of symbolic representation and whilst comedic in nature, holds a deeper meaning for the viewers to interpret. Following Parry's PTSD, he also experiences hallucinations, delusions of persecution as well as delusions of grandeur (part and parcel of Schizophrenia). He believes that he is on a mission to retrieve the Holy Grail (For more info check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_King). This pursue possibly symbolizes a search for grace and peace on Parry's part. At the same time he keeps seeing and hearing "the Red Knight", which could be a symbol of trauma. He gets Panic attacks when he sees this monster and it is so real to him that he just runs away, terrified, leaving other people around staring at him wondering what is happening.

Above: The Red Knight chasing Parry

We see toward the end of the movie that all Parry needed was some closure in his life, following his wife's death. While recovering from an attack by hooligans, Parry asks, "Is it ok for me to miss her now?", probably a reflection that he had been finding it hard to let go, and therefore was experiencing unrest and agitation in his life. He needed to know and acknowledge that the hole in his life possibly may never be filled the same way again. Once he was able to let go, he could move on and was at peace.

Above: Parry expressing his love toward Lydia after dinner. 

Lydia finds it hard to believe that someone would

actually love her. 

On Jack's part, he was on a quest for redemption. He probably felt a strong sense of guilt as well as an overriding sense of responsibility for Parry's fate. Throughout the film, he tries hard to help Parry, first "matchmaking/setting him up" with Lydia (by going on a double dinner-date), and secondly by retrieving the "Holy Grail". This could be considered his way of penance, his way of making things right again. An interesting scene was where he was in the midst of attaining the "Holy Grail" and he sees Parry's hallucination - the red knight. No one knows if he really saw it or if it was just a representation of the barriers and difficulties that Parry had been going through, therefore it did raise some questions in the audience's minds. 

Above: Double Date!Jack and Anne bring 

Parry and Lydia out for dinner. 

Much to Jack and Anne's dismay, 

Lydia is highly uncoordinated and 

does not possess table etiquette whatsoever. 

There is also one other part of his life to set right again - his relationship with his strong-willed and long-suffering girlfriend Anne, who waits on and for him as he goes through life, fickle and undecided. He eventually finally comes to his senses (some guys just take soooo long!)  and makes up-and-(also)out with her in her video store =) 

Above: Jack finally gives in and follows Parry- 

they lie naked in the middle of Central Park. 

A symbol of freedom, perhaps?

Overall, the show was pretty confusing as there were many things going on, and the setting was very different from the typical movie in the sense that there were many "mythical" things going on. Scenes also varied very widely, from Jack being a totally posh, upper class DJ, to times where he was beaten up being mistaken for a bum. However, the message was profound.

One line that struck me was when parry was telling the story of the Fisher King. The story ends with the knight giving the king a drink. Upon drinking, the king realizes that he is drinking from the Holy Grail and asks the knight how he found it, as his search had proved in vain. The knight laughed and answered that he did not know, and he only knew that the king was thirsty.

You never know, a simple kind act can go a long way.

Matthew 25:40

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, 

whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine,

 you did for me.'

For more info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101889/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHaZuRo3DZ4

Lesson 6.2 - The Castle

Enter the Kerrigan family. 

The most extraordinary Australian family is introduced to us in this 1997 Australian comedy, "The Castle". The Kerrigan family have been living next to Melbourne Airport for a long time. They are a contented family, proud of the "strategically located" house they have made into their home. Little do they know that one day, the news of plans to expand the airport would disrupt their happy little lives. Darryl Kerrigan (father) sets out to defend and eventually saves his home from being taken away from the family, on the premise that their house is more than just brick or mortar, but a home, where love and family is.

Above: The Kerrigan Family

From Left: Steve, Sal (mum), Darryl (Dad), 

Tracey, Con, Wayne and Dale Kerrigan

In my opinion, this family is the most unusual family ever! Bluntly put, they are rather simple, and are the most optimistic people I have ever seen (Probably because the father figure, Darryl Kerrigan is optimistic, therefore it translates to the others in the family?)! They live next to an airport which makes them have to deal with:

EVERYDAY. 

Interestingly enough, they are rich enough to be able to own another piece of land where they have built a holiday house. Even more interesting is the location of the house which you would see if you watch the show =) They go there often as a treat [Above]. 

In spite of some circumstances (brother being in jail), they are the most functional and happy family ever [Above]. I particularly liked the family values in this show. Darryl Kerrigan's character is indeed very admirable and respectable as a father who leads his family by example (he loves Sal Kerrigan (mum) very much and shows her much affection, he spends time with his children and loves every one of them, he encourages and builds up each member of the family), a man who fights for his home, and one who remains a positive attitude, well, most of the time.

Above: Darryl Kerrigan entrusts defending of his house to 

Dennis Denuto, a small time lawyer who is not competent

in this field. Darryl however, has full faith in Dennis.

Above: Lucky Darryl meets Lawrence Hammill who

saves the day by willingly representing Darryl and putting up 

a good fight that ultimately ends in the Kerrigans

not having to move out of their home. 

Kerrigan family aside, what is the psychology of humour? What makes something funny to us? Humour is experienced in response to cognitive shifts in perceptions of a particular target (Shiota & Kalat, 2012). For instance, irony can change one's whole perspective of a situation. In the show, the Kerrigans bought a place next to the airport. They were so proud that they got it for a cheap price and thought they got a steal when in fact it is because no one wants to have a home beside a noisy and dangerous location. Also, the way Darryl
Kerrigan is so proud his daughter went to College - to be a hairdresser, is compared to Lawrence Hammill's son who graduated as a lawyer, a profession that is stereo-typically looked upon as a much higher status job as compared to a hairdresser. Also there is a lot of "stating the obvious" and "lame" moments in the show that switch the audience's attention from their own assumptions to something totally unexpected. The humour also only works when it comes by surprise. For example, one may not find the joke particularly funny while watching it the second time.

All in all, I thought the show was rather.... interesting (for lack of a better word). Not really my taste, but I can say that I really enjoyed watching a show in which genuine family love was portrayed, something not common nowadays!  


For more info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118826/
Movie bits:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM-GVRvsZrA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14wI2U49OLY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dik_wnOE4dk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITUSZ6LRHrk&feature=related