Author Archives: Thomas

An Incomplete Picture

Posted on by

Last week was not my first time watching A Beautiful Mind.  I had learned about John Nash, the schizophrenic genius, while I was in high school. I then watched the movie, and loved it. However, this was my first time watching it after Nash and his wife’s death on the New Jersey turnpike two years ago. The movie was more impactful this time around because it kept reminding me that someone can suffer so much and survive, only to lose to something as trivial as not putting on a seatbelt. Thinking about his death, I research Nash on Wikipedia the night before the movie. During the viewing, I was shocked at the sheer amount of discrepancies between what I was watching and what I had read the night before. Nash never hallucinated a roommate, and a CIA agent, instead he heard things that weren’t there. He didn’t have a happy marriage for 30 years; while he was in a psychiatric hospital he had an affair with one of his nurses. After getting her pregnant, he abandoned the child and wife. His first wife then divorced him (thought they still lived together) and then remarried in 2001. In addition, Nash never went back on medication like the movie said. In many ways, Hollywood directly lied so that Nash would be a more sympathetic character.

My feelings are conflicted about this. In one hand, I see why the studio lied about being on medication. If they had sent the message that you can overcome schizophrenia by sheer will, a lot of people’s lives may be damaged. Also, it’s hard to depict auditory hallucinations in film, so I see why they had him visualize things that weren’t there. Still, I think it’s harmful to lie about Nash’s personal affairs.  Nash was bad in some ways, but that doesn’t mean his accomplishments in math and overcome schizophrenia are any less amazing or notable. By striking these personal affairs from the record, you effectively forgive them. You inadvertently send a message that as long as you are great at one thing, history will forget your flaws. I love Nash for his contributions to mathematics and I admire him for conquering schizophrenia, but I don’t think we should forget that he was a human with flaws.

Fantasy and Biography

Posted on by

When I initially signed up to see Neruda at the Cornell Cinema, I had absolutely no idea who he was. I simply signed up because I like going to the on campus cinema, and it’s sometimes fun to try things you know nothing about. The night before the movie, I mentioned to my girlfriend that I was going to some movie called “Neruda,” obviously betraying my ignorance. She gasped that I had not heard of him, and proceeded to passionately tell me all about his work and who he was and why he was so famous in Latin American culture (my girlfriend is from Puerto Rico). Hearing about him directly from someone I knew made me much more excited for the movie, and to learn about his life.

Maybe it’s because I’m not a film expert, but I struggle to think of a movie similar to Neruda that I could compare it to. The film balances two different style, fantasy and biography, kind of like how Neruda himself had two sides of his life, art and politics. A significant portion the movie borders on fantasy, though none of it was impossible. I mean fantasy in that the makers of the film took artistic liberties and speculated what COULD have happened during Neruda’s time as a fugitive. While they played with hypotheticals, the filmmakers also followed Neruda’s political downfall and subsequent escape to France. It was interesting seeing the film balance these two goals, while depicting a man who himself balanced a desire to help others rise politically but also express himself through poetry.

I’m glad the film did not sugar coat Neruda’s abnormal moral compass. He wrote beautiful love poems for his wife, but then would leave at night and go to brothels. Neruda didn’t depict him as having any regret, in fact he seemed to view this lifestyle as compatible with a  married one. It reminded me of the tv show Narcos, where Pablo Escobar would cheat on his wife but then scold or kill anyone who disrespected her.

I’m very happy I went to see Neruda, and would recommend it to anyone, especially if they’re unfamiliar with his work or want some insight into communist Chile.

Truth in Absurdity

Posted on by

Walking out of the viewing of Dr. Stangelove last week, the crowd was stunned. The film is incredibly unique, it’s dark, funny, and surreal. I had never seen it before, but this entire week my suitemates and I have been quoting it non-stop. In fact, I think it’s one of my favorite movies. It’s very rare that a movie sticks with you or affects you in the same way Dr. Strangelove has done for me. The beauty of the movie is that its seemingly absurdist story of the world being destroyed is actually not absurdist at all. In fact, nuclear nuclear weapons have been prepped to launch on account of misunderstandings more than once. That is absolutely insane to me, and Dr. Stangelove does a wonderful job of showing how something so normal to us (nuclear weapon stockpiles) is absolutely ludicrous.

After seeing this movie, I’ve spent much of this past week thinking about nuclear weapons, and about the end of humanity in general. I listened to a podcast on how a member of the air force was fired simply because he asked if there was a check and balance on the president, who would order a nuclear strike. I also read about how a member of the Manhattan Project had designed a nuclear weapon with the strength to spew enough dirt into the atmosphere to cause an ice age, similar to the level of power of the Doomsday device in Dr. Strangelove. He proposed this weapon to the military in the 1950’s but it was rejected because the military saw no use in a literal apocalyptic tool. It’s difficult to put into words how this makes me feel, it’s a mixture of amusement, incredulity, and melancholy. Dr. Stangelove is great because it portrays all these feelings in a way that I fail to do. It shows how silly and scary humanity can be.

Few Surprises in Mad Max

Posted on by

Last week I went to the Flora Friday Film night where we watched the 1985 science fiction action film Mad Max. To be honest, I went into last week thinking I was about the watch the new Mad Max: Fury Road, expecting a modern Hollywood blockbuster action film. Instead, I was surprised to see a cult classic starring Mel Gibson and Tina Turner. Like many movies now regarded as cult classics, first time viewers may not always get the appeal that has made the movie so popular. I was one of those viewers. While Mad Max had action, comedy, and suspense, it came off as cliché and sometimes even tongue and cheek. Most of the movie was incredibly predictable, with moments only memorable because of how cheesy they were. Perhaps it was the style of the time and hasn’t aged well, but I found the movie boring.

On another note, it was interesting to see how revered Mel Gibson was at the time, and how much his status has changed. When he first appeared on screen, I heard some people around me give a mild groan. It was only 5 years ago that the tape of his rantings was released, I don’t expect his reputation to recover in such a quick time.

Some people I watched the movie with quipped that “oh this movie takes place in a future California,” referring to California’s severe drought. While that drought has thankfully ended, and their comments were in jest, the movie does show how crazy and desperate people become once natural resources are depleted. None of this will happen in the near future, or even moderate future, but like in the movie, people won’t hesitate to murder if it means they can get more water, or oil, or whatever scarce resources they need.

Overall, I wouldn’t watch Mad Max again. The film was simply too boring and predictable. It had a few redeeming qualities, but not enough to warrant a recommendation.

Glossing Over the Details

Posted on by

Last week I went to the Flora Friday Film night where we watched the 1997 science fiction film Gattaca. I particularly liked Gattaca because I’m taking a personal genomics class this semester which touches on many of the same issues as the film. Of course, the film simplifies many complicated situations in order to send a message, the message being that using gene editing technologies could have disastrous consequences for society. Gattaca told the emotional story of a man who had unedited genes in a world where everyone was designed for a role in life. Since ___’s genes were unaltered, employers would not hire him because it was riskier than hiring someone whose genes were better for the job. Even though there’s no guarantee the gene edited individual would perform better in the job, the simple fact that they had a higher probability of success was enough for __ to get rejected. Despite all its criticism of gene editing and its social consequences, Gattaca did not propose or mention any superior reality other than the current “unedited” world we live. This is because the film was made for entertainment, not for serious scientific or social debate. Most, if not all, of consequences we see in Gattaca can be avoided by government regulation and societal ethical standards. It was briefly mentioned in the movie that employee genetic discrimination was illegal but it made no difference because all employers ignored the law. The two sentences dedicated to this idea in the movie seem completely ridiculous. It’s similar to saying that there’s no point to passing the American’s with Disabilities Act because all employers would ignore the law, which is obviously not the case. No employer is brazen enough to openly discriminate like the employers in Gattaca did; Even if they tried to break the law, we live in the United States, people would sue.

In addition to glossing over possible regulations, the movie didn’t explore the possible benefits of gene editing. If gene editing becomes cheap enough, many science fiction scenarios can become real. Many diseases will become nonexistent, and the average IQ could become in the hundreds, which in itself will have major positive consequences we can’t anticipate.

Overall, I love Gattaca. Sure, I don’t think the dystopia it depicts will become real (or that it’s even likely), but it was a great piece of storytelling that makes the viewer think about issues they might not have if they hadn’t watched the movie.

Simulation=Reality

Posted on by

Last week I went to the Flora Friday Film night where we watched the 1999 action film The Matrix. The Matrix is one of my favorite movies; I’ve seen it maybe 10 times. While its priority is obviously things like gunfights, stunts, and car chases, The Matrix brings up many classical sci-fi and philosophical themes. Real life philosophers argue about some themes gently touched on in The Matrix, like the notion that the world we live in is merely a simulation by a more advanced race.

There are real theories and scientific efforts to test whether or not we live in a universe that’s simulated by humanity in the future as an experiment to learn more about their past. Even Elon Musk, a prominent figure in the technological world, believes these theories to be true. I also personally believe it to be true. If we are to assume that running in a simulated universe is possible, then there’s no reason to believe that a civilization would conduct only one of these simulations at a time. Instead, they could run 5 or 10 or millions of simulations concurrently, all experimenting on different things by tweaking different laws of nature or creating different situations in those universes. Given the sheer numbers of simulations available to a civilization, a disparity arises between the number of real universes and the number of simulated ones. Therefore, the probability of us being randomly placed in a simulated universe is higher than being placed in a real one, simply because there are more simulated universes than real universes. In the end though, the debate doesn’t matter. It is incredibly difficult to test whether are universe is simulated or not, though some are trying. If we were to discover whether it’s real or not, it would make little difference. Our lives would continue as they have so far, and the physical laws that our universe follows would not change.

In addition to the theme of what is reality, The Matrix excels at its core goal, action. This movie has become a classic in western culture, with references to things like Neo dodging bullets in slow motion or Morpheus jumping through rain on to a helicopter available all over over the internet and different media.

Defining Freedom

Posted on by

Last week I went to the Flora Friday Film night where we watched the 2006 documentary film The Call Me Muslim. Despite its short run time of less than 30 minutes, it was by far the most thought provoking film of the Flora Friday Film nights so far. The Call Me Muslim interviewed two Muslim women from very different countries. Samah, an 18 year old Syrian girl living in Paris, France, and “K” a 20 something college graduate living in Tehran, Iran. Samah chooses to wear a hijab despite French law prohibiting it in public schools, while K chooses to resist Iran’s law that hijabs are absolutely mandatory.

Going into the movie my initial thoughts were that laws regulating religious garb or religious behavior in any way is unethical, and my view hasn’t changed. However, seeing all the interviews and different perspective in They Call Me Muslim, I have a better understanding of the two sides of the debate and see how someone could take either side of the debate.

As a non-muslim who has lived in the United States my whole life, I probably missed a lot of socio-cultural context that other viewers in Rose may have picked up on. One audience member commented that they thought comparing K and Samah’s dilemmas was misleading because the two laws and societies are so different. This was surprising to me, because I thought there was a clear likeness in the two laws that tried to control a citizen’s religious behavior. I wish I had asked for clarification on his comment, maybe there are nuances that I missed. Regardless of my experience level or exposure to the subject, the question of banning or making hijabs mandatory seems like a fundamental ethical choice. In my opinion, Iran should not require the hijab, and France should not ban it in public schools. Both laws infringe on a person’s religious freedom. Whether or not the incentives to wear a hijab are positive or not is a separate and irrelevant discussion. No matter why someone chooses to wear or not to wear a hijab, they have the right to make the choice themselves.

A Perfect Valentine’s Day Film

Posted on by

Last week I went to the Flora Friday Film night where we watched the 1998 film Shakespeare in Love. The movie was pretty much a polar opposite from last week’s film, Fight Club. Shakespeare in Love was a romance full of lighthearted jokes, fun, and non-controversial topics, very different from the violent themes of Fight Club. I don’t know if this was done on purpose, but I loved seeing the two dramatically different styles of film-making so close to each other. These two movies were also made within one year of each other, making them an even better comparison between the two film styles.

I liked Shakespeare in Love because the movie knew what it was. It knew it was a romance, and did not attempt to do much else. It instead focused on telling the romance story between Shakespeare and Viola well, giving time to develop the characters so that the audience is invested in the story. With that said, I was surprised at how much erotic content and nudity was included in the story. Perhaps sex was useful tool to convince the audience of how much Shakespeare and Viola are in the love with each other, but it excludes a large audience by restricting the movie rating to R. Since the rest of the movie was so innocent and would have catered well to a younger audience, I’m surprised the director decided to include the sex scenes.

Another plus of this movie was the stories’ similarities and references to the works of its subject, William Shakespeare. Many of Shakespeare’s comedies involve ridiculous situations with deceit and miscommunications. The plot of Shakespeare in Love captured this style by having Viola’s to be husband think he killed Shakespeare, and by having Viola dress as a man so that she could become an actor. Both of these scenarios would not be out of place in an original Shakespeare play. This movie was not a masterpiece, but it was a good homage to Shakespeare and a perfect choice for Valentine’s day week.

Consequences of Missing the Point

Posted on by

Last week I watched the controversial 1999 film “Fight Club.” After watching it, I was initially shocked. The movie probably intends to give the viewer that feeling, with its jarring dream like sequences (which reminded me of modern Baz Luhrmann movies) and its extreme violence, Fight Club is meant to make the viewer feel out of place, and it succeeded. Since it became a cult classic, viewer have tried to decipher the other intentions and themes of Fight Club. People say it’s a coming of age movie that exposes the flaws in cult thinking, sexism, and violence by showing the sorrows of people who indulge themselves in those behaviors. People say that the movie uses gory violence as a story telling device, and to highlight the pointlessness of such behavior. However, I think these messages and themes can be told without resorting to the gore and brutality that fight club had viewers watch. The shots of violence seemed like a cheap way to make viewers feel something, similar to how jump scares are a “cheap” method used in horror movies. Much of the premise of the movie is based on the un-named protagonist’s view that society is repressing men from doing “macho” things like fighting, but it’s the opposite. Society is filled with messages encouraging men express their animal instincts. People think violence is in vogue, MMA is one of the most popular sports around, and that shooting guns is cool. So… what exactly are the men in Fight Club rebelling against?

With that said, the movie is partly redeemed in my eyes if it was intended to deliver a good message. Still, even if fight club says it shows all these terrible things (violence, sexism, anarchy) to convince the viewer that they’re pointless, the film did it in a perhaps too subtle way. Not everyone going to see this movie across America went home and analyzed it as a piece of art with a message, it is without a doubt that these good intentions went over some peoples’ heads. These stances may exist and the movie well intentioned, but if that is the case then the messages weren’t presented in any coherent way that sticks. In many ways, Fight Club sells the same deplorable ideologies that it wants to stand against. If most people don’t think the movie is a satire on masculinity and violence… then is it still satire?