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

Lesson 6.1 - The Sixth Sense

The Sixth Sense (1999) is a psychological thriller that would keep you glued to the edge of your seat. Written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan, this movie would prove to be one of his best. It tells the story of Cole Sear (Haley Joel Osment), a young boy who is troubled by something.... something spiritual in nature (which is only revealed to us halfway through the show), and a child psychologist, Dr. Malcolm Crowe (Bruce Willis) who tires to help Cole. The two journey together and eventually end up helping each other to cope with the situations they are facing. Unexpected twists and turns throughout the movie are something not to be missed and if you are a fan of the "thriller/horror" genre, I highly recommend this movie. 

Above: The Sixth Sense 

(From left: Haley Joel Osment and Bruce Willis) 

Throughout the show, why do we cringe and cover our eyes? Why do we lean closer to the person beside us, shake and quiver while watching through out fingers? It is very simple, actually. I believe all it takes is a little play on the psychology of fear. Fear is basically a response to perceived danger (Shiota & Kalat, 2012). Evolutionary psychologists contend that though it is an unpleasant emotion, it is rather useful as it pulls our attention to possible dangers and helps us to avoid them. The show is filled with moments of eerie music and scenes that pique our awareness of the unknown and anticipation that something is going to happen. The fear of the unknown also contributes to the unsettling feelings in our stomachs as we anticipate ghosts walking about and harming the humans. 

It is interesting to see how the director uses different scenes to create a whole environment that promotes feelings of fear in the audience. 

Above: Dr. Crowe and his wife were in the room when she realized 

that the window was broken and that the phone had been broken. 

Their attention (As well as the audience's attention) is diverted toward the 

bathroom connected to the bedroom, which light was on! 

Above: Dr Crowe talking to Cole, 

as Cole explains more to Dr. Crowe about seeing ghosts, 

what you experience when they are near 

and how cold it is when they are angry. 

The scene subsequently shifts to the doorway where 

there are 3 dead people hung on the gallows. 

Above: Cole finally reveals his secret to his mother, 

who has been distraught throughout the whole movie, 

trying to figure out what is troubling Cole so much. 

She feels helpless that she cannot help him. 

To make matters worse, the doctor thinks she has been abusing him 

when in actual fact, his wounds occur when 

he is running away form the ghosts he sees. 

In this scene, an accident has occurred down 

the street from where they are, and a dead woman appears next to Cole. 

SCARY!  

The element of shock is also a contributor to the whole thrilling feel the that the audience develops throughout the show. An evolutionary psychologist would say that the body may be in a constant fight or flight mode, resulting in heightened adrenalin that gives you that "rush". In parts of the show, the audience is shocked when ghosts suddenly appear out of nowhere. To add to the effect, the ghostly appearances are coupled with bursts of high pitched frightening music. If that is not enough to scare you, the dark scenes which pronounces the fact that there is a lot of unknown would creep you out.

Above: Haley Joel Osment as Cole, 

playing in the church where he seeks sanctuary

My favourite part of the whole show was Haley Joel Osment. Even as a child, he was able to play the part well as well as portray intense emotions such as fear, sadness, and even indifference. Seeing that children actors can either make or break a movie, Haley Joel Osment certainly nailed this one!

Overall, I really enjoyed the show. I think the highlight of watching it as a class was when a guy in the audience screamed.

Haha!

For more info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167404/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXO0he1WjYw

Lesson 5 - Mississippi Burning

In contrast to the comedy and laughter we experienced last week, Mississippi Burning (1988) left us with nothing but heavy hearts, coupled with a tinge of anger and longing to see justice served.

 

Above: Mississippi Burning, starring Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe

This was a social consciousness film, which takes place in rural Jessup County Mississippi. The main story revolves around a murder investigation of three civil rights workers. Agents Alan Ward (Willem Dafoe) and Rupert Anderson (Gene Hackman) are on the case. Dealing with the major problem of the persecution of blacks by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) proves to be a tough job, not only in the physical and logistics sense, but also in the "management" sense. Agent Ward and agent Anderson both have their unique ways of approaching the situation. Throughout the movie, we see how the method they used for the investigation evolves from Agent Ward's young-investigator-"by-the-book" method, to Agent Anderson's more....experienced-investigator-unorthodox methods.


The psychology of racism was actually the main issue that lingered in our minds (I think) throughout the show. What makes people racist? Why are they so racist? Where does racism stem from? We are not born with it, nor does it correspond with genetic instinct. That would be ridiculous! According to the social learning theory, we find the suggestion that racism is something that is taught, something that is caught throughout observational learning in life. After being brainwashed by those around you, it is not easy to shake off racist thoughts and beliefs. Though one may not be consciously aware of it, implicit attitudes may be present and if steered in the wrong direction, it could potentially translate into actions that bring about dire consequences.     

Above: Ku Klux Klan 

Above: Burning of a cross by the KKK

I think this movie exposed us to, or rather gave us a picture of what the KKK actually was back then. It brought about social psychology concepts to mind such as deindividuation, in which the individual identity of a person is lost due to that person acting in a large group, especially when the person is unknown. The pointy "pillow-case" masks that the KKK wore hid their identity well, so much so the members could act violently without giving much thought to how they were hurting the blacks - even to the point of death.

The concept of there being strength in numbers and concepts of bullying were also frequent themes in this movie. It showed how throughout some time, the bullied stop trying to save themselves, a concept called learned helplessness. The black adults were so afraid of the KKK they would not even speak to the investigators about what was going on. It took a child to dare to speak up! A courage that no other had. But then again, is it courage when you do something not knowing the gravity of the issue? Hmm..

Another social psychology issue that was brought up was the realistic group conflict theory. In the movie, Agent Anderson tells a story about his father, and how he poisoned the black neighbour's mule to death. Told in the context of poverty, it reflected on how the circumstances surrounding a man drove him to anger, probably for not being able to provide for his family. This anger needed to be channeled somewhere. Where else would he direct it to,  but to his black neighbour, who not only is perceived as the "lower" race, but also has more than him monetarily! When there is not enough resources, coupled with jealousy and insecurity, competition becomes more apparent, and human instinct starts to kick in to the point of no control.  

Above: left: Agent Anderson, 

right: Agent Ward, who is younger 

but spear-heading the case

This movie also brought about the whole issue of how to deal with terrorists. Does the end really justify the means? How do you catch the criminals, do they have rights? Would you follow what agent Ward had to offer, sound, by-the-book work or agent Anderson's way of doing it, informal and unorthodox?


All in all, I was not very inspired by this movie, it just left me with a lot of sadness and the reinforced stance that...

 

=) 

For more info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095647/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmAqrMtB-Qg

Lesson 4 - Forget Paris

Is love REALLY in the air? 

 In conjunction with Valentines day, many of us were feeling in the mood for some mushy-wushy touchy-feely-huggie-rubbie-ness and voted for a romantic love story. Little did we know that a trip to the city of love could bring us such a plethora of emotions!

Forget Paris (1995) is a love-comedy which features Billy Crystal and Debra Winger as Mickey and Ellen, two unassuming individuals who meet in the most uncanny of circumstances - an airport in France. What was initially meant to be a trip to bury his father became a trip full of infatuation, tingling excitement, and ultimately, full of a girl who would be the centre of his universe for well, most of the rest of his life, or so we hope (I'll explain why later).

 

If you take a good look at the above poster, or even watch the trailer, you would notice that they say this is a comedy about love... AFTER MARRIAGE !
It sure was! What I really like about this show was that it was NOT one more typical show that depicted a fairy-tale love, unrealistic images of an out-of-this-world quintessential hero-guy who sweeps the beautiful damsel-in-distress off her feet and carries her into the sunset. Instead, it very carefully painted out a picture of a normal, realistic relationship.

Check out this link for an example of somewhat realistic stages of a relationship! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSdELZxEnHY  

What I enjoyed was the rather accurate portrayal of a relationship, after the honeymoon phase, especially if a couple enters a relationship with unrealistic expectations. As the excitement and limerence dies down, it is soon replaced by tensions, bitterness and bickering as the couple finds that each party wants their way in life, but cannot have everything they want as they have to compromise for each other.

Above: Mickey and Ellen in Paris 

Meeting Ellen was enough to make Mickey fall "in love" and he could not get enough of her, even to the extend where he could not referee properly thinking about her. Subsequently, Ellen was willing to drop all she had and was doing to marry Mickey. All the dreaminess ended when Ellen found she was not happy with Mickey having to be away and her having to be alone with a crappy job, and Mickey found it hard to succumb to what Ellen wanted, as that would have meant quitting his job.

Above: Mickey, small and spritely, fair and accurate. 

The best referee

Another interesting thing about this film is that you never actually "meet" the main characters until the end of the show. Throughout the whole movie, the story of Mickey and Ellen are being told by their friends. It begins with forty-something couple Andy and Liz, Liz being Andy's fiance and Andy telling her the story of this wonderful man named Mickey. They are later joined by friends Craig and Lucy, then Jack and Lois, who add to the story of Mickey and Ellen. To add a dash of humour to the story telling is the waiter who comes at every interval to take an order, and provide a simile for wine with reference to his own...personality.

Some actor/actress fun facts: 

Fact 1: Andy is played by Joe Mantegna, 

the guy whom most of us know, 

as a much older David Rossi, 

from Criminal Minds

Fact 2: Remember this lady? She plays Lucy, 

Craig's wife (the one who weighed the lime and olive -.-)

She played Elleanor in our first movie of the Semester - Awakenings

She also is the voice of Marge Simpson on the Simpsons!  

All in all, this movie was able to capture the attention of the audience with its attention grabbers, its sense of wit, as well as its ability to allow the audience to relate and empathize with the characters at every emotional moment. The message was profound yet the way it was presented, humourous and dry, allowed the audience to leave light-hearted. Definitely would recommend this film to couples who are planning to tie the knot!

Above: Ooh treasure! Excerpts from the movie XD

Love is a commitment to ensure, that the other person is growing in all facets of life (Goh, 2012).

For more info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113097/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8ZHyJoKYnM