Gravity

1. Sole Survivor

Gravity is a film about two astronauts, stranded in space by an accident, struggling to make a safe return to Earth. It's visually stunning, and its simple plot belies its vivid and realistic depiction of the story.

We can compare it to that Tom Hanks movie, Castaway. In both stories, [spoilers!] there were really no plot surprises: we knew very well that the lead characters will survive the fatal accidents, albeit barely.


2. Isolation

Although both Gravity and Castaway are about surviving tragedies, there is a subtle difference between these two films. If in Castaway, Chuck (Tom Hanks) was left in solitude by the accident (stranded on an island and abandoned by his longtime partner); in Gravity, Dr Stone (Sandra Bullock) was already living in solitude before the accident (traumatized by her daughter's death), and the tragedy (space accident) actually brought her back to society (to tell a most interesting story).

In other words, in Castaway, the crash made the survivor lonely; whereas in Gravity - the crash saved the survivor from her loneliness.


3. Don't just stay alive

This difference can also be seen in another way. By the end of Castaway, Chuck retells his misadventures and how he plans to "keep breathing, because tomorrow the sun will rise..". Isn't this scene similar to the one in Gravity, when Dr. Stone confides the loss of her daughter to the other astronaut, Kowalski (George Clooney)? 

So Chuck's attitude to "keep 

So Chuck's attitude to "keep breathing" (or just stay alive) despite his predicaments is similar to Dr. Stone's attitude for the most part of the movie. Dr. Stone started where Chuck left off. However, she soon realizes that her attitude has to change. She couldn't just stay alive, but to actually fight to stay alive.


4. From Blind Optimism to Idealistic Pessimism

What if Chuck's blind optimism - "tomorrow the sun will rise, who knows what the tide will bring" - is also a recipe for future disappointment? Of course "the tide" can bring miracles; but it can very well bring more disasters. To hope for a miracle is to give up on our own effort, and so, make us more vulnerable to disaster. 

That was how Dr. Stone reacted to her daughter's loss. She would have not survived the space accident if she persisted in this attitude - only hoping for a miracle to happen. And it was not a miracle that saved her, but her own wit (projected to Kowalski in the form of a hallucination).

By quoting Kowalski, "Houston, I have a bad feeling about this mission", Dr. Stone signaled her new found attitude: 'I don't think this will go well, but I'd do anything to make sure it will.'

Romance sans Paroles

National Ideals and the War on Corruption

What we lack today in Malaysia are our national ideals. What are we working towards? Whom do we want to become? What do we want to achieve as a nation? 

Whilst only a decade ago we had some belief in our ideals such as Vision 2020, now that we are approaching the deadline we seem to have lost that vision. Could it be something so bright that it blinds us when it's nearer? Or perhaps like a visual illusion, could it have disappeared as we approached it?   

... 

The only national ideal Malaysians may think of nowadays is for us to become a country free from corruption. Most, if not all of our complaints today we would blame on corruption as the root cause. But let me discuss here, why 'War on Corruption' is futile - not unlike 'War on Terror' or 'War on Drugs'.  

The main reason why it is impossible to win these 'wars' is because in these battles, we are our own worst enemies!  

For example, what is really the 'War on Terror', if not Terror itself? And how can we really eliminate heroin addiction, if we only substitute it with just another drug, methadone? 

Those points may be easier for us to accept, when a harder case to make is to say that corruption is fought with, well, more corruption!  

... 

How can this be? If government officials do not accept bribery or abuse their power surely there'll be no corruption. So there is no need for more corruption to fight corruption.  

But this is like saying if people stop doing drugs there will be no drug addiction, or, if all terrorists..  

It is the waged 'war' against corruption that is actually the problem - the war that most of us would think is most needed today. It is a problem because the way this war is fought is by using the enemies' weapon against them - only that (in this war) we are our own enemies! 

As a result of fighting in these wars - against terror, drugs, and corruption - the weapons (bombs, drugs, bribes) are used twice as much: once by the enemy, and again by the heroes. Regardless of who wins the war, it is the people - who may not be the enemy or hero - who would suffer the most: twice bombed, doubly drugged, and robbed again for the second time. 

… 

While stricter laws and stronger law enforcement may help catch corrupt officials, it is not difficult to observe how these measures may actually worsen corruption by causing higher bribes, as it becomes harder for the corrupt to cover up their tracks and so they would pay more.   

Also, in plain view, aren't fines and prison sentences served by convicted corrupt officials only a form of 'bribery to the public'? That is, they may be forgiven for their corruption as long as they can also pay to the public a certain amount of money and time in prison. 

So long as we, members of the public, accept 'bribery from the corrupt', we also have to accept that there will always be corruption.  

... 

All of this is not to deny the reality of corruption, any more than we can deny terrorism and drug addiction. The point is that we cannot eradicate these problems by their own elements - it would be as lighting fire to fight fire, or pouring water to reduce the flood.  

To fight fire we need the fire extinguisher, and to reduce the flood, proper drainage.  

The root cause of corruption is greed, so changing the people in power is irrelevant - because greed comes with power. But if we all strive for some national ideals, then anyone in power would stay away from corruption - not because then they are afraid that they can get caught (they can pay to escape that), but because, striving for the national ideals, the people in power would choose to be honest.  

  

This is why today, as ever, we need our national ideals! 

Here are some suggestions:

1. Environmental - Keep Malaysia Clean & Green
2. Cultural - 'Berbudi bahasa amalan kita', Our Arts Our Heritage, 'Malaysia Boleh'
3. Scientific/Technological -  Malaysia Space Program, Malaysia Medical Project
4. Social/ Health - Make Our Streets Safe, Healthy Is Easy
5. Education - Future Leaders Project,  Read Malaysia 
6. Economy/Business - Local Products with Global Quality

*** 1Malaysia fails as an ideal because it is not one - we are already one Malaysia - and so it is merely a statement of a fact, not an ideal. A vocalist's ideal is not just to be a singer (that is already who she is), but to be famous, win awards, etc.  

Some may claim that we are still racially divided in this country, so he wants unity, and that is his ideal. The irony is that he'd be the same person who claims that the slogan 1Malaysia is redundant. 

Perhaps he is like someone who wants to be a vocalist but refuses the title of a singer. Maybe he doesn't really want to sing, or what is more possible, deep down he knows that in fact he cannot sing. Then perhaps he may rightly refuse to be called a singer, if after all, his singing is poor.