My Thoughts on Shutter Island (2010)

So Shutter Island has been super heavily recced to me by two of my friends (bc we all like the psychological thriller genre) and I finally watched it just now~

Warning: Major spoilers (imma spoil everything)

Warning: I'll talk as if you just watched the movie too bc it's late and I don't wanna spend too much time summarising the movie. If you want a refresher, look here for Screen Rant's review, or Wiki.

So this is really well done psychological thriller that's really intense, filled with little details that allude to the truth, and lots of jarring imagery that all come together in one big, messed-up semi-ambiguous conclusion.

By the time Chuck (aka Dr. Sheehan) gave and lit the second cigarette for Teddy (aka Andrew Laeddis) with eerily familiar movements, I had two major theories about the movie:
1. The institution is indeed experimenting on Teddy, and
2. Teddy was a patient.

I really loved the little details of the movie, like how all the guards were tense around Teddy, or that Chuck only gave ambiguous answers, or the condescending behaviour of the staff towards Teddy, or that Teddy only touched fire (or matches, works both ways) the moment the truth starts being revealed and so on. The little bandage on Teddy's forehead throughout the movie made me certain very early on that Teddy was indeed Laeddis, because Teddy clearly described Laeddis as having a big scar on his face. The bandage mysteriously disappeared when Teddy started confronting being Laeddis, however, which was a bit disappointing. I was expecting the bandage to play a bigger role for some reason, such as being a physical proof of Teddy's delusions.

What I interpreted from the ending of the movie is that Andrew is fully aware of his delusions, and chose lobotomy in order to "die as a good man" and not "live as a monster". This could be from two possible theories behind the plot:
(1) Andrew truly was a patient
(2) Teddy, the Marshal, was psychologically manipulated into lobotomy.

Which, both to me is really WTF? If Teddy/Andrew wanted to die, there are much easier ways aside from lobotomy, like jumping of the cliff into jagged rocks, instead of being a living zombie with debatable consciousness. I would have settled happily with theory (1), of Andrew being a patient (which is the one the movie directs us to), except one tiny plot hole that really frustrates me.

When the Marshal Teddy was interrogating a female patient at the beginning of the movie, she wrote "RUN" on Teddy's notebook when Chuck turned away. This makes zero sense to me. In the case of (1), that patient would have been an actress pretending to be a patient as a part of the role-play. If so, why would she tell Teddy to run? Unless, of course, she's really a patient and is warning the patient Andrew to run. But, why would anyone run experiments with unstable variables. She could have just as easily relapsed into an episode as she is to follow her script.

In (2), the "RUN" would make more sense, except that I feel that (1) ties all the variable up much nicer than (2) does, especially regarding Teddy's PTSD and his wife. I imagine that in (2), Teddy truly does have PTSD and a wife killed by fire, which is what the institution used to manipulate Teddy.

The female patient really does frustrate me.

All in all, I would say that I did enjoy the movie, but I was also very frustrated by it, because of its unbearably slow pace and a plot that is f-ed up. I like happy endings and well-done sad endings, but this plot really only made me go "WTF?" instead of feeling sad for Andrew/Teddy. Not a movie I would want to watch again, like with k-drama Signal. Once is just the right amount for me.

I must say though, I thoroughly enjoyed the cinematography and super intense suspense. I really recommend anyone with 2-odd hours to spare to watch this movie very, very closely.

Me Before You: Review

Me Before You: Young and quirky Louisa "Lou" Clark (Emilia Clarke) moves from one job to the next to help her family make ends meet. Her cheerful attitude is put to the test when she becomes a caregiver for Will Traynor (Sam Claflin), a wealthy young banker left paralyzed from an accident two years earlier. Will's cynical outlook starts to change when Louisa shows him that life is worth living. As their bond deepens, their lives and hearts change in ways neither one could have imagined.

I went to watch this movie with my friends despite knowing the not-so-good reviews, especially regarding its insensitivity towards disabilities. It is true that Will views himself as a burden, but I don't find it over-generalising the entire disabled community. I went to watch the movie because 1) fan of Emilia Clarke and 2) love the on-screen chemistry. Warning: spoilers ahead.

Watching the movie made me very, very frustrated. Will has his mind set on euthanasia, and Lou immerses herself in trying to change his mind by helping him enjoy life, even to the extent of ignoring her boyfriend. Over the course of the movie, we see how Will becomes more open with Lou, and Lou becoming more daring to try new things. And then, on the crux of the movie's plot after a super romantic vacation, we find out that Will did not change his mind, at all. He still feels that the paralysis makes him less of a man, less of himself, and he is unable to live with that. Personally, I feel that above anything else, Will is suffering from chronic depression, maybe even PTSD. And Lou's actions in the movie didn't really try to change Will's deprecating self-thoughts. He complains, she lets him. He sits out of activities, she lets him. He self-image did not change at all. He still sits in his wheelchair and does nothing, only instead of staring at a wall, he stares at a pretty girl. Lou's actions seem to want Will to find a new reason for living: her. Even if Will did not go through with euthanasia, they will still be in a super dependent relationship, which will not go so well.

I really wanted to go up and smack Will while watching the movie. Yes, he has had a bad experience, but he is in the best position possible to overcome his disabilities. He is filthy rich. Owns-a-freaking-castle filthy rich. Has-enough-money-to-make-himself-a-cyborg-suit filthy rich. State-of-the-art-prosthetics filthy rich. If he could change his cognition about being useless, then maybe, he wouldn't want to die anymore.

I would like to point out how badly Will's mother handled the situation. She looks more depressed than he is, she coddles Will, and she daily stares at the many, many framed photographs of pre-accident Will. This only serves to cement his i-am-a-lesser-man thoughts, the-accident-has-ruined-my-life thoughts. She seems to have immersed herself in the disability, rather than the person.

At the end of the movie, Lou moves on with her life, seemingly unchanged except for a much heavier bank account. It leaves an unsatisfying, unfinished after-taste. It feels as though the entire movie, the entire encounter did not change Lou so much as an old lady she meets at the bakery.

I cannot say I understand the pain of paralysis, because I've never experienced it, and I am terrified I am much too insensitive regarding this topic. But I still decided to put this up, because at the end of the day, the key to changing someone's mind is to understand the root of the thought. At the very least, get them to accept professional help.

NUS Module Review Blog

This blog is like an online diary, so I will mainly be posting personal opinions, revelations, rants etc. However, I do have another blog solely dedicated to reviewing very specific NUS modules, so go check it out if that's what you're looking for.

I started the blog because reading others' online reviews really helped me when planning for my modules, but sadly not a lot of people do, and many personal module reviews are very outdated.

Let's make personal module review an online student culture!!

Here it is: http://blurstudent.blogspot.sg/

Writing Challenge: What do you want to be remembered for?

Humans have a weird tendency to want to be remembered, long after they’re gone. To leave their legacy, their mark on the world. This can be achieved through multiple ways: leaving a reputation (see: Mother Theresa, Steve Jobs etc), or leaving irrevocable damage (see: Hitler and Stalin etc), or have significant impact on culture (see: Beethoven, DaVinci etc), or knowledge (see: Einstein, Sigmund Freud etc). Or, as ordinary people do, leave descendants and pass on your genes and your name.

For me, I’m not like regular people. I have a rather negative view of humanity, dysthymic even. I find humanity, and its efforts, rather arbitrary. We laugh, we cry, we toil, we breed — to what ends? Earth is so tiny in this infinite space, confined within the boundaries of time and matter. What could we do that could possibly mean anything in the face of infinity?

My Christian education would force me to answer: our souls. Each person, each choice and decision, each prayer and redemption, matters because we are important to the Creator, our Father. Which begs the question: where does God stand in infinity? Is He, Himself, confined within the boundaries of infinity, like all matter that make up our world? Or did He create infinity, like we created infinity in numbers, and therefore stands outside it, like the omnipotent, omnipresent entity He is taught to be? Is there an infinity beyond Him, like space is beyond numbers?

Infinity, and God, or any all-encompassing entity for that matter, is a concept extremely foreign to humans. It is not within our cognitive ability to understand such concepts. 

Likewise, even in the event of a omnipotent God beyond infinity, it is incomprehensible that every human soul is important. While there is a finite number of human souls, there are simply too numerous for each one to matter. Each soul is as important as each atom that makes up, say, a tree. All atoms are important, but in the grand scheme of things (the tree), a couple million misplaced atoms would not matter very much indeed.

Again, the concept of individual importance in the face of incomprehensible numbers is a concept foreign to our cognitive abilities.

So, what would I like to be remembered for? As my philosophy would suggest, I would expect to not be remembered very much after all. But despite my beliefs and doubts, I find the very idea of dying a concrete death, a very painful thought. Such is the juxtaposition of the human mind. 

“They say you die twice. One time when you stop breathing and a second time a bit later on when somebody says your name for the last time.” -Banksy

Afternotes: I started the 30-day writing challenge one semester ago and quite completely forgot about it, until recently. I've been going through some existential crisis, mainly doubts in my belief system, and have taken a very dysthymic attitude. I hope I can work it out soon (my parents seem very disappointed).

Dysthymia: a mood disorder characterized by chronic mildly depressed or irritable mood often accompanied by other symptoms (as eating and sleeping disturbances, fatigue, and poor self-esteem)

RUDE Christian Groups

So in the past few weeks there've been a sudden onset of extremely passionate Christian groups in my school (NUS) trying to spread the gospel to unsuspecting passers-by. I got stopped once in UTown when I was having my dinner and once in Kent Ridge MRT when I was trying to meet my friend.

It is, frankly, extremely annoying. Not to mention the lack of common courtesy.

The first incident was when I was sitting alone, in UTown, looking gentle and pliant as my face and small stature tend to wrongly impression, with my meal half eaten and my spoon halfway towards my mouth, and 2 girls from a NUS Christian society came up to me and sat down at my table and started talking about Jesus. Really??? I spent the next 15 minutes trying to push them away (because I was too polite to be rude, dammit), while my food turned cold because it would be so damn awkward to keep eating when I have 4 eyes staring intently at me and giving me that serene we-are-going-to-enlighten-you-you-innocent-child smile. RUDE.

The second time at KR MRT station, I got tricked. I was rushing to meet my friend when I was stopped for a short survey which was no longer than 1 page, so I thought, why not? I assumed it was some kind of data collection, for we were in hospital and school vicinity after all, but noooooo, it was another Christian group trying to spread their gospel. This one believed in "Mother" female god and blah blah. Honestly, at the right time I would have been interested in listening, but I hate the feeling of being cheated and I repeatedly told the person "my friend is waiting for me I have 2 minutes to spare" but she kept talking. So I left without giving any contact information, and extremely put-off.

Really not the way to try and spread the gospel, guys. If anything, you're making more people wary and suspicious of anything remotely Christian-related. Christians do not have a good name because too many are overly enthusiastic and lack common courtesy.

My friend, for example, on the same day I was accosted by the KR Mother-god people, was also harassed by 3 different Christian groups in Faculty of Science. Yes, I used the words "harassed" and "accosted" because that's what they did. My friend was busy studying when they interrupted her study and forced her to listen to them, even though she repeatedly told them to go away. Extremely RUDE.

What is the point of forcing information on someone clearly repulsed? If anything, doing so will only cement their repulsion for the information, in this case "Christianity", which is entirely counterproductive. Wrong place wrong time, and RUDE.

Stop it. Just stop. You guys are giving Christians a bad reputation.


P.S. About the 30 Day Writing Challenge... I failed. Spectacularly.