In Treatment (TV Show)

In Treatment (Produced and Developed by Rodrigo Garcia)/2008-2010

If you are interested in psychology or self-development you will love In Treatment. It was produced by HBO but closely based on an Israeli show  BeTipul. It examines the life of a psychotherapist, with a particular focus on whether someone can truly help another person when they cannot help themselves. It also explores how hard it is to change without falling into the cynical trap of thinking change is impossible. What it shows is that life often changes us in ways different to what we want or expect, and it is our willingness to accept and move with these changes which determines whether they are good or bad.

In Treatment is centred on a psychotherapist called Dr Paul Weston (acted sublimely by Gabriel Byrne). Paul is a good listener, empathetic, and intelligent enough to understand what people are really saying and why they are saying it. However, the traits needed for a good psychotherapist also seem to make the job very difficult for the practitioner. Paul feels too much, and gets attached to patients too readily; the show tracks this pattern and Paul’s response to it. By immersing himself in the minds of others, Paul struggles to maintain the distance necessary for him to use his therapeutic tools to work objectively with the problems he encounters. In contrast, due to giving himself fully to patients he has nothing left for his private life and becomes distant from those who love him.

Each episode focuses on the relationship between Paul and a patient or Paul and his therapist (mostly Gina). In the past Gina was Paul’s mentor and therapist. In the early stages of the show we discover they have not been in touch due to a fall-out over Gina blocking Paul’s entrance into a key role within the psychotherapist community. In a difficult time Paul reconnects with Gina and re-enters therapy. This dynamic exposes the fundamental issue with psychotherapy: the therapist begins to define a patient, but they see the patient through their own distorted lens.  In this situation it is easy for the patient to lose sense of what is really true, which can create more confusion and distress; moreover, patients are supposed to leave empowered, but they can actually become psychologically enslaved to the view psychologists have of them or use the psychotherapist's view as an excuse for counterproductive behaviour.

The other issue explored in In Treatment is whether a therapist can develop true romantic feelings for their patient and/or the patient for their therapist. Since Freud the majority of experts have thought that any instance of romantic love between patient/psychotherapist involves the transference of feelings for another person; moreover, it is all to easy to fall in love with someone whose job it is to sit there and listen to your problems and empathise with them. We discover that Paul has historically held the contrasting view that patient-therapist relationships are OK, but at the same time is fearful of the reality of this and uses his marriage as a safety net to prevent him from giving into his desires. This argument plays out with Gina, who Paul desperately tries to convince that entering a relationship with a patient is fine; throughout this we sense that Paul is actually trying to convince himself, to either release himself from Gina’s view or justify his weakness.

At the core of this show is whether conflicted or confused people can help other people. This is a core criticism of psychology and religion. If the therapist or the priest has their own issues and imperfections can they be trusted to act outside their weaknesses out of a true concern for others? How do we really know if someone has our best interests at heart, or is leading us to a better place rather than into a different confusion? The conclusion In Treatment makes about this issue is nuanced, and up for interpretation; as a viewer you will be left with enough space to reach a final verdict for yourself.

Consider the Lobster: And Other Essays (book)

Consider the Lobster: And Other Essays (Written by David Foster Wallace)/2005

I think it is time to admit to myself that I just do not enjoy David Foster Wallace’s (DFW) novels that much. I tried to read Infinite Jest twice and both times picked up another book about a third of a way through. My kindle tells me I have read 68% of Pale King, but I feel I have had enough of that too.

DFW’s novels do not follow the usual temporal course: they bounce between characters and times in history, creating a feeling of a time and place rather than following a character through the temporal flow of past moving into future. They are novels that create a feeling and make a moral statement through a buildup of people and events: we, as readers, become immersed in the atmosphere rather than the story.

I think at a certain point in these novels I had absorbed the message DFW was trying to make and didn’t need any more evidence. As I was pretty sure there would be no grand conclusion or surprise ending I did not feel the need to read any more. Maybe that is OK: maybe his novels should be approached more like a set of short stories and essays grouped together around a central theme, which the reader can pick up and put down when the desire strikes.

In contrast to his novels, I really enjoyed his collection of essays. I find he is at his best in them: funny, detailed without being tedious, and confined to the necessary space to make his point.

Consider the Lobster is a good place to start for someone interested in DWF. We find in this collection of essays a person with a deep curiosity about many things and an uncanny ability to move from the seemingly unimportant to the deeply philosophical.

The collection opens with DFW exploring the Adult Movie Awards. I laughed my way through this piece as the quirky, curious DWF rubs shoulders with famous porn stars and becomes acquainted with the lingo. In one scene he goes to a party filled with porn stars; he notes his irrational expectation to find them suddenly stripping off into a massive orgy, when in actuality they sit after a tiring day "at the office" watching re-runs of Seinfeld. In the usual DFW turn of mind, he uses all this to reflect on the role of entertainment in American society, and compares the AMAs with the Academy awards in an insightful manner.

In ‘Up Simba’ we find DFW on the campaign trial with John McCain. This essay is interesting due to his fascinating observations of all the different types of people that are involved in the campaign. Moreover, it focuses on modern cynicism towards politics, and DFW’s attempts to interpret the enigmatic McCain: an actual prisoner of war that wants to run an anti-political campaign that is equally political in its own way (or is it?). DFW throughout this essay is genuinely struggling to ascertain whether a modern political candidate can be authentic, and to what extent the contemporary cynicism towards politics is justified or a manifestation of a misguided mind set.

The main essay in this collection is the title piece ‘Consider the Lobster’. Here DWF travels to the Maine Lobster festival. Like all of his essays, he entertains the reader with his observations of people and the effects the things around him have on his sensitive disposition. Ultimately, we find a man struggling with different arguments raised in regard to animal rights and the spectrum where a being becomes deserving of these rights. How can we watch lobsters being tipped into huge hot pots of water to be cooked alive when in dropping them into the water they are desperately trying to escape? Surely, the desperation to escape indicates some awareness of the extreme pain that awaits them. DFW does not pontificate, but is clearly someone struggling with the notion of what a good person should do in a world without clear moral truths.

Elena (film)

Elena (Directed by Andrey Zvyagintsev)/2011

Elena could be considered a typical story of a family squabble over inheritance.  However, it goes beyond that to raise questions about the distribution of wealth and the “deserving poor”.

Elena and Vladimir are an elderly couple in their retirement. Vladimir and Elena have met in their later years and have separate families from the past.  Elena is gentle and caring.  Vladimir is a cold, irritable man with health difficulties.  The couple lives in a modern comfortable apartment in a nice suburb: all due to Vladimir’s wealth.  Elena has come from a more humble background.  Even in their nice apartment, we get the sense that she is not fully comfortable in her own home with all the latest mod cons and the supposed luxury.

Elena’s son Sergey and his family live in the outskirts of the city near a nuclear power plant.  Their home is a cramped, dirty apartment:  one in the many blocks and blocks of ramshackled apartments making up the neighborhood.  Here we are confronted by the issue of the gentrification of suburbs and marginalised poverty: out of sight, out of mind.  Let the poor live among the poor because it’s distressing for the wealthy to see them.

Elena’s son, Sergey, does not do himself any favors.  He is unemployed, a day-time drunkard, and generally gives off an image of a man that has given up on himself.  The family’s benefactor is Elena (through Vladimir).  She brings them food and money but they ask for more.  One cannot simply support someone else financially, unless that support will lead that person to be able to generate income.

When Vladimir has a heart attack scare his long lost daughter Katerina comes out of the woodworks.  She is a daddy’s girl and she charms him despite not having contact with him for a long time.

In a tripartite relationship between Elena, Sergey and Katerina, Elena is the source of wealth for Sergey and an obstacle for Katerina as Elena would get half of Vladimir’s inheritance.  In the end Elena takes on the role of god and takes the distribution into her own hands.  The main reason for Elena’s decision is to save her grandson from going into the army but at the same time we see that the supposedly greater cause of preventing a young boy from death is a futile exercise as he could be easily killed just around the corner.  Katerina ends up with half of Vladimir’s inheritance and is furious.

What would these people do with their allocated wealth? It also made me think whether what they do with it would categorise them as deserving or non-deserving.  In a system of wealth distribution dependant on bloodline ie. a pure happenstance, perhaps it is irrelevant who it goes do as the system itself is not based on any merits.

In the final scene, we see Sergey’s family and Elena in Vladimir’s apartment, looking uncomfortable in their new home.  With the latest baby added to the already large family we wonder whether they’ll just wither it away and be back in their old situation.  This movie left me feeling uncomfortable because it was a stark exposure of the futility of our social welfare system and humanitarian aid system when they focus on simply giving rather than enabling people to sustain themselves.

The House I Live In (film)

The House I Live In (Directed by Eugene Jarecki)/2012

This is a documentary that wants to cause social change. It presents one side of a story as powerfully and clearly as possible. Director Eugene Jarecki would argue that this does not lessen the quality of the film as we have heard the other side of the story all of our lives in a multitude of forms and it has fully permeated the way we think about the issue.

The House I Live In is about the war on drugs. The statement ‘war on drugs’ first came into popular consciousness when Richard Nixon called it America’s number one priority. It is a war that was continued by every American president after Nixon, and adopted in various forms throughout the world: due to American political pressure, a reactionary media and international treaties.  War on drugs refers to the government’s aggressively punitive policy against drug use.

This documentary does not make the argument that drug use should be encouraged. Rather, it points out that more damage is done by our societies’ approach to drugs than the drug use itself. We treat drug use as a criminal act, rather than a health issue. We then place convictions on people so they cannot get good jobs, isolate non-violent offenders away from their families, and push the drug business into the realm of gangs, which creates incredible levels of violence.  Further it shows how all this has been driven by the political popularity the issue generates rather than an evidence-based drive to reduce harm.

David Simon, the director of the TV show the Wire, appears in the documentary and points out it would be one thing if we caused all this social damage and drug use actually went down, but there has been no correlation between the escalation of the war on drugs and a decrease in drug use. Moreover, it costs governments a fortune in prison costs ($100,000 a year in New Zealand), social welfare costs, court costs, and law enforcement costs.

The other more sinister side to the story is that the war on drugs is that throughout history it has mainly been a disguise for the war against ethnic minorities: Chinese, Mexicans and African Americans. The documentary points out that more African Americans are currently in prison on drug charges than were ever enslaved.  This is due to a culmination of lack of opportunities, poverty and racial profiling against African Americans.

Another issue that the documentary explores is the irrational sentencing regime in America for drug related offences.  It shows that the penalties do not necessarily reflect the harm caused but mass hysteria of public misconception of drugs.  This is exemplified in the mandatory minimum sentence regime and the 100 to 1 ratio of penalties against crack cocaine compared to powder cocaine.  The viewers may be surprised to find out that the only difference between crack and powder cocaine is some baking soda and water. Considering the propaganda on the evils of crack cocaine, it was a shocking revelation for me.

America has been forced to rethink this model due to the huge fiscal pressures that the war on drugs places on it. It is no surprise that it is financial rather than social cost that will probably lead to change in this area: I guess voters do not mind having a huge percentage of poor people locked away with little chance of integration due to lengthy isolation from society and convictions hanging over their heads.

One criticism of this documentary could be that it does not show an alternative or a way forward. In response, the resistance to change in this area is so great that dialogue cannot really occur until people realise fully how futile and cruel the current system is.

Hemingway's Boat: Everything He Loved in Life, and Lost, 1934 - 1961 (book)

Hemingway’s Boat:  Everything He Loved in Life, and Lost, 1934-1961 (Written by Paul Hendrickson)/2011

There is a lot about Ernest Hemingway to dislike. He was a bully to his romantic partners, his children, and other writers (Scott Fitzgerald to name one). He was a chronic alcoholic who would hit on other women in front of his wife, and fight other men for fun. He was extremely domineering but prone to intense sulking and withdrawal when things did not go his way. It was always someone else’s fault – even when it clearly was not.

None of the above attributes are hidden by Hendrickson in this fine book. However, by focusing on Hemingway’s famous boat Pilar it weaves people into the narrative of Hemingway’s life that in a classical biography would scarcely appear.

Hemingway’s Boat spends long periods focusing on people that spent time on Pilar with Hemingway, often for very long periods. For example, a young hobo spent a year on Pilar after tracking Hemingway down in an effort to advance his writing career. Hendrickson shows the reader how Hemingway often treated these temporary acquaintances much more kindly than those very close to him. Moreover, Hendrickson traces how these people’s lives progressed both before and after their experience with Hemingway, presenting lives in many ways as fascinating as Hemingway’s.

A large part of Hemingway’s Boat focuses on what happened to Hemingway’s estranged son Gregory (Gigi). Gigi began life emulating his father’s ultra-masculine ways by excelling at shooting and fishing. However, at the age of 10 Gigi was caught trying on his mother’s stocking, beginning a long and frustrating battle between a desire to cross-dress and the shame of public exposure. Hemingway, in his usual fashion, blamed Gigi’s mother for this, and then blamed Gigi for his mother’s sudden death after an intense argument.

It does not take a trained psychologist to see the link between a powerful and famously masculine father and an eventually transsexual son; it seems Hemingway was suspicious of Gigi from very early on, and even wrote about Gigi’s hidden sordid core in books. However, this isn’t the only intergenerational pattern that Hendrickson explores. He tells how Hemingway’s mother posted him the gun that his father took his life with as if to say that you are (or should be) next. Eventually, as is well known, Hemingway was next: a period of his life that Hendrickson navigates with care.

Even though this book contains a great amount of tragedy and hurt, it is actually a very tender read. Hendrickson has a soft, fluid writing style. Moreover, he is sympathetic to Hemingway while still acknowledging his faults. Some readers might not appreciate the affection which Hendrickson writes about Hemingway given the reality of alcoholism and violence setting the background to much of his life. Part of Hendrickson’s affection for Hemingway is likely because a large portion of this book explores Hemingway’s battle with mental illness, his use of electric-shock-therapy to prevent overwhelming paranoia, and his eventual suicide. It is harder to condemn a man that is ripped apart by mental illness than someone who hurts others for pleasure.

The second aspect of this book which makes it a gentle read is that Hemingway loved his boat very much and found peace and solace while Marlin fishing off Cuba. In these instances we find a man more suited to living with nature than in the complex interpersonal realm of relationships.

State Legislature (film)

State Legislature (Directed by Frederick Wiseman)/2007

Depending on your interests, you will either find this (220 minute!) movie extremely tedious or hypnotically interesting. If you are interested in American politics, the legislative process or the inner working of the democratic process, then you will love this movie.

Frederick Wiseman is a unique documentary maker. There is no music and Wiseman never speaks. He just watches people going about their business and then edits the footage to create the film. He has built his career examining institutions: hospitals, prisons, monasteries, boxing gyms and public housing estates. One senses he does not go into the filming process with a predetermined ideological agenda, but simply wants to capture the reality before him as it is. His movies are very calm and soothing, or maybe boring if you cannot relax into them.

This particular documentary looks at the Idaho House of Representatives and Senate debating policies and creating law. What struck me as a non-American was the high levels of intelligence and personal integrity of all the politicians. There are constant references to philosophies ranging from John Locke to Hinduism. The debate is robust: there is a constant exchange about the underlying philosophy behind a policy, much of this based on the extent to which liberties of citizens can be curtailed by government interventions. The dialogue of ‘rights’ and the associated limitations on state interference is central to American political ideology, and everyone seems to have a slightly nuanced idea on whether a particular state intervention enhances or depletes human rights.

America has suffered a lot of grief lately, and there is a large amount of cynicism towards the intentions of their politicians and the effectiveness of their government. If you feel this way, then watching this movie will give you fresh insight into how state politicians go about their business, and the positive work that is going on at the foundations of American politics.

Watching Wiseman’s documentaries is a strange experience. It feels weird at first to just watch people talking, walking and debating. I found his lack of personal interjection refreshing as the people on screen spoke for themselves. This style will not appeal to someone who thinks the documentary filmmaker should make an argument about what is on screen, or someone who likes the message packaged clearly. One could argue that no documentary could ever be objective. This is true, but I think it is an issue of scale: certain precautions can be put in place to strip the filmmaker out of the documentary as much as possible. Wiseman achieves this more than any documentary maker I have encountered.

The Circle (film)

The Circle (Directed by Jafar Panahi)/2000

The Circle explores the lives of Iranian women struggling to live their lives in a city somewhere in Iran.  Given that the film was made more than 10 years ago, I am unsure whether the state of affairs remains the same as when the film was made: it could be worse or better.  From the film's presentation, it seems an unfortunate fate to be born a woman in Iran.  From the moment a girl has been born, we see despair from people who wanted her to be a boy, for her sake as well as for her mother’s sake; and things do not seem to improve throughout the various stages of a woman's life.

What this film represented for me was the importance of fundamental freedom as a human being against the demands of the moral values of society.  Tension is common in all interactions where the needs/desires of an individual clashes with those of the society, but the freedom to engage in this conflict is a necessary part of human life.  As human beings we have our individual will which at times must or should act against the will of the society or the universe. By our very survival instinct, we’re programmed to prioritise our will over outside wills or forces; this causes suffering but a suffering less severe than that which comes from a complete loss of freedom.

In The Circle women are under constant threat in public places; they cannot be alone in public; they cannot be with men that are not their relatives; they cannot smoke in public or travel without an ID.  In such a repressive environment, women skulk around in public places, not wanting to draw any attention to themselves from the authorities: constantly ducking and hiding.  In this setting, what I take for granted takes on the significance of a criminal offence or a mortal sin.

There is so much fear and anxiety. However, women in this film are surprisingly resilient.  They are also kind and supportive to each other.  There, what I consider to be an injustice or tragedy are accepted as part of the course.  What I have realised is that unconsciously I accept it as part of the course as well: for THEM.  In the western world media we watch every day the atrocities that goes on elsewhere in the world. What is the purpose of this?  Only a fraction of us do something about it while the rest of us are only aware, or not even.  There is something perverse about continuing to watch people suffer day in and day out as we put our feet up after a day in the office, having dinner and drinking wine.

Another question this movie raises is why do people decide to stay with a certain society without abandoning it when the social values contradict their own personal will and causes much suffering.  I saw a Vice documentary where a Japanese man lived on an island all by himself, living the life of a Robinson Crusoe, but voluntarily.  Is a human being an inherently social being and in the Japanese man’s context, is he suffering from a mental illness or is this simply an unusual life style choice?

This film addresses many issues: not only social injustice in Iran against women but also how we deal with it as "outsiders" and what this means for us as a humanity as a whole.  All of which would be beyond the scope of this blog but it certainly has kept me awake for many a night afterwards.

Ps. I say "outsiders" because I wanted to express that I am not living in the same physical realm as the women in the film but I do not want to endorse an us/them mentality.

Mad Men (TV Show)

Mad Men (Created by Mathew Weiner)/2007-2015

What has happened to Mad Men? I first started watching Mad Men after being blown away by the Wire. At the time it was a solid way to deal with the loss of Stringer Bell and Bunk from my life. The opening credits were amazing, the clothes and furniture beautiful and the historical references interesting.

Central to Mad Men was always the beautiful loser Don Draper. Like the Sopranos, Mad Men gave us an anti-hero: a man that was far from perfect, but with enough charm and positive attributes to be likable. Draper cheated on his wife, but had a passion for his work and rose from a state of poverty. Moreover, his objectification of women was always balanced by his mentoring of Peggy and his love for Anna Draper. I always found Don’s story of taken identify a bit odd, but it told us boldly that the men of Don’s age were losing their identify: an identity built on the lie of inherent male dominance.

As the show has progressed Don, and the show itself, has become primarily focused on sexual conquest: lately there seems to be little focus on the power of creativity and the influence of our pasts on our present selves. Mad Men has even stopped its investigation into the complexities of people battling with their weaknesses. What has emerged is one-dimensional characters: men solely interested in sex and women mostly presented as struggling to advance their careers.

Maybe it was wrong to see Mad Men as a presentation of a time period and the moral complexities of human identity, when in reality it is a show about gender relations and sexuality. However, even if this is the case, the show has fallen victim to presenting these issues in a format that sells rather than something that is enlightening or truthful (or interesting).

It is strange. Everyone knows that that sex sells. However, Mad Men already had the fans and the success. It did not need to retreat to the easy sell in order to continue. It might be that the Mad Men team have run out of ideas; or, they have fallen victim to their own fantasies. 

It is possible that the writers are trying to make the point that humanity has been completely consumed by lust and careerism and that our lives have become empty of all other meaning. But, the one-dimensional hyper sexuality of the presentation overwhelms and deadens the message.

The final few episodes may make sense of all this. However, regardless of the conclusion, I don’t think Mad Men will finish as one of the great TV shows.

The Fountain (film)

The Fountain (Directed by Darren Aronofsky)/2006

What is the significance of illness and death? Is it something that can be overcome or something that is part of the course? So much energy and resource goes into keeping ourselves healthy and alive.  Even in my life: eating fruit and vegetables, plenty of water, vitamins and gym.  Moreover, there are more drastic or bizarre health-promotion measures on which you can spend all the money in the world.

On the one hand, it can be argued that illness and death is something polar opposite to human existence because they are the decline and disappearance of existence.  This is contrasted by the Buddhist view that death and reincarnation is part of life.

The Fountain deals with these two opposing views represented by two lovers. Tommy (Hugh Jackman) is determined to defeat illness and death and acquire eternal life for his love Izzi (Rachel Weisz).  He repeats his quest in various cycles of life and we see him go through the same determination and frustration.  In the past he was a knight in search of the tree of life for his queen and in the present he is a scientist in search of a cure for his wife’s tumor.  We see these lives against the background of the “eternal state” of Tommy.

Generally my impression of Aronofsky’s work is that he is a literal director.  Here he aims to express a metaphysical concept literally and comes across a bit cheesy as we see Tommy in his “eternal state” in a monk’s get-up floating in a bubble across the vast universe accompanied by his tree of life and apparitions of Izzi.  Nevertheless the message is clear: Tommy’s very being, even in his eternal wise state, still demonstrates the obsession he has shown in all his lives.  Some reviewers think that Tommy in a bubble-state represented Tommy in the future; however I disagree because in his bubble-state Tommy has an understanding of all of his past lives where in his other lives he did not have this awareness.

In my opinion this is one of the weaker works of Aronofsky. The story essentially expresses the Buddhist theory of human existence and there is nothing particularly special about the message.  Literal expression of metaphysical concepts comes across like patronising spoon-feeding, which is unlike Aronofsky’s other works, such as Requiem or Black Swan, where a literal presentation of personal experiences heightens the disturbing quality of the film.  The film overall however is beautifully crafted and the acting superb. The interaction between Tommy and Izzi reflects the genuine raw emotions humans feel: the desperation of staying alive and the calm acceptance of the end.  When Tommy finally lets go from his obsessions, he is freed.

While the film suggests the superiority of Buddhist theory, I think whether or not one wants to pursue extended or even eternal life is an individual choice based on one’s view of human existence in the universe.

Force Majeure (film)

Force Majeure (Directed by Ruben Ostlund)/2014

Force Majeure explores the conformist nature of gender roles and the family unit. It also shows how much of the misery in human life comes from superficial demands placed on oneself, others and the world without taking into account what people and the natural world are actually like.

A Swedish family begins a ski holiday at a beautiful resort in France. From the beginning of the movie there is a tension of expectations: this MUST be a fun trip, and any hint of irritability or tiredness are taken as an affront to this expectation. Children being children express their human emotions, but Tomas and Ebba (the father and mother) place pressure on themselves and each other to have the idyllic family holiday experience they planned and worked for.  Expensive hotel and the limited time raise the stakes.

Like much of life, the universe has other plans for Tomas and Ebba. A human made avalanche is set off to loosen the snow and nearly flattens the diners in a fancy resort restaurant. The irony is not lost that this is a human made disaster, like much of that which befalls the species. Powerful symbolism is also found in the clashing of the brutal, natural force and the neat tablecloths and the silverware lying in its way.

What happens during the avalanche? Tomas runs away, leaving Ebba and the children to perish alone. No one actually gets hurt, but the damage to the relationship has been done. Ebba expects her man to be there by her side through the good and the bad times in life; she does not want a man that will run away at any sign of trouble. How could Tomas leave the children? Is he completely self-centered, or simply a pathetic coward?

Questions begin to plague Ebba, but she can only express her frustrations under the influence of alcohol. Tomas however will not admit to what has happened and places self-conflicting expectations on himself: to be brave and protective of his family. To admit that he has run would be to admit that he is not the person he demands himself to be.

Obviously Tomas’ self-deceit infuriates Ebba even more. Tomas here fails to meet another expectation: being honest and communicative, and his denial implicitly entails that Ebba is a liar. This frustration builds up throughout the movie as Ebba cannot accept Tomas’ inability to admit his failure to meet her expectations.

Throughout the movie the physical environment operates as a metaphor for the human relationships that unfold within it. Humans demand the mountain to be something that is fundamentally against its nature. It is dressed up with resorts and restaurants and cut and carved to be the post-card setting of our lives. Yet, nature is always there waiting to ruin this idyllic image; avalanches and storms happen and we can only deal with these properly if we accept them as fundamental aspects of nature.

Force Majeure is an interesting and relevant investigation into the demands we place on ourselves, others and the world, and how a lot of misery occurs when these demands are not met. It shows how things only worsen when we fail to acknowledge that the demands are artificial and our failure to meet them is often only one perspective. We cannot hide from the truth and avalanches of human frailty occur from time to time. It shows how many of these expectations result from notions of what men, women and parents should be, even if these stereotypes force us to be something not natural to us.

El Topo (film)

El Topo (directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky)/1970

Watching El Topo is like reading an obscure religious parable. Every moment attempts to point to the worldview that its author is trying to portray. Moreover, like an Old Testament parable or a Zen Koan, the meaning is not given to an individual for ready consumption. The viewer must work to get something out of it. One might not agree with the message being presented in the symbolism, but to interact with this movie is try to interpret the symbolism and then either take the message or disregard it.

Alejandro Jodorowsky in this movie presents what he takes to be the human road to truth and the reality of what finding truth entails. The main character, a mysterious gunslinger called El Topo (the Mole), is the quest for truth incarnate. The movie follows El Topo’s search for truth and the various ideas that battle within one’s mind when one tries to determine the meaning of life.

Each phase of El Topo’s journey represents a seeker’s confrontation with a worldview and how the stages fit in with the various phases of human life. At first El Topo is with a young boy; he tells the child to bury his childhood toys and pictures of family in the sand. Childhood dies coinciding with the beginning of the quest for truth. From here El Topo moves through various philosophies and companions. El Topo literally fights those representing different world views. This displays the intensity and violence with which ideas battle out in the mind of the seeker, and the fact that untruths will not survive this intellectual conflict.

The first battle of the mind that takes place is with egotism. We find a town of individuals that literally make love to the earth, but their relationship is that of desire rather than worship. The town is dominated by power and fear, and human beings are exclaimed to have no souls and for this reason are treated and spoken of as dogs. Women are play things that are used solely for sexual pleasure. All are under the whim of a military tyrant. El Topo overcomes this stage due to the internal tensions within this worldview. Tyranny has very fragile support and once weakness is exposed those who were previously under the thumb are more than happy to cast aside their previous master.

The protagonist continues to advance through various phases. But, the search is done out of a desire to be loved. It is not a true search. Moreover, due to being done for the sake of wordly goods, once enlightenment is achieved it gives nothing to El Topo as he did not actually want to see the truth at this point. We see here what Jodorowsky means in the opening sequence when he states that El Topo is a mole that burrows out of the earth to see the sun, only to be blinded by the light.
 
I will not outline what I take to be all the stages that the protagonist advances through, except to say that they contain elements of different philosophies ranging from Buddhism to rationalism. For me to state categorically what each stage is would involve distorting your viewing of the movie, in the same way it would if I clearly outlined the end of a thriller. To engage with this movie is to think about what each stage means. To engage fully, is to view one’s own life within the framework of El Topo’s search.

Somewhere shortly after the halfway point of the movie El Topo is fully broken by the reality that his search has been performed out of egotism. The full realisation of this rips him apart, and through this pain he is reborn. From this point his egoism is gone as El Topo lives solely for the sake of others. Yet, what this movie eventually demonstrates is that even if the individual has seen the truth of herself, the world is indifferent and enlightenment might not entail any kind of worldly benefit. The final scenes could be interpreted in different ways: as either a statement that the way to enlightenment is through self-denial which may not lead to worldly goods, or that any quest for enlightenment is futile in a world without meaning.

Is El Topo worth watching? Undoubtedly it requires work. It is akin to reading very abstract philosophy or mystical texts. If that is what one is interested in, then it is fascinating viewing. Without being willing to work hard, I do not think El Topo would be of much value. The surface level story is bizarre and at times disturbing. At times it is aesthetically interesting, but the sensory pleasure would not be enough to hold a viewer that does not want to engage with this movie on an intellectual level.

Love is Strange (film)

Love is Strange (Directed by Ira Sachs)/2014

Love is Strange is a gentle movie with a tinge of sadness, not unlike the Chopin nocturnes that carry its soundtrack. It's centered on a recently married middle-aged gay couple, but more generally explores the various kinds of love that make up the most significant parts of our lives and the strange dynamics that often play out within them. It is also a movie that normalizes homosexual marriage due to displaying the more mundane aspects and frustrations that the married couple face. The commentary is not overly cynical or simplistic, and shows a humanity that tries, often fails, but mostly does its best to treat others with respect and affection.

Ben (John Lithgow) and George (Alfred Molina) are a gay couple that have been together for 39 years. The movie opens with them getting married and celebrating with family and close friends in their New York apartment. We are given the impression that their family is fully accepting of the couple and care about them greatly.

Shortly after the wedding, George is asked to leave his job at the Catholic school where he teaches music. The school makes their teachers sign contracts in which they promise to live in accordance with certain religious rules. While George’s homosexuality and his openly gay relationship are accepted by the religious authorities, the marriage oversteps the unwritten boundaries and leads to his dismissal from the role. I would like to say that at this point Love is Strange could be criticized for falling into a overly simplistic caricature of the relationship between the Christian church and homosexuality; however, sadly, I do not think this would be a fair criticism of the movie due to the recent abuses of the Church in this area.

When George loses his job he and Ben are forced to sell their apartment and move in with friends and family. The movie explores how the everyday difficulties of life (money, getting accommodation, and family interactions) provide challenges for people of all genders and sexuality. Difficulties are shown to challenge the concepts of what people thought their loves to be. Love is shown to involve joy in times of peace and overcoming frustration and anger in times of difficulty.

We are exposed to George and Ben's struggles living with their families and friends who previously played a more distant role in their lives. The movie explores how even a genuine love and affection can be challenged by a series of seemingly insignificant issues that plague people in domestic living situations: people talking while you are trying to work; parties when you are tired or trying to sleep; or just other people being there when all you want is a quiet moment.

To reflect the points made above, the camera is often poised from a far, quietly observing in a concerned way being respectful of the characters privacy, and the music is warm yet slightly sad. The gently inquisitive mood of this movie is important as it explores issues that could easily be presented too strongly: homosexual relationships and marriage; an adolescent struggling with his identify; the difficulties of living with family that were once loved from afar; and the relationship between the Church and homosexuality.

Love is Strange is a movie that displays some of the sadder aspects of love and relationships, but shows these aspects emerging out of the everyday frustrations of human life. It is a tender presentation of a group of people whose love is tested and fully revealed for what it fundamentally is: a commitment that is not always perfect or positive but mostly acts out of concern for the loved one.