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.'

The Presenter

1. A better world without them?

Talk show and reality TV hosts, newscasters, radio DJs, museum and art gallery educators, all share a common role: to present to us certain interesting persons, topics or objects.

Can we imagine a world without TV and radio presenters? Yes, but we often get it wrong. We may think this imaginary world without hosts would be a better place than where we are now. After all, aren't most TV or radio hosts plain annoying? Even the good ones just keep us away from understanding the real deal, as we may be mislead by their interpretation of the subject anyway. Would it really be better for a show to run without a host? Maybe not.

In fact, a programme without a presenter won't be as good as a hosted one. It would be boring. And this is not necessarily because presenters are entertaining by themselves. What makes a programme so much better when it's hosted is all to do with our natural indolence (read: laziness).  We just cannot afford (or just too lazy) to do everything by ourselves, so these presenters are there to help us get to know a certain subject. But why are they so good at this? Let me explain.


2. Greek chorus

The ancient Greek used to stage plays in theatres, some of which are still standing, although now in ruins. From what we understand through records and traditions, these plays were not only popular in their time, but they also had some features that may at first puzzle us today. One of their features was to have a small group of people, called the chorus, who would stand in a place between the stage and the audience, essentially to host the drama enacted on the stage.

The chorus would narrate the story, and at times, even interrupt the actors on the stage with their commentaries. They would even have some dialogues with those actors. Their explanation may help the audience to understand the story, and this might have been done through singing. (This may be the origin of choral speaking and why it may also involve some singing..)

When I first learned about the Greek chorus I thought it was absurd. Wouldn't it disrupt the play on the stage? After all, we certainly don't see people standing between us and the stage who would talk to actors during the show and singing away the plot in modern theatres . But I was wrong. The chorus have climbed the stage and finally joined the actors in the spotlight. They are now called extras, or background actors.


3. Youtube comments and fake laughs

What's more satisfying than to watch a good Youtube video? To read the viewers' comments, of course. But have we ever wondered why?

Well, Zizek might have the answer. Slavoj Zizek is a modern day philosopher and I enjoy watching his videos on Youtube for his wacky comments on mundane things. In fact, my previous post on Diet Coke and decaff coffee was inspired by his talk.

Anyway, Zizek once described why comedy shows on TV would use fake recorded audience laughs and what makes them so effective in making us enjoy these shows. It's not simply a trick that tries to make us, the viewers at home, laugh, everytime we hear those fake laughs in a scene.

In fact, those fake laughs allow us to enjoy these programmes even without us laughing. Zizek thinks that this is because the recording has already laughed for us. So we only need to sit back and relax in front of the screen, and without even forcing a laugh we can feel good after watching the comedy programme.

Back to Youtube video comments, we find reading them actually gives us more pleasure than watching the video. Well, why not? Other viewers have already shared their thoughts on the video, and so we really don't even have to bother judging the video anymore. Just read the comment section and you could still enjoy Youtube without even watching the videos.


4. Film and reality

So why do we prefer hosted TV shows and radio programmes? Well first off they can do something which we'd like to do but can't be bothered to - talk to famous people, ask embarrassing questions and gossip about others, choose the right songs to play, etc. Of course we don't always agree with the host on her conversation with the celebrity, or her taste in music.

But to have someone do something for us is always convenient, and so unsurprisingly, Greek chorus, Youtube commenters, fake audience, along with museum educators, DJs and TV hosts can entertain us with their presence. By explaining to us the story in the play, judging a video, laughing on a funny scene, telling us the history of an art work, making a song playlist and talking to famous people, these presenters have allowed us to effortlessly enjoy these things. Isn't that amazing?

What's more amazing is to realize how 'presenters' can also play a role in films. Think of any famous films, there's always a character that narrates the whole plot for us, or explain the significance of events in the story. (Avatar: Jack's video blog, Titanic: Rose's interview). Without a narrator, audience can easily get confused - like what happened at the end of Inception.

Even a film with practically one character, like Castaway, needed a narration. Otherwise, we just don't see the point of the film - or rather, we can't be bothered to find out for ourselves why Tom Hank's character had to suffer from his isolation. 




Talking about isolation, we can easily imagine why it can hurt so much. When you live alone, you need to do everything on your own. Everything. Every little thing that you used to take for granted, when they are crucial for your survival, you'd have to work hard to keep it. And do this without any help from others. That's not easy.

In other words, the miserable experience of isolation can make us realize how dependent we are on others. Try not to watch any hosted TV programmes, stop listening to the radio, don't read the comments on Youtube, watch standups with no audience, and watch Castaway without that scene above.

Of course, it's not easy to get to know famous people, discover new music, watch the whole length of Youtube videos, laugh at comedy and putting together the plot - all by ourselves. So thank goodness we have each other!

Behind the Politics of The Dictator

Anyone who goes to watch 'The Dictator' knows full well before watching it that it is just a parody of dictators in general, as we can easily relate it to actual political uprisings and recent events like the Arab Spring (the fall of Ben Ali, Gaddafi and Mubarak). In fact, [spoiler alert] those who have actually seen it would also realise that this film also mocks western democracy, especially in a surprising 'Occupy Wall Street' speech by the dictator, General Aladeen in a late scene. But let's go beyond its politics.

Fortunately, there's enough material in 'The Dictator' for us to see it as more than a political parody, as we can observe the adventures of General Aladeen in New York as an allegory to an individual's coming of age (i.e transition from childhood to adulthood). 

***

 In fact it is easy to draw parallels between dictatorship and childhood. At what other times in our lives that we think ourselves to be the centre of the universe - bestowed with all the rights to rule the world  - while mixing our desires and our needs. Ignorant of other people's needs and desires, the child enforces his own morality on others and assumes a royal treatment from his environment, especially from his parents. Interestingly, the role of parents in taking care of their 'special' child is also reflected in this film by the tireless effort of General Aladeen's uncle, Tamir, to fulfil the childlike desires ("I need hugs") of the dictator and ultimately enforcing his rule on the people of Wadiya. 

What the Dictator would soon realise is that he may not be so special after all - and this he would discover in two tragic facts [another spoiler alert]:

Replaceable. In a pretence to fool his enemies, Aladeen's uncle finds a body double of General Aladeen to replace him temporarily. However, Aladeen comes to realise that the real intention of his uncle is to replace him altogether with someone who looks exactly like Aladeen but who would obey all orders from the uncle. In other words, the dictator realises that the world is indifferent to his individuality. He could be killed and replaced by a body double - and the truth is - no one would really care!

Object of Hatred. Another reality check for Aladeen is when he accidentally walked into a gathering place of all the people he sent to be killed. What surprised him was that all these people were still alive and also filled with vengeance. This is an important lesson for the dictator, that every action begets a reaction, and that one must be ready to face the consequences of his actions. A child's naive assumption of the unfailing love and forgiveness from everyone around him is shattered once he discovers that he can also be hated by the people he loves.

***

Maybe as he has unknowingly mocked democracy and reverted back to his dictatorial ways, we can question whether the Dictator has really reached 'adulthood'. In fact, the guise of democracy in Wadiya at the end could also be seen as the guise of maturity in someone who is only really a grown-up child.


* Perhaps the giveaway clue to the allegory of 'The Dictator' to the coming of age is the scene he learns for the first time how to 'pleasure himself'. As in pubertal development, the moment one tastes this 'forbidden fruit', one would have also acquired the independence of the individual over biology (i.e one can fulfil his own biological urges). While this, in a way, may be good for the individual, it is bad for the species. No wonder it is morally abhorred.

Neurotic Avengers

(Image source)

It's not hard to detect neuroses in all those "superheroes" in  The Avengers. In this film, we meet with the narcissistic Iron Man, angry Hulk, megalomaniac half-brothers Thor and Loki, and PTSD-stricken Captain America. And of course, there's also Black Widow and Hawkeye. 

In their own comic book or film, the plot is usually about the superhero's own journey to overcome or accept his own neuroses, perhaps more than about fighting evil forces. Whereas in The Avengers, it gets more complicated, when all of them come together not just to fight evil, but more importantly, to face their own issues and those of others. This is perhaps why a child's logic of "why can't heroes just work together and defeat evil once and for all" is hard to materialise. Only adults can understand this.

Let's make some analysis of these superheroes.

Iron Man, with his self-absorbed personality, characterises the self-made modern man who uses his intellectual capabilities to develop high-tech solutions to his problems. However, just like our modern society, Iron Man would later discover that the greatest threat to our existence is no longer Nature, but it is human technology itself. In the climax of this film, Iron Man had to sacrifice his life not to fight against alien invaders, but in order to save human race against the destructive force of its own making - nuclear weapons.

Hulk, I think can also be seen as another archetype of the modern man. Behind a nerdy harmless scientist, we find his repressed anger manifesting itself as an uncontrollable destructive alter ego. We may assume that we are less aggressive than our ancestors, when our aggression has only been channelled to non-physical actions  - e.g violence in video games. The resolution for Hulk was simply to accept that destructive alter ego as part of his whole being - as he remarked, "That's my secret Cap, I'm always angry".

Thor and Loki, really suffer from what is known as the God Complex - believing themselves to be infallible, immortal and almighty. In fact, they really were born as gods. However, they would soon discover that there are bigger forces working beyond their control. Their plans go awry, and even their godly powers could not save them. Eventually, they have to learn that they are not gods after all, at least not in this reality. 

Captain America, for me, may be the least interesting character in The Avengers. He is not only misplaced in time, he is also the only one still troubled by the past. His lesson would be to leave the past and live the present - as he does so eventually, by cooperating with other "real superheroes" who have more skills, powers and intellect than him. The fact that he still fancies himself a Captain not just showcases his leadership charisma, but also his desperate constant need of approval. 

The Avengers is surely entertaining and great fun to watch in the cinema. But I find even more satisfaction in watching it as there are so many superheroes in this film for me to analyse and to understand why we enjoy watching them at all! 

The Feminine Struggle

'Twilight' vs. 'Hunger Games': 

Why Do So Many Grown-Ups Hate Bella?

If you have seen or read both Twilight and The Hunger Games, you probably have already realised the divergent characterisations of the female leads in these two film adaptations. Whilst in Twilight, Bella finds herself madly in love and becoming so dependent on her lover; Katniss, in The Hunger Games, becomes the object of love herself, and finds others who become increasingly dependent on her. 

However, we should not be too quick to make a moral judgement on which of these two stories is better, before we reflect on why people enjoy watching - or rather, fall in love with - these films in the first place. 

Maybe we can theorise that most - if not, all - people enjoy reading, watching or hearing about a story that they can relate to, that is, that they can identify with the lead character (hero or heroine).  It's no surprise then why a lot of blokes enjoy Fast and Furious, while a lot of chicks dig, well, Twilight or Hunger Games. Of course, this coarse generalisation must not be taken too far (blokes also watch Twilight and chicks do enjoy Fast and Furious).

So should we criticise Meyers for writing Twilight, a tale in which there is an almost absolute surrender of the ego to another superhuman being? And if so, should we then applaud Collins for writing Hunger Games where the ego itself is lifted to a superhuman level? 

I think both films are equally moral - or, you might even say, amoral. Although Bella's apparent weaknesses seem repugnant to many people, therein lies her greatest strength, that is her ability to make her own life choices. Yes, she's vulnerable to the charms of Edward, and also defenceless against the threats of her environment; but we must not forget that despite the superhuman quality of Edward, it is Bella who ultimately has the power to choose between him and Jacob, and even, between life and death (of Bella herself and her unborn child). 

The Hunger Games, we might first assume, is more moral because it empowers the lead female character - unlike Twilight. However, this would seem questionable once we scrutinise the realities of Katniss' life. Yes, she is independent, smart, skilful and very brave. Underneath her apparent bravery however, lies her greatest weakness and tragedy - that is,  her lack of choice. Throughout the film, Katniss is repeatedly forced to choose the lesser evil - from volunteering to join the Hunger Games to replace her sister; to her attempt to please the audience by faking love; and ultimately by having to kill other innocent children who are also trapped in the Hunger Games or otherwise getting herself killed by one of them.

In the end, it's not about who's better, Bella or Katniss. Depending on how you see their story: we can say that both are fated to succeed, or that they are both equally doomed to fail.

Of Happy Endings

A friend once told me that groups of moviegoers in India had once burned down cinemas across the country because they were greatly dissatisfied by an unhappy ending of a certain Hindi film. In that film, the hero died at the end - and perhaps more importantly, he did not come back alive. However shocking what the audience did might seem to us, we must at least understand how those people must have felt - as we often do - after watching films with crappy endings.

So what makes a good ending? Obviously it is when evil perish and the good triumph! And who doesn't get annoyed if it is unclear what happens at the end? (e.g Inception). And so we expect movies to have clear and happy endings.

Unfortunately, as what we might have already realised, this does't always happen in real life. For every news event, there's always another event that follows; and for every story we tell our friends about what happened to us, there's always something that has happened right after. And if we really scrutinise the real endings to our stories, we would realise that these can be both unclear and quite often bad, or depressing.

So in real life there are not always happy endings - or are there? If we look at the natural history of an organism, we can say that its life is nothing but an inevitable journey towards death. On the other hand, we can also say that its story does not end with its death, but continues with its posterity (i.e descendants). Seen in this light, we might say that even at the time of its death, this creature has indeed reached a happy ending.

I just saw The Grey, the survival film with Liam Neeson playing a wolf hunter getting stranded by a plane crash with a few other people in a harsh arctic environment - the hunter then became the hunted. Not unlike The Hunger Games, this survival action film has some philosophical significance to it. But unlike the first Hunger Game film, the audience could not really tell whether the hero, after the death of all the other 'survivors', would himself survive at the end (although clearly he would die not long after). The Grey ended abruptly, obscurely, and depressingly - no one survived. But I think that's the whole point: in the end, everyone dies!

* Maybe having recently finished reading a book written by Schopenhauer, that pessimist philosopher, has got something to do with the tone of this post. But cheer up, it's not the end yet. 

A Separation

 When I heard about this Iranian drama film, I thought that it would be just another typical film about a divorce. In fact, when I watched it yesterday, I found that it is more than that. And indeed this film has deservingly won the Golden Globe Award for best foreign language film, along with many other international awards and nominations. 

I think all its audience would agree that, this realistic, gripping, and Kafkaesque film about the struggle of a modern young Iranian family has entertained us all. Some of us, who love to philosophize over ordinary things, may wonder if the story and its characters portray more than just family life crises. We can speculate that this film may also reflect the issues of "A Separation" of ideologies, generations, religions, and economic classes.