Categories

Showing posts with label Reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reviews. Show all posts

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Inside the Actors Studio with James Lipton

James Lipton at the 2007 Tribeca Film Festival.
James Lipton at the 2007 Tribeca Film Festival. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I've gotten the chance, as of late, to watch some episodes of Bravo's "Inside the Actors Studio", an interview show that has been on the air for years, profiling big name actors and directors and comedians from Julia Roberts to Meryl Streep, to Steven Spielberg to Dave Chappelle.

The show is hosted by James Lipton, an American writer  composer, actor and dean emeritus of the Actors Studio Drama School at Pace University in New York City. The show has an interesting history, beginning as a seminar given masters students at the University and blooming into an internationally syndicated show broadcast in over a hundred countries.

But what appeals to me, as an aspiring journalist with a developing knack for, and certainly a desire to, speak to and meet people and learn about as many human life stories as I can, is the show's and Lipton's style. The show uses a deliberately slow, natural pace; you feel like you're watching a conversation fruiting on your television screen as opposed to a "cut-for-time" television interview. It's relaxed, introspective and often emotional.

That's why no episode spans shorter than 30 minutes time.

James Lipton with guest Angelina Jolie. The ma...
James Lipton with guest Angelina Jolie. The majority of the show is held as a one-on-one interview. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
This is the kind of thing I'd like to do in the future with my professional career. Be they broadcast on TV, Internet, radio; be they not broadcast at all, these are the kind of conversations I want to have with people, whether famous, unknown or in-between.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Share/Bookmark

Monday, September 10, 2012

CN's "Regular Show" + Gardening

The stars of the show and the groundskeepers
of its unnamed park. 
Any of you guys watch JG Quintel's Regular Show on Cartoon Network? I must say, it's one of the best cartoons I've watched in a while - and I never watch cartoons.

The natural tone of conversation between the two main characters, a blue jay named Mordecai and a raccoon named Rigby, is what's got me hooked. And their occupation on the show - groundskeepers at the local park - has got me thinking.

I ponder on the environment a lot. I enjoy being outside (even in the "unbearable" Florida heat), I ride my bicycle everywhere, I enjoy invites to the local park, and so on. Why not try to land a job, internship, or otherwise an opportunity to do the same thing Mordecai and Rigby do?

Granted, the work will be much more difficult than it appears on the show. Driving the golf cart around the city just won't cut it.

To test whether or not I can handle and enjoy the manual labor, I've taken to working on the garden back at my high school. Excepting the potentially arduous social task it can be to go back to where you came from, I've enjoyed the gardening work so far, which has involved mulching the flower plot and planting some wildflowers.

More on going back later, though.

Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

"Cyberbullying"

ABC Family Original Movie, Cyberbully
The ABC Family Original Movie, Cyberbulling, is an interesting film that stands at a crossroads between being a gritty exploration of seemingly nonsensical teenage harassment and a cautionary tale of what you should and shouldn't do on the Internet as orated by adults frustrated by the new medium.

The film tells the tale of young Taylor Hillridge, who opens up a profile on a risque spin-off of Facebook, called "Clicksters". Everything is fun and games until Taylor's best friend opens up a fake profile - unbeknownst to Taylor - sporting the picture of an attractive male teenager that starts flirting with her online, sometimes defending online attacks that Taylor's acquaintances at school launch upon her and sometimes adding to the fire.

Hillridge's life enters a downward spiral, leading to near suicide. Luckily, the film ends on a positive note. 

The issue with Cyberbully, as a film, is its intended audiences - families who may have children Taylor's age and whose children may in fact be in the same situation. Therefore, there's lots of scenes of adults speaking in politically correct terms regarding legislation against cyberbullying, adults admonishing children on their rude acts over the Internet, and lots of scenes of conveniently naive teenagers that are incapable of simply unplugging themselves from this Internet torture. 

But the fact that the film feels as innocent and convenient as it does plays on how those same traits are characteristic of teenagers that may be experiencing cyberbullying.

While cyberbullying is a difficult problem without an easy fix, one of the more effective methods is also the most ignored: unplugging yourself. If a message thread on Facebook or Cyberbully's "Clicksters" proves too nasty to read, just don't and ignore the whole thing. The fact that Taylor constantly returns to the network to check up on her latest messages - which are never nice ones - is tantamount to Taylor physically beating herself up and is reflective of teenage stubbornness and its exacerbating effect on cyberbullying.

It's an interesting movie - with flaws - but above all, it communicates a clear message about teenagers that beat themselves over the head, unnecessarily, with cyberbullying. Like putting salt on an open wound.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

"American Reunion" comedy grows up

As the next installment in the "American Pie" franchise, "American Reunion" (to be released April 6, directed by Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg) has a lot of comedy gold to live up to.

Not only does the new film continue the series' trademark brand of sexual innuendo, hilarious situations, and genuine comedic gags, it also displays a welcome consciousness for the reality of its protagonists.

James Levenstein (played by Jason Biggs) is now married to Michelle Levenstein (played by Alyson Hannigan); Kevin Myers (played by Thomas Ian Nicholas) is also married and works as an architect, Chris Ostreicher (played by Chris Klein) works as a sportscaster on an NFL show, and Paul Finch (played by Eddie Kaye Thomas) is also now an adult. All these guys were best buds during high school.

The only one out of them that's stuck in his high school past is Steve Stiffler (played by Seann William Scott), so when the opportunity to attend their high school reunion - class of '99 - comes up, Stiffler and the guys decide to live it up like they used to in high school.

This sets up the context for the traditional hilarity that ensues in any American Pie film, only this time, the driving force behind the comedy is actually a serious concern among the guys about realizing they've grown up and that high school is well past.

James and Michelle, for example, are worried because the sex life of their marriage is faltering. James' dad, Noah (played by the lovable Eugene Levy) has experienced the death of his wife and is convinced by James to come out with him and Michelle to Stiffler's party to live it up a little and maybe find someone else. The fact that this linkage between something as genuinely sad as the loss of a wife and something as incontrovertibly exciting as a "high school" party is made goes to show that the movie isn't just about guys trying to get laid, but instead about adults who genuinely enjoyed and now miss their former lives or partners, the latter of which is also true with Ostreicher and Myers.

"American Reunion" hits the very sweet balance between being a treatise on a real life issue and being a choice comedy film of the month. If you want to LOL and feel genuine emotion at the same time, "American Reunion" is the movie to watch.

Share/Bookmark

Seuss comes alive in 'Lorax'

"The Lorax," the Dr. Seuss fable about the preservation of the natural environment and the contrast between what's right and what you believe in, comes alive in Illumination Entertainment's 2012 film of the same name.

It has been given a 3D and IMAX face lift in its newest incarnation, but the wonderful story is mostly unchanged.

Big-name stars voice this animated flick: Taylor Swift, Zac Effron and Danny DeVito.

DeVito voices the iconic Lorax, who speaks for the trees. Effron plays Ted, the optimistic youth who discovers the story of the Truffula Trees through the tale of the Once-Ler (the anti-hero in the film, played by Ed Helms). Swift plays Ted's love interest, Audrey, whose desire to get a real tree motivates Ted to skip town and find out more about them.

Ted and his mother and grandmother live in Thneedville, a town where everything is made out of plastic, computerized, and O'Hare Air is the sole supplier of air for the entire town.

The city came as a result of the Once-Ler's evildoings: He manufactured an odd garment he called Thneed, a multi-purpose product that he felt everyone needed.

To supply the demand, he happens upon the forest of Truffula Trees, where he meets the forest creatures and then the Lorax. Despite promising to refrain from cutting down the tress, the Once-ler singlehandedly destroys the forest to satisfy his business desires – and the rest is history.

Similar to Disney/Pixar's "Wall-E," "The Lorax" delivers a lot of high-minded criticisms about modern society through its colorful and affectionate cartoon story.

Thneedville and O'Hare Air are clear symbolisms for the industrial nature of our society, the emphasis it places on high technology and immediate results.

Other elements emphasize our consumer-oriented nature and companies who don't care about preserving the environment.

But "The Lorax" is still a children's film at heart. The animation is top-notch, and the creatures of the forest are endearing, imaginative animals that, combined with the touching nature of the film's plot, earn a place in your heart. 

Share/Bookmark

Florida Renaissance Festival takes eventgoers back in time

What better way to spend a brisk weekend than traveling back in time to an era where knights jousted to the death, archery was in full swing, and everyone walking the streets dressed in rustic garb, whether they were a pirate, a queen, a soldier, or even a cleaning lady.

Such is the spirit of the Renaissance Festival at Quiet Waters Park in Deerfield Beach.

Walking the streets of this mystic town, with jesters and King Ferdinand and the Queen walking the streets along with the commoners, with most everyone addressing one another in old-time speak, makes for an ethereal journey into an era lost to history.

The personalities parading the town are unlike any other. Here, the King's soldiers engage in a jousting tournament of life and death, you can witness a glass blower forming wonderful creations with unmatched skill, you can laugh at the jester's colorful garb and humorous stories, you can stand in awe as the champions of the sword fighting tournament go for their final round in the ring, and you can appreciate actors delivering a marvelous, satirical take on the classic Macbeth.

The effort the creators of the Renaissance Festival and its participants have put into recreating the feel of a 1500s Medieval town is incredible. Best of all, the public can freely participate in this same creative drive by dressing up in an old-time costume of their choice, from pirate outfits to corsets for the ladies and more.

While each show and performance is meticulously scripted and coordinated in order to reflect its historical counterpart, it is the walk through the town, witnessing the spectacular characters that parade its streets, that is most fulfilling.

There is even a psychotic woman who swears she is leading her pet dragon around by carrying nothing but a large bone on a rope.

The festival goes on through March 11, every weekend day from 10 a.m. to sunset, including President's Day.

See http://www.ren-fest.com for more information. 

Share/Bookmark

Rdio's high point: low cost

publishing reviews and articles I've written for youth magazine Teenlink (http://www.southflorida.com/specialsection/teenlink/).The magazine's awesome!


Rdio, a music subscription service with a nice low price, initially looks like a half-baked copy of Pandora or iTunes.

Despite the service's name, the web application does not feel like a radio at all; it feels more like iTunes in that you look for specific songs and artists and play back your favs.

But there are few music discovery features: While you can load recommendations based on the artists you listen to, you can't browse music by genre, time period, etc.

Rdio does offer a "Heavy Rotation" option, which lists the most popular albums at the moment based on user activity (not Billboard listings or any other external database, which is reserved for the "Top Charts" option) .

The available music library seems to be very large, and you can download individual songs, but the prices vary from single to single. Albums are better deals.

Rdio's strength however, isn't 99-cent song downloads or even album purchases. Instead, it's the mobile offerings and the low subscription fee that take the cake.

Rdio works on iPod, iPhone, Windows Phone 7, Android and Blackberry. You can either access the files on the Rdio service using an Internet connection, or you can sync your music to your mobile for offline use, which essentially grants you music downloads to your mobile device for the flat subscription fee: S9.99 a month if you want mobile features, only $4.99 if you only want the web and desktop apps.

Rdio is a good deal if you want to download a lot of music. However, you cannot export these downloads to a file or other music program (e.g. iTunes).

I tested the mobile iPhone app, which works well and has an interface reminiscent of the iPod.

While you can share your favorite Tunes on Facebook and Twitter, friends that click the link need to make an Rdio account in order to hear your shared tunes.

The service also falls short of having much "radio" in it. You can customize a playlist and play it on shuffle but there's nothing like Pandora's stations, which automatically play similar tracks and help you discover new tunes.

An attractive price point combined with multi-platform accessibility make Rdio a great option for the music lover tired of iTunes, but the lack of music discovery features and social interactivity may turn users off. 

Share/Bookmark

Friday, May 21, 2010

Why This Life - Avoiding Columbine

The school shooting at Columbine High School happened little over a decade ago, and the momentous nature of the massacre has earned it a spot on the list of mankind's greatest disasters. Lives were lost, but the lives that weren't lost, were changed. Never before Columine had anyone heard of something like a school shooting. A TIME Magazine article on the subject mentioned that before Columbine, students would often forget to leave their gun racks at home following a weekend of targeting practice or hunting with Dad. What would happen if you "forgot" to leave your gun rack at home today? You'd be considered a situation, you'd be expelled from school, you'd be checked out by a doctor.

I'm not going to narrate the events at Columbine - it's a story repeated too often. I'm instead going to discuss something worse - the possibility that Columbine could've been avoided. An old 60 Minutes presentation on the Tragedy of Columbine decided to focus, not on why Columbine happened, when, what, how. But instead, on that which didn't happen. That which could've been vital factors in preventing the massacre from happening. According to the presentation, the first police team to enter the school once 911 calls had rung and the news of the shooting had been dispatched to police did so after two hours after the shooting began. Two hours! There was been local police surrounding the school within five minutes of the first shot fired (and the first life lost), but it would only be two hours later that police deemed entering the school to be "safe". After a massive amount of policemen, SWAT team members, police vehicles, and vans had assembled outside and in the vicinity of the school, all waiting around for orders from the local police authority while innocent kids were being shot inside the school by the two adolescent perpetrators. How could this have happened? An interviewee on the show who had knowledge of the police commands and operational orders given during the massacre spoke with the host of the presentation, but when asked why the SWAT team, why the police, why anyone didn't go in as soon as possible, as soon as shots were fired - she conspicuously denied and essentially pleaded the fifth to, everything. It's terrible! How could this have happened? Why were lives lost that could've been saved?

I can do nothing but mourn the lives lost. I cannot criticize the actions of the Columbine police department beyond the concepts of common sense. It's unfair to think that policemen are all daring heroes ready to lose their lives by diving headfirst into a massacre. They didn't know how many shooters were inside. It could've been two teenagers, it could've been a terrorist army. Could they have known? Did they know? Nobody knows. We cannot criticize that which we have little to no knowledge of. That's a principle of life. We're only left with questions. Not about why the police didn't go in. Not about why the response was so slow. But instead why the criminals responsible for the massacre did what they did. Believe it or not, the Columbine shooters were both friendly, socially competent, good-looking teenage boys, with happy parents at home, lots of friends at school. Their personalities weren't the warning signs - there were more conspicuous ones available, that no one cared to look at. The boys had created a website where they listed the schematics for the pipe bombs they would use, a hit list of the people they would kill, a schedule outlining in what order they would carry out their deed. People knew about these boys' activities and desires too - they'd told some of their friends what they planned to do, but everyone dismissed it as being a joke, or simply as being a lie. If today you hear someone telling you, "hey, look at this list of the people I'm gonna kill." What would you do? Would you tell someone? Would you stay quiet out of fear? It depends. What you would do is think that there's something bad going on. The concept of a school shooting was not one that existed at the time Columbine happened - it had never happened before! People did not think that someone with such a good personality and such a high degree of social competence would be seriously planning a school shootout; that they would kill their own classmates. Now, when we see these warning signs, we have that thought, that possibility, in our mental repository.

Thinking that the same mindset was present back in 1999, is called having hindsight bias - that past events were more predictable than they really were at the time. It's unfair ... what we can solidly take away from Columbine is a lesson on the complexity of the human mind. Could there be something wrong in my sociable best friend? Could they be plotting a school shootout? I can only hope not. Let's remain optimistic - it's the best thing we can do.

Share/Bookmark

The Third Wave

The following discusses The Third Wave, an experiment undertaken by Contemporary History teacher Ron Jones of Cubberley High School in Palo Alto, California in the year 1967, to show his students the appeal of fascism. 
The following comments are based on a 1981 made-for-TV special about The Third Wave, although it bounces back between the actual facts and the content of the special.
For any teacher, the inability to answer a question from one of your students must fell like a parent not knowing how to help a child. I can't speak for a teacher, seeing as I'm not one myself, but I can only assume how it must make them feel. Ron Jones was teaching his students about Nazi Germany and how people would go a long with their killing of Jews and other innocent people, when one of his students asked him why people would participate in something so horrible. Puzzled, Jones doesn't know how to answer the question - so he decides to show it, by creating a classroom government known as "The Third Wave", whose objective is to eliminate democracy. He designed a logo, an insignia, and a motto - "Strength through discipline, strength through community, strength through action, strength through pride.", complete with an accompanying pledge-like hand motion.

Jones began to gradually exact additional layers of discipline on the students, too. He had them stand up to answer a question in class, for example. Before long, The Third Wave became a school-wide group, with flyers being distributed, membership cards going around, and even a physical altercation between Wave members and a local student who questioned its beliefs. What had essentially been created was a Nazi party all of its own. 


It sounds comical, and probably pretty unbelievable that a single teacher could form a "Nazi-like government" in school. But it's true, and despite the relative lack of documentation of The Third Wave experiment, it's supported at least in theory by the concepts of social psychology.

To not believe in the possibility of The Third Wave is to underestimate the power of social competence and the need for belonging that are essential to the human being - the former defined by Erik Erikson, the latter by Abraham Maslow. Human beings are social creatures - they crave for interaction with others; introverts and unsociable fellows are the exception, not the norm. Even though we often find ourselves frustrated by our social lives (okay, that goes mostly for adolescents, I'll give you that), we cannot live without it (kinda like women). And so, in a world of social conflicts, finding a unit, a purpose, something to believe in, is quite the influence. In the made-for-TV dramatization, the benefits of The Third Wave are best shown in Robert - a shy, often picked on youth that, when given a coveted membership role in the group, essentially turns himself around and becomes a leader - confident, sociable, determined, hard-working, walking with a purpose. The Third Wave gives him something to believe in, but it also gives him a sense of identity that contributes to feeling of achievement and power (thanks to the high membership position) but also one of possibly harmful attachment to The Third Wave; essentially, Robert's life depends on The Third Wave for guidance and identity. 

The Third Wave causes problems throughout the school. Kids are beat up by members of the Wave advocating their beliefs; no one is able to think for themselves anymore, and cannot see the harm they are causing due to the fact that they are blinded by unchanging belief and faith in the mission of the Wave. Two students, whom were previously in a relationship, are broken up when the guy in the relationship decides to continue participating in the Wave. Later on, a violent altercation happens between the two, as the girl tells him that the Wave is hurting everyone while he, unfazed and otherwise angered by her comments, grabs her violently and causes her to fall on the ground. This causes an epiphany in him which convinces him the Wave really is as harmful as she says - if it's causing him to act this way, there's definitely something wrong. They talk to their teacher, Ron Jones about the situation, and he decides he really should stop the Wave movement. But he does it "in his own way". 

Calling for a Wave meeting between all of the Wave members - the number of which by now has skyrocketed and is exponentially greater than what it originally was - the teacher tells the Wave members that their national leader will be speaking to them on the big screen in the Auditorium. A few minutes later, no leader shows up on the screen. One student calls out - "there is no leader, is there?" The teacher replies sharply - "yes! That's your leader!" as he points to a 35mm projection of Adolf Hitler during one of his speeches. Everyone in the room is instantly demoralized as they realize what they've become - the teacher even says that they all would've made good Nazis. 


This is what it comes down to. The power of obedience, when accompanied by the benefit of fitting in and being part of a group in which you're unconditionally accepted, respected, and held in high esteem, is indeed very great. For this same reason, students go into drugs, alcohol consumption, and smoking when their friends do the same - "come on man, come smoke with us, man." Same goes for crime - "what, are you scared we'll get caught or something?" Same goes for elementary school treachery - "just take it, the teacher won't notice." As well as for high school apathy, "you're never gonna learn this stuff anyway; come on, let's go." It's scary to think that we are our own greatest enemies - but I guess that's the virtue of being human. 

It's all about learning to fear yourself.

Share/Bookmark

Thursday, May 20, 2010

One Soldier's Mind

The concepts of social psychology have a lot to demonstrate about the human mind, and for this reason, this and the next blog post will be discussing some of the greatest examples of the influence of social psychology on human behavior and responses. However. we begin today with a negation of those very principles - with the story of a German soldier who gave his life for what he believed in. 



The comments here are based on a film dramatization of Schultz' story.
 
World War II, early 1940s. The Nazi war machine is at war with the United States, England, Russia and other nations. On the other side of the world, the second Axis power, the Japanese, are at odds with American gunships and fighters sweeping the Pacific Ocean. A time of political turmoil, but more importantly, of unacceptable amounts of lives lost that didn't deserve to be lost. Nazi soldiers, in addition to risking their lives in urban and rural warfare against enemy troops, were often charged with the task of executing defenseless civilians and other innocent people caught in the middle of world-wide political conflict.
Joseph Schultz was a good, upstanding Nazi soldier fighting on the Eastern Front. On the 20th of July, 1941, he's caught relaxing with his fellow soldiers when the commanding general of the unit summons them to participate in what at first appears to be a routine mission. However, when they see fourteen defenseless captives pressed against a haystack, blindfolded, they know what they're doing isn't routine. They line up a good ten to fifteen meters away from the captives, and as seven of the soldiers take aim at them, a rifle is dropped on the ground. Joseph Schultz had lied down his rifle and combat helmet, ignoring a military order from his commander as he walked to the other side of the equation taking his place next to the captives on the haystack. The captive closest to him grips his hand, and a few minutes later, amidst confusion from Schultz' brothers in arms, the commanding officer orders the soldiers to shoot. The fourteen civilian captives are dead, in addition to the single Nazi soldier who put his morals, values, and opinions well above the call of duty.

What do we see here besides a human being too humane to take orders of assassination? We see the concepts of social psychology being completely opposed by the mindset of one human being with courage large enough, and values great enough to put his own life on the line for.

Schultz' story is inspiring for two reasons. For one, it is the story of a caring human being who could not bear the guilt that would come from killing innocent civilians in cold blood. This was different from killing armed infantry and taking out armed tanks - those were people well equipped to deal with the war they were risking their lives in. But these civilians were bystanders in a worldwide sea witnessing the greatest storm the world had to offer - World War II. They had no fault, they had no reason to die. Their death would yield a controversy in political talks, perhaps the facilitation of the conquest of the next opposing nation. Schultz may or may not have thought about this when he put his life on the line, and most likely, he wasn't thinking about it. Schultz, as is evident in the film, was an upstanding soldier that attacked fortified positions with ease, that was part of an elite group of soldiers worthy of an official photographed group portrait. He had no reason to doubt the morality of the political party, of the military superiors he served for. He did have reason to doubt the morality of killing a defenseless human being. That's what stopped Schultz from going along with what he was being told to do, from going along with what his close-knit military brothers were doing.

That's the second reason why Schultz' story is amazing. He stepped over the social psychology concepts of groupthink, of obedience, in a single act of defiance against his military superior. What are these concepts? How did Schultz oppose them? Stay tuned for the next blog post.

Share/Bookmark

Thursday, May 6, 2010

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest




One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a 1975 film interpretation of the book of the same name written by Ken Kesey. The film's success and popularity has been evidenced by its taking of the five major Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director (Miloš Forman), Best Actor (Jack Nicholson), Best Actress (Louise Fletcher), and Writing Adapted Screenplay. The US Library of Congress also deemed the film as "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant", and has selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry. So what does the author of the original story have to say about it?

Author Ken Kesey was so bitter about the way the filmmakers were "butchering" his story that he vowed never to watch the completed film. Years later, he claimed to be lying in bed flipping through TV channels when he settled onto a late-night movie that looked sort of interesting, only to realize after a few minutes that it was this film. He then changed channels.
Well, what a response! In any case, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is an excellent work of film that succeeds in providing a dramatized portrayal of an American mental institution in which no healing is going on. In other words, one in which the patients suffering from errors in the mind are kept well under control and well from being dangerous to others or to themselves, but they're also kept far too institutionalized and devoid of thoughts of ever returning to the real world. Nurse Ratched is one of the main characters in the film, "one of the finest nurses in the country" whom rules over the patients with an iron fist, developing a mind-numbing daily schedule and partaking in group therapy sessions with some of the patients; sessions seem to exist with the sole objective of bringing each of the patient's individual problems to the attention of the group and only maximizing their humiliation and embarrassment at being where they are and at why they are there. In essence, the patients fear Nurse Ratched, and no one ever considers questioning her leadership, or rebelling.

That is, until R.P McMurphy comes along. His charges of statutory rape and other criminal acts land him in prison, but his continued defiance of authority lands him in the mental hospital, for fear that he might have developed some sort of condition (it's all a ploy by McMurphy to steer himself clear of hard labor on the work farm, though). It's clear throughout the entirety of the film that nothing is wrong with McMurphy, and when he arrives and sees the lack of individuality in the patients, he carries out a string of activities, often not part of Ratched's plans, in an attempt to heal the patients by letting them partake in more "extracurricular" activities - he takes them fishing by stealing the hospital's bus, he plays basketball in the courtyard outside, he demands (but does not succeed) to get everyone to vote for watching the World Series on TV, interrupting Nurse Ratched's schedule; he puts together a drinking party overnight, which ends miserably and leads to the bittersweet ending of the movie, etc. These "extracurricular" activities are presented so lightheartedly and charismatically in the film that it's easy to feel the happiness the patients feel at taking on new adventures and stepping away from the institutionalized reality of their lives.

Upon seeing how Nurse Ratched treats her patients, it makes you wonder if this is how it is in other mental institutions. For the effect of film, everything is always dramatized and taken a sane bit over the top, but the questions is, is there some truth to this treatment of the patients? Is Nurse Ratched's tyrannous control really what goes on in other mental institutions? It brings up a question referring to the responsibility of a mental institution. Is it a restraining facility, where potentially dangerous people - dangerous as a byproduct of errors in the mind - are to be kept under control and out of harm's way; or is it a rehabilitation center where these people are first satiated, but later given a chance to come back out into the real world and try life all over again? The first option is the easiest way out, but if that's the case, who decides whether your sick mind stays in a white, four-walled coop of an outer-city building, or whether it stays outside in the real world? Who determines this? Your doctor, the head of the mental institution? I mean, of course, if you have a mental condition, you can't be asked to make a life choice for yourself, but the question is; are the life choices doctors and head psychologists making for their patients, the right ones?

 
McMurphy, through unorthodox ways, essentially assumes the latter responsibility that the institution, and that Nurse Ratched, never bother to take on. He risks possible arrest to get these guys out into the real world, especially after he learns that many of them are only voluntarily attending the institution and are not forced to be there. He's ashamed by the men's lack of fervor for their own lives, and this amazement prompts him to do something about it, but not without being shot down by Nurse Ratched and the instittuion as a whole. His intentions are unclear at first - are his outings with the men simply byproducts of his rebellious, anarchist personality, or do they stem from a subconscious altruism towards people refusing to improve themselves? Towards the end of the film, it's clear that the latter is the truth; that the violent and criminal McMurphy has developed a soft spot for these men.

It can be said, thus, that Nurse Ratched is afraid of taking the responsibility that McMurphy unknowingly, fearlessly takes. That, or she may just have a controlling personality. Her demeanor in the film suggest the latter to be the truth.

 
As a work of art, as well as a story and as virtually anything else One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a masterpiece combining a serious topic and dramatized situations, as well as symbolism (e.g. when Nurse Ratched walks into the institution in the opening scenes, there just happens to be a red light above her) and outputting a a stellar film worth of Academy Awards and much praise. It raises questions about the power of the mind, about mental institutions, about the fragility of the human condition that few other films, I'm sure, have done with equal charisma, gripping scenes, and ultimate excellence.

It's a "must see", and a "please think".

Share/Bookmark

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Love and OCD

Just remembered I'm supposed to write about madness for Psychology II. Well, new blog post!


I'm going to attempt to relate a documentary film I saw in fourth period Psychology about schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and alchoolism to the things I learned this weekend. Will it work? Probably not. 

This past weekend was a great weekend where I learned a lot about myself, mostly through a little girl trouble that's developed over the past two weeks and very, very fortunately and thankfully reached a mutually enjoyable resolution. In essence, it's all blown over now and our relationship feels like one that didn't see the frustration and awkwardness of these days past. With help from my friends - which I asked an unrealistic number of for help on this situation - I not only reached a good ending to the situation but I also learned a little about myself in terms of me with girls. I learned that I need to 1. develop better conversational skills and not make stupid jokes and talk about stupid crap as often (unless it's with my good friends, whom would be more likely to see this "development of better conversational skills" as "what's wrong with Tom?"). And 2, be a little less respectful in a sense. Now now, don't get me wrong - I'm not one to cheat on a girl or lie or anything like that. But I am disrespectful and utterly lame in other ways - such as the fact that I asked so many of my friends for help on a situation that at one point felt like the talk of the town when it shouldn't have been. (What was the situation? Deciding whether to ask the girl in question whether she liked me or not. "Just do it!" is what all my friends kept telling me). Also the fact that I really should stop actively looking for a relationship if I "know" that the best ones come to you without looking for them. Lastly, how sweet it is when your boyfriend calls you nightly to say "sweet dreams" - just like my best friend did with his girl last night when we were hanging out together, and just like I never damn did with my girlfriend when I was with her.

Essentially, I had a pubescent weekend in the world of a teenager. It was a pensive weekend, but one with an ultimately rewarding outcome. Now why the hell am I telling you all this? 

Because the past two weeks fretting over whether I was doing the right set of things to get this girl's romantic attention, the past tow weeks fretting over what her answer would be; they brought ephemeral but nonetheless serious, heavy, anxious exercise to my thoughts. I was nervous and anxious and on constant thought the whole time. I was anxious; just anxious, yeah, that's what I was. Now, of course, teenage thoughts have a habit of being violent and difficult to deal with, but then gone the next day - this means that there's a higher, more permanent degree of damage that the frail (it seems this way at times) human mind can do. The man in the Psychology documentary that exhibits OCD and feels the need to constantly wash his hands, not being able to touch something as mundane as a dog's fur; his mind is even more troubled than mine was these past two weeks! How terrible the idea that the mind can make man attack himself; irrationally, even. This OCD man in the film washed his hands so much that his fingerprints were washed off! What slip of the mind produces an inner phobia, an irrational fear keeping a normal human being from partaking

That's why I wrote about my relatively unimportant, hopefully innocent, though undeniably indecisive thoughts about a girl, the context of a free write about a man with OCD. To compare the severity of thoughts that the same human mind can produce. 

Amazing, ain't it?


Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

1977's Sybil



1977's "Sybil" is a psychological film that investigates the real-life case of Shirley Ardell Mason, an American psychiatric patient of much fame upon having been diagnosed with multiple personality disorder. Mason's case was originally documented in the book Sybil by Flora Rheta Schreiber, though analysis by more contemporary psychologists have labeled the case largely fraudulent. 

Well, what an introduction, right? A fraudulent case? Does that mean that this catalyst behind a surge of diagnoses of multiple personality disorder was a fake, and that the dramatization in the film is nothing more than the creative work of an comedic actress turned into a drama queen? Well, we're not here to question that. Instead, we're looking at something else - a rare manifestation of human suffering that is utterly creative, freakishly interesting, and unequivocally attractive to those fascinated with the human mind - and whom isn't?

Is it safe, or right, to believe that the human mind is so creative as to split up different facets of ourselves into wholly different persons with wholly different attitudes, tastes, and names, yet have them all reside in the same body? If we believe in the "truth" of Sybil - and trust me, the excellent acting in the film doesn't make this a difficult task at all - then can 16 different personalities truly be agents preserving different qualities of the same person? One their creativity, the other their art, the third their extreme emotions, another their musical dedication - each of our pillars of self being rested on different people's backs. Is it possible?

It's like a guilty pleasure to think about it, really. I can't visualize this being a psychological problem as particularly distressing as schizophrenia or post-traumatic stress; I can see it, however, as a creative mental activity. That's really how I see it - I can imagine my shy self portraying itself in say, Thomas; whilst my excited, outgoing self is shown in say, Danny; my intelligent (well, yes I like to think I'm smart!) and concentrated, studious self being portrayed in Andres; etc. It's true that Sybil's condition stems from an abused childhood in turn stemming from a mother dealing with paranoid schizophrenia, but some part of me cannot fathom multiple personality disorder being byproducts of mental turmoil or of physical abuse. Maybe it's because it's 10:15 PM and I need to go edit a video, but I've been thinking about this for a while and when I sat down to write this earlier this afternoon, I felt comfortable writing about multiple personalities as a creative mental exercise rather than a psychological problem calling for psychiatry and counseling. Dr. Wilbur in the film, who portrays Shirley's real-world psychologist; even she says Sybil's multiple personalities were a creative alternative to insanity.

The human mind is capable of some crazy things - it even avoids insanity, it seems!

Share/Bookmark

Thursday, March 4, 2010

The Prince of Tides


The following are my thoughts; both about and related to, the 1993 Barbara Streisand film (of much acclaim) titled "The Prince of Tides". It relates very little of the film's content and storyline, and is this not to be considered an official movie review.

I just recently finished watching “The Prince of Tides” in my Psychology II course. As the next in the series of movies we’ll be watching related to our area of study, it was a great follow up to “Nell”, which I talked about last time.


"The Prince of Tides", doesn’t take a strong, independent character that is made into a victim of the evils of modern-day society (as did “Nell”), but instead places a faltering personality embodied by middle-aged man, Tom Wingo (played by Nick Nolte) as its central plot. The movie is based on the book of the same name written by Pat Conroy in 1986. Tom Wingo grew up in the Southern part of the United States during the earlier decades of the 20th century. He was accompanied through childhood by two siblings - Savannah, whom has been traumatized interminably, it seems, by a case of sexual assault that Tom also endured; and Luke, the heroic gun slinging brother that serves as the hero of both the movie, and of his siblings. An impulsive character, his personality is blamed by Tom as the cause of his death at a young age, one which visibly affects Tom as he loses the hero that protected him and Savannah from the violent antics of their parents.


Tom's parents, on that note, were a rough couple that often fought. This took a toll on Tom. His father was very much like him - a violent, black-and-white person both in terms of physical actions and of thoughts - but as the movie progresses, Tom is depicted as the wiser man for being able to explore, accept, and express his feelings. In other words, Tom's father is the angry, violent character that Tom wishes to be the antithesis of. In several parts of the movie, flashbacks delivering scenes of daily life in the Wingo family are shown, and they serve to illustrate the nature of his family. In one scene, they're all gathered around the table eating lunch, when Tom's father begins to pound the table when he doesn't like his food. He screams at his wife, telling her that he works all day and all he wants when he comes home is a good American meal. It's a typical scenario - a high-octane, "abusive" husband - but the other half of it isn't typical at all. You'd think that the man's wife would be a frail soul that would be made this way for the purpose of accentuating the violent nature of her husband, but this is not the case. She does not scream or hit or pound the dinner table when she's angry, but instead expresses her feelings of resentment through words and sneaky treacheries. And so, when her husband demands a better meal, she enters the kitchen and fools him into thinking that a pile of dog food sandwiched in between layers of salad and fruit is actually the good American meal he demanded.


He’s fooled into eating dog food.

It's this sly, underhanded nature of hers that makes her a worthy competitor to the impulsiveness of her husband, but also adds to the caustic nature of Tom's family.

And so, growing up, modeling the hard-headedness of his father, he keeps all of this bottled up, never speaking about the caustic nature of his youth. H never speaks about how his father would beat his mother, he never talks about how his mother would flirt with the rich man that lived in the city (whom she ended up marrying) - not even to his own wife and children it seems. It's never fully established how much of Tom's life and secrets his wife Sally (played by Blythe Danner) knows about, but considering that she criticizes him for being such a closed person that loves to avoid serious conversation by always changing the subject matter and laughing everything off with a wry joke, it can be assumed that she doesn't know much.

Pat Conroy's original 1986 novel.
Tom’s closed nature, however, is challenged when his sister Savannah - now living in New York - attempts to commit suicide yet again, and her psychiatrist Susan Lowenstein (played by Barbara Streisand) calls on Tom's help to understand Savannah’s personality and mindset by getting to know facts about her family, her and Tom's relationship, etc. Lowenstein (whom in a somewhat cliché way ends up being a love interest for Tom, though it can be understood) is the agent behind Tom's learning.

What is he learning? To express himself. To not keep things bottled up, to understand that the wiser thing to do is to let it all out to a trustworthy person. To be serious about things. Tom's personality at the beginning of the movie is one that is very cynical and witty but also cannot bring itself to deal with life's problems. Towards the end, however, Tom is like a child that's matured into adulthood; that adulthood being one that maturely deals with life’s struggles and is not afraid to appreciate the past, no matter how horrible it may have been.

And that’s something I agree with so much; I smile at the notion of thinking that one of the film’s life lessons is this. I have friends whom have had past experiences, people, or other things in their lives that they’d rather not talk about. I have been blessed to be able to enjoy the beautiful life I’ve lived, yet this does not blind me to the possible misfortunes of others. At the same time however, the more trivial you make past experiences, the harder you’re making it for yourself to deal with them. If you can come to a point where you can discuss them comfortably with friends and family, and consider them things in your life that just happened because they happened, you are doing yourself a favor. Don’t hide these traumas and past misfortunes like a secret is hidden from the public. It’s the mark of a strong person to be able to do this, and the mark of weak one to fail to do so.


Am I strong or weak, then? Well, I don’t have the answer to that. For now, let’s go back to the film.

The greatest example of change in Tom is found in the scene in the movie where Lowenstein asks about a word that Savannah continuously repeats. I don't recall the word at the moment - thus, this can't be considered a proper movie review - but it's one that relates to the sexual assault and home invasion that Tom, Savannah, Luke, and their mother had the misfortune of having to experience on a rainy night.

This is how it happened - Tom, Savannah, and their mother are home dancing to some properly Southern style music, when three men enter the house and proceed to rape each of them, but soon enough, Luke enters the scene with his rifle and kills two of the men, while his mother knifes the third one as he’s distracted by the gunfire. Blood is left splattered all over the walls.

Nick Nolte, now just a tad older.
The scene is chilling and traumatizing (no extremely graphical content is shown, though - thank God) which is good, because it allows the viewer to feel the effect of the experience on Tom, justifying his breaking of character short afterwards, when he sheds tears like never before and rests his head on the psychiatrist's lap.

There are many other aspects, subplots, and themes to this movie that would need a project to explore. I've decided to write instead about that which left is mark most heavily upon me after watching the film. At an age where the struggle of life gradually becomes harder than just worrying about getting straight A's in school, seeing a movie in which the weaknesses of someone's personality are addressed and beautifully resolved, is helpful. It's a captivating film that is also excellent in terms of photography and production.

It's one of those films that provoke both the mind and the heart, one that shows faults in the human condition and reminds us that alleviating them is possible. It's beautiful - because it's about us. It's about us humans; it's about our strengths and our weaknesses.

It's about self.

Share/Bookmark