One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (book)

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (Written by Ken Kesey)/1962

This is an amazing book. I didn’t read this until I hit thirty; the reason for this being I thought less of it due to having seen the film. The film is not bad, but for me One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s nest was its film version, full stop. I eventually decided to read the book after learning about the interesting life its author Ken Kesey lived, including that he wrote much of this book while working  at a mental hospital.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest deals with the relationship between freedom and power, and about how mental illness develops when the power of others dominates an individual to such a great extent that he/she can no longer act free. The individuals in the hospital are shown by Kesey to be lacking in courage and self-belief,  and demonstrate an unwillingness to act without permission and approval. While the hospital should be making patients better it actually makes them worse by actively discouraging attempts to be assertive and by labelling any attempt to act free from the constraints of institutional power as symptomatic of a worsening of the underlying disorder.

The book is told through the eyes of Chief Bowden: a part Indian man that has spent a long time in the hospital pretending to be deaf and mute. Through the subjective experiences of the Chief, Kesey presents the actual experiences of mental illness. Kesey in doing this dismisses the notion that mental illness is unreal but reveals how its treatment is sometimes abused to keep people in line. Chief Bowden experiences things through metaphorical hallucinations. For example, when speaking of the power held by the Big Nurse, he literally sees wires running from her office into the bodies of those that she controls. This conception of mental illness is similar to that found in R.D Laing’s book the Divided Self: the mentally ill person is someone that cannot face the pain of reality and retreats into their own realm, but reality still intrudes via metaphorical representations.

Throughout the novel Chief Bowden focuses on the power struggle taking place between Randle McMurphy and the Big Nurse. McMurphy is not in hospital voluntarily but has committed an offence which landed him on a work farm. He is transferred to the mental hospital partly of his own design to escape drudgery. McMurphy immediately emerges as a threat to the Big Nurse due to his willingness to question process and act without fear. He is not scared of authority and does not censor himself when confronted with the subtle shaming techniques of the Big Nurse.

The Big Nurse effectively runs the hospital. She is shown through the subjective eye of Chief Bowden to be solely concerned with maintaining her grip of power over the hospital. She is obsessed with process; she pretends to enforce process for the therapeutic value that the processes have on the patients, when in reality she loves the process because it is her process and provides her with a sense of security and power.

The interactions between McMurphy and Big Nurse question the extent to which people can be free. Sartre once argued that individuals are totally free so that even if facing the death penalty we are free to defy the executioners by mentally not accepting their interpretation of events and the descriptions placed on them. McMurphy is a Sartrean hero as he does not allow the views of others and the subtle attempts to shun and devalue him dictate how he behaves. However, as the book plays out Kesey demonstrates that living in this manner may not lead to a life of pleasure or fame but may involve the free person being crushed by power structures and processes that do not appreciate the questioning of where power lies.

I would argue that One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s nest offers a modern presentation of the story found in the New Testament. Like Christ, McMurphy questions the powers of his time: in this case psychiatry and bureaucratic process rather than the Jewish religious leaders. Like Christ he questioned the intentions of the powers that be and acted as a free human rather than someone embarrassed by their true nature. Moreover, like Christ, McMurphy suffers at the hands of an authority that pretends to be in place for the concern of the many when in reality it gives power to the few, and in suffering on the Cross gives the weak a lasting sense of freedom.

Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (film)

Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (Directed by Nuri Bilge Ceylan)/2011

Once Upon a Time in Anatolia is an incredibly soothing movie. It is a gentle, lush journey through Anatolia, in which the everyday events of life are made beautiful. The beauty does not arise due to the addition of anything new, but through the illumination of what we often overlook.

It is interesting that the movie’s director Nuri Ceylan chose to focus the story on detectives chasing down a body in the Turkish countryside when the feeling of the movie is so tranquil.  My view is that he wanted to point out the beauty that hides behind the curtains of our day-to-day existence, regardless of what those experiences are. This argument is supported by the focus on idle chitchat through out the story, when the actual events taking place are far from the normal human experience.

Fundamental to this movie is sound. The director speaks to the viewer with the subtle noises that flow through this movie. Sound is also something that we tend to block out in our day-to-day rush through existence. By revealing the sounds that we unconsciously block out, the movie reveals to us a reality that we seldom experience: a reality that when revealed is all the more beautiful due to its general absence from our normal existence.

The sociological aspects of this movie are interesting. For instance, the group of detectives, the prosecutor and a doctor need rest and food and spend the night in a village. The murder suspects eat and sleep among them, and the village uses the hospitality as leverage to get the improvements made to the village that they have been waiting for. The illuminated realism of the movie makes these interactions strangely beautiful even though common place and mundane. That being said, the fascinating quality of these interactions may have been heightened due to my lack of previous exposure to Turkish culture.

A philosophical point is made late in the movie, starting with the doctor arguing in favour of an autopsy when there is no benefit in people knowing the truth but then eventually siding partly in the other direction. This relates to the broader search by the detectives to prove something when doing so might not provide any benefit to society as a whole. Without being fully certain of this supposition, this philosophical interjection might be conceived as linked to the broader attempt by the movie to reveal to us elements of our lives that are over looked: truth is important, but there a many layers to our existence and therefore many things that can be of defining importance to our lives.

Dark City (film)

Dark City (Directed by Alex Proyas)/1998

Dark City is an interesting reflection on the future of humanity or rather future humanity.

Spoiler Alert: The story entails a future species that are super intelligent to the point where they have little dependence on physical existence.  They can alter the physical realm by thought or will alone.  However their civilization is in decline and they think that the human ability to live as a separate individual is secret to their survival.

The future beings look very similar to humans but they are sexless and hairless. They seem very evil and vampire-ish and they are disgusted by the crudeness of humanity.  They turn Earth into a giant experiment space and enslave the current humanity in a time warp of constant darkness where they put everyone to sleep each day at midnight and change around people’s memories. The result is that we’re living a different life everyday thinking that we’ve lived a certain life all along.  While there is a slight Matrix feel to this, the issue is a bit closer to home as we’re not enslaved by aliens but the future of humanity.

I would argue that the portrayal of the future human species in this film is symbolic of the collective subconscious guilt towards future civilization and the self-hate at not being able to sort our selves out.

It doesn’t take watching Aljazeera to know that humanity is bleak: constant wars, famine, exploitation, and climate change.  As an individual living in a developed Western society we have the luxury of living in peace and to help out. We can consider: donating towards the latest natural disaster, supporting a child, gifting a goat, buying fair trade goods, reducing carbon foot print, buying ethical clothing, not using plastics, growing your own vegetables, worm farming, and on and on.

For a discerning consumer of ideas and goods it can be confusing and anxious figuring out whether you’re “doing the right thing” for the Earth and the future generations. The future species in the film discover that despite people having adopted (someone else’s) memories people always carry a certain “individuality”.  Therefore even if we’re instilled certain rules and values, there is something innate in ourselves that makes us unique.  The irony is that our precious “individuality” clashes with the common good and we don’t always do what is right.  Sometimes we just want to do something that is most appealing to us and we feel guilty for it.

All this individuality clashing with self-imposed moral responsibility (that does not result in any short-term physical or psychological pleasure) grows to become a huge burden, particularly in a highly individualized society like ours.

Certain activities for “changing the world“ require quite a bit of deviation from your 9-5-office-and-back-to-the-apartment lifestyle: you can only do so much.  I think the result of this is the growing feeling of resentment and guilt as a collective towards the future species.  We resent the way that our lives are dictated by the needs of the future species and feel guilty that we’re not doing enough.  This film is a masochistic expression of this collective subconscious: we’re being punished and enslaved by the future species and we think we deserve it.

The tragic thing about this film is that even when people are at last saved they are not aware they have been freed because they simply went on to live with the memory they were last given. People didn’t realize what was missing so when it was returned they didn’t rejoice. This is the paradox central to the imperative to live with a concern for the future of our species.

Yojimbo (film)

Yojimbo (Directed by Akira Kurosawa)/1961

Near the end of Tokugawa Shogunate era, the samurai (or ronin, which were samurai without masters) are losing their status.  Guns are starting to be introduced into Japan and the virtues and skills held by samurai are rapidly losing relevance. Yojimbo covers events that unfold as one of these mysterious no-name ronin arrive at a village controlled by two rival gangs.  Yojimbo means “body guard” and both the gangs try to recruit this ronin to be their yojimbo.  The ronin uses his wit and swordmanship to bring peace to the village.  This is a typical black and white (literally and metaphorically), good versus evil story.

One of the great things about these kinds of action flicks is that it is a good indicator of society’s shared notions around aesthetics and characteristics associated with "good" and "evil".  Fictions often associate evil with ugliness and good with beauty.  While the simplistic formula itself in the association may be problematic I find it interesting to see what kind of behaviours are associated with evil and what features are considered ugly in the world of divergent cultures.

In Yojimbo, all of the bad guys are shorter than the ronin.  Some of them are scrawny and poorly dressed, and others are obese or have a deformity.  The ronin is a good foot taller, possessing broad shoulders and chest.

When the ronin is presented with geishas he appears put out by women with dark skin, freckles and big noses.  He is disgusted by the way they sing loudly and lift their feet up high as they dance.  The one woman considered beautiful has light skin, big eyes and a round face.  She was also very quiet and completely helpless to a point where she wouldn’t even move without being dragged by a man.  The only time she shows any strength was when she runs to her crying child.

One point of note is how the most challenging gang member, Ushitora, looks more like the ronin than the others.  He is as tall as the ronin, has fairer skin and big eyes.  It seems that the closer the physical features of the evil are to the good, the greater challenge to overcome.  Ushitora is also cleverer than the rest and carries a gun with him at all times.  His possession of a gun appears to symbolise the tidal wave of new technology that was shunting the samurais at the time; he is also someone that is quite happy to fight an unfair fight: gun against a sword.

In a film where there is only one noble character, we are presented with a simple view of what is good and what is bad because ultimately all physical and behavioural characteristics are judged based on the “good guy”.  The film shows that it is despicable for a man to: get drunk, be fearful, be ego driven, be easily influenced, gamble, and be weak mentally or physically.  The ronin expresses particular hate when he comes across a man who loses his house and wife gambling and cannot do anything about it.

Whether or not these portrayals are politically correct or aspirational it is nevertheless interesting to note differing views on good and evil in other cultures. For me, this is what makes Yojimbo a fascinating watch.

Saint Exupéry: A Biography (book)

Saint Exupéry: A Biography (Written by Stacy Schiff)/1994

This biography spans across one very, very adventurous man’s life.  If it was someone that had led a relatively quite life it would probably be much easier to write their biography.  But not for Saint-Exupéry or Saint-ex as he was more affectionately known.  The biography combs through his personal journal, journals of his friends and lovers, letters, news items and official reports to create a bible that enshrines the magical nature of this man.

My prior knowledge of Saint-ex was “the guy that wrote Little Prince”.  After having read the biography, I think he is more adequately described as an adventurer.  Saint Exupéry is probably one of the lesser-known adventurers of 20^th century.  He was someone that thrived in discomfort, foreign and dangerous situations and he sought it for what it was rather than for fame and glory or a desire to “conquer”.

He was born into a declining aristocrat family in 1900.  His father passed away when he was little and his mother and siblings lived with various relatives.  Financial struggle followed him nearly his entire life; yet he survived due to the strength of the relationships he surrounded himself with as friends continued to give him money for the latest project he was launching.

He was a loquacious, creative and active child.  He wrote stories and plays and made his siblings perform them for visitors and guests.  This kind of performer personality follows him into his adulthood and he continued to entertain people at dinner parties with his story telling and card tricks.  However behind the façade of fun, there was a thinker and someone who often felt lonely in his ideas and thoughts.  This is particularly evident in Little Prince, which was written when he was living alone in New York.

He thought that people around him were concerning themselves with pointless egotistical endeavors such as obtaining position, recognition, wealth and luxury; to him, these pursuits distracted people from broader and more imminent issues.  As an aristocrat, he did not enjoy what his name represented and preferred to spend time with pilots and engineers. He maintained a modest lifestyle and sparse apartments.

The biography presents a man that enjoyed engineering and technology but also knew the importance of spirituality and philosophy.  In the pioneering days of technology in the early 20^th century, he realized that technology would be bypassing human thoughts and lamented that we would be living in a technologically advanced world for which we’re not yet spiritually prepared.

After struggling to find a job and establishing himself as an adult, he discovered his love for flying in his 30s.  At the time France was pioneering in aviation and in air postal service.  He eventually landed a position working as a pilot delivering mail in North Africa and South America.  He produced several journal articles and books of this experience, which made him known across Europe as well as America.

When France was invaded by Germany during WWII, he moved to New York where he struggled to adjust between various French political factions taking refuge in New York.  His later years were marked by fighting for French resistance and deep sadness at the loss of motherland.  However he never set foot on French soil again.

This biography is a truly splendid work deserving of the Pulitzer nomination.  It brings together hundreds of stories to depict the history of a man and the world in an era when humans achieved greatness as well as tragedy.  I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in not only Saint-ex but a man who truly explored his inner and outer being.

Cobain: Montage of Heck (film)

Cobain: Montage of Heck (Directed by Brett Morgan)/2015

Wow, Kurt Cobain was an incredibly tortured individual. He had two suicide attempts before a final successful one; he suffered chronic stomach pains leading to a decade-long heroin addiction; and, he had a deep sense of alienation and anger towards just about everything.

Watching this documentary made me marvel at how such angry, depressing and anti-establishment music could have been the most popular and iconic of the early 1990s.  Nirvana’s second studio album Nevermind sold 30 million copies.  It is hard to imagine such frustrated and despairing music topping today's charts; yes, maybe getting some mid-range success, but not being the defining music of our age. 

The documentary itself is very well put together. I particularly enjoyed the animated scenes that were voiced over by Cobain’s diary entries or interviews. These scenes are blended with interviews of his family, and real footage of Nirvana playing and being interviewed, or Cobain and Courtney enjoying(?) heroin binges together.

It explores Cobain’s mind through his art and by interviewing those close to him, including his mother, father, sister and Courtney Love. The premise of the movie is that Cobain was a kind and creative child who suffered through the divorce of his parents.  He turned into a hyperactive teenager and moved between his mother’s, father’s and grandparents’ places as each abandoned him when they could no longer manage him. Slowly a gifted and caring child turned into an extremely angry, rebellious, depressed individual that sought refuge through music and art.

Of interest to me was all the different interpretations of the events that happened in Cobain’s life.  We are told by Cobain’s mum that when he was 5 he was put on Ritalin for ADHD. After this, there is no more mention of treatments for mental health or even Cobain having a mental health problem.  All that is spoken of is a pain of abandonment and the self-medicating that followed.  First Cobain self-medicated with pot, but eventually only heroin could dull the pain he felt.  The people interviewed seem to have accepted that Cobain would suffer due to his childhood experiences and sensitive disposition; the dialogue that developed was one of a sensitive child being unable to handle common childhood experiences rather than a person with longtime mental health problems failing to get proper treatment (which would be another interpretation, but not necessarily THE interpretation).

One issue I found with this documentary is that even when the young Cobain is talked about and footage of him is shown, Nirvana’s music plays over the top. This gives the impression that what ultimately eventuated was determined, and all past events are seen through the lens of the final outcome.  Similarly when family and friends are interviewed all previous events take on the light of the eventual tragedies that occurred, when in reality, Cobain’s life could have gone in an infinite number of directions.

The movie concludes with Cobain’s suicide. The suggestion in the movie is that Cobain could not handle having his child taken from him. For him, that was the ultimate shame and failure. Being a neglected child, all Cobain wanted was to have a family and failing at this meant he failed as a human. To my mind, this is an example of how people create narratives for events in other people’s lives that fit in with what they think, or would like to think are true. And while this documentary is filled with interviews of people close to Cobain, it should not be taken as anymore than a subjective account of what went right or wrong in his life.

Tender Mercies (film)

Tender Mercies (Directed by Bruce Beresford)/1983

We see a couple of shadows moving in the glow of yellow light.  The light is coming out of a small motel room next to a rickety country house in a middle of nowhere.  The voices of the shadows sound like two old men fighting over a bottle.  The next morning we see Mac, lying on a bed by himself.  His friend has left him and he has no money to pay for the room.  He offers to work for a few hours.  The few hours turn into a more permanent arrangement.

Mac is a recovering alcoholic country singer that is trying to turn a new leaf. We learn by inference that he turns into a scoundrel when he drinks; he has been violent towards his ex-wife, leaving scarred memories for her and his daughter.

He settles down with Rosa and her son, and helps them look after the motel.  He stops drinking and gets baptised.  However gradually his past comes back to haunt him: be it his musical fame or his embittered daughter.

The film moves along gently just like Mac’s personality (when he’s sober).  There is some struggle but his new partner and adoring boy is just too precious to risk.  He is not sure how he came to have a loving partner and a nice boy when others who seemingly have not sinned experience tragedy. He dwells on this question, just as the film does.

Sitting in the background is a heavy portrayal of Christianity: Rosa is a devout Christian and is in the church choir.  The community is close and welcoming of Mac. His ex-wife is successful as a country singer but has a personal tragedy, and Rosa’s husband was killed in the Vietnam war. At the end of the day Rosa and her son had to live through the tragedy of losing a husband and a father but gains Mac.  Mac who had been a scoundrel goes through a tragedy of his own.

In our society there is a strong idea that good results from good and bad from bad.  This encourages people to act according to a particular belief system, be it religious or legal, so that they don’t get punished and suffer from their bad deed.

However in life, bad things sometimes just happen to people; one can read meaning into them but would find that often  the formula doesn’t apply consistently.  In dealing with the inconsistency, people either get angry at the unfairness or try to find a pattern, blame "the system" and become activists.  Others completely surrender to the course of life and accept things as they are. Some religious people say that the people that suffered must have done something wrong, otherwise God would not have punished them; yet, why does God intervene and help some people that have committed horrendous acts, but strike down others in hurricanes or through illness? It all seems so arbitrary and unfair. 

This film portrays the various ways people deal with tragedies.  Those without spiritual grounding, such as Mac’s ex-wife, are bed ridden with despair.  In Rosa’s case she finds peace in religion.  Mac laments the meaning of all that has befallen him and those around him at the final scene of the film.  I take that the film did its job as I ended up dwelling on these questions too.

The Forerunner, The Madman, The Prophet (books)

The Forerunner, The Madman, The Prophet (Written by Kahlil Gibran)/1918 – 1923

I have been immersed in the beautiful words and wisdom of Kahlil Gibran for a few weeks now.  Kahlil Gibran was a Lebanese painter and a poet who migrated to New York in 1895.  He started his career as a painter but had more successes as a poet and wrote many works in the early 1900s.

He wrote in a delicate and subtle prose where each sentence needs to be savoured in order to garner their full meaning.  He takes the readers into an ancient and mystical world; the land of kings and slaves where valleys whisper and animals talk.  The gentleness of the wisdom that is delivered was so gratifying when I finally understood (if I understood!) and I was humbled by how ideas that can become convoluted in discussion could be presented so simply.

It made me compare them with the self-help books of today’s world.  For those of you who are fans of self-help books, I ask you not to take the following paragraph as a personal affront.  We all have our own opinions and this is simply my opinion of self-help books.

Compared to the universal and holistic wisdom presented in Gibran’s works, in my view, the self-help books of today divide the universe into many factions.  It creates superficial conflicts by telling us that one is better than the other and we are better people if we live the certain way.  This is generally expressed by the word “should”.  This is also highly individualistic and ego driven.  There is an underlying presumption of competition which deems each human being as wanting to be better than the next person.  This, in my view, reinforces human greed and ego, which results in suffering and obstructs us from reaching a higher state of being as humanity.

The messages delivered by these books are also very rigid and inflexible to subjective digestion.  Gibran’s works are written in a nuanced way which allows the readers to garner the wisdom that is relevant for them at that particular time.  I am sure that if I read Gibran’s works in 20, 30 years’ time the wisdom I would take away would be different from what I take away now.

All of Gibran’s works are quite short as he wanted readers to be able to read his work in one sitting.  I would highly recommend his work for people seeking a breath of fresh air and intellectual peace from the chaos of modern society.

Leviathan (film)

Leviathan (Directed by Andrey Zvyagintsev)/2014

The Russia we see in Leviathan is unrelentingly corrupt.  It encompasses domineering and crippling political forces that are as entrenched and as overwhelming as the natural setting that opens and closes this film.  Zvyagintsev sets mood like not many other directors going around. The lighting is dim and the still shots of nature pull one into a feeling that remains throughout the rest of the movie: a feeling of helplessness in the face of powers that structure and determine the course of one’s life.

Leviathan follows the struggles of Kolya.  Kolya has lived in a modest coastal house for much of his life; it is a house built by his grandfather and handed down through the generations of his family.  The local politician is trying to take the land off him so he can use it to secure votes in some manner that is not fully clear until the end of the movie.  Koyla is a fighter that is not willing to bow down to the authorities.  He is stubborn and willing to be crushed rather than give up some of his pride.

Koyla takes the local government to court to argue his case.  He is defended by his friend from the army, Dmitri. The legal system we find is one that is swamped in bureaucracy but with no concern for the disempowered.  It engages in a Kafka-esque trickery of overwhelming people with technical jargon and ostentatiousness.  It ultimately prostitutes the due process to reach a verdict that affirms the powerful.

The local politician is a fat, greedy, alcoholic called Vadim. We find that he can act outside of the realm of police scrutiny and his only real threat is falling out with those even closer to the throne. At one point he arrives at Kolya’s house drunk to remind him that it is he who has the power, and if Kolya does not willingly move he will be crushed like the insect he is.

The more intriguing aspect of Leviathan is the role religion plays.  The Russian Orthodox Church is shown to act in co-operation with the corrupt politicians. One of the most ironic parts of the movie is the different advice that the priest gives Kolya and Vadim. To Kolya he advises to accept the evils of life and not question why they happen; he should look to the book of Job to see how the Bible never promised a life of happiness while on earth. In contrast, he tells Vadim that he must use the power he has and not question his own actions as there is a greater good: enhancing the church’s presence. In essence, self-interest is disguised in religious statements as the priest subtlety bends Vadim to his will.

The word Leviathan is better known as Thomas Hobbes’ great work of political theory, in which he advocated the continuance of monarchy to control the evil sentiments of humanity.  Obviously, this is open to exploitation when there are no structural forces in place to keep it at check.

Leviathan also appears much earlier in history in the Old Testament where Job in particular speaks of the great power of a sea monster that he deems not worth fighting. The question of whether Kolya should have just accepted his fate and resigned is a question that anyone taking on great power structures would identify with.

The strange fact about this movie is that it was partially funded by the Russian Government. It leaves the question, as to why the Russian Government would want to fund something that seems to be a complete criticism of how it is; maybe because Zvyagintsev presents religion in an equal or even worse light. The other possibility is that in funding this movie the Russian Government wanted to tell the world that there is no great structural beast rather people acting for their own individual ends.