Week 11: Schindler's List (1993)

One of the main theories of social psychology that can be brought up in this film is prejudice and discrimination. It could be seen how the members of the Nazi Party were filled with prejudice and ignorance as they treated the jews in a discriminatory manner. They single out the jews based on their religion and then began a mass genocide in an attempt to gain power over them. This is linked with obedience, as it could be clearly seen that the Nazi guards and officers were killing them based on authorities’ instructions. Eventually, this led to them killing without repercussions -- perhaps due to their social roles and the power they had manifested. For example, when any Jewish person did not perform to their satisfaction or just talked to them (i.e. the female engineer warning them about the building’s foundation), the Nazis would shoot them in the head immediately, without warning. They killed for unjust reasons and often without remorse. They appeared to kill on impulse as if they were desensitised from all the murder and killing.

Another theory that could be seen in action was the process of deindividuation towards the jews. They were treated like animals when sent to the concentration camps -- cramped up in the trains with little to no space between each other; they were forced to evacuate their own homes to move into the ghettos and had their belongings stolen; and their health check ups were done out in the open with the requirement to strip naked. These actions took away their right to choice and humiliated them. They were treated as if their lives did not matter and as if they mean nothing, rather than human beings. What is sad about this is that this wasn't even at the concentration camps yet, and they were already treated this way. This links to the cognitive dissonance that Oskar Schindler seemed to be experiencing in the film. He knew that the jews were getting atrocious treatment, yet he continued to profit off them for his benefit. However, when he witnessed the liquidation of the ghettos was when the discomfort could be seen on his face. He indirectly helped the jews by hiring them to his business to save them from going to concentration camps and so on. He knew it was dangerous to treat them nicely, even gaining the reputation of being a ‘jew-sympathizer’. Yet, he could not do anything to help them without fear of being a suspect to treating them kindly.

In terms of the cinematography, Steven Spielberg had it filled with beautiful stills and shots, albeit can be dark and disturbing as it explicitly shows the ugly side behind this event. The entire film was shot in black and white as if to signify the time period of when this event occurred; to show that it’s historical. This was contrasted with the last part of the film that showed the present day people who were on Schindler’s list. This showed how much has changed and symbolises the modern-day Schindler’s jews.

Week 10: Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016)

Ricky seems to face abandonment issues. He’s always been told that no one wants him and that he is a reject; his mother had left him and there’s no one who would want to adopt him. He seems to internalise it and believe it himself. He acts out through antisocial behaviour, such as “burning stuff, defacing stuff, hitting stuff.” Perhaps he is acting out because he is not the given the right attention that he needs. He is constantly looked at through a negative light. Ricky has been moved from place to place, often without considering what he wants. The child welfare officers believed that they knew what was best, even though it was making Ricky unhappy. They think that he can’t think for himself because he is young, and thus executes decisions based on their feelings, not Ricky’s. He may feel unheard and invisible because of this, and acting out is one of the ways that he may get attention.

Moreover, Ricky seems to have been labeled - and this label has stuck to him. He’s been considered a problematic child because of his inappropriate behaviour, and even considered dangerous. It seems as though he’s accepted this label and goes along with it. However, it is also important to remember that he is merely a twelve year old, and not everything he does has been done on purpose. For instance, he accidentally burned down Hector’s farm but was misinterprated as him doing it intentionally. When in fact, sometimes he just doesn’t know what he’s doing. Ricky can’t help that, but trouble seems to follow him wherever he goes.

Apart from that, the character development between Ricky and Hector has been one of the main elements in the film. They both started off being restrictive in their communication between each other, especially Hector, who tried to shut himself off from Ricky. However, they begin to open up and disclose personal information about each other. For example, Hector can't read and the adults tried to cover up the cause of Amber's death, Ricky's friend, from him. They began to develop a friendship over the course of time when they were in the bush. Bella was the reason for them coming together and meeting, and it was the reason that they had stayed together. They bonded over here despite her not being there physically.

Week 9: Experimenter (2015)

 “Life can only be understood backwards, but it has to be lived forwards.”

1. Politics of academia and the experimental field of Psychology

The culture of political correctness has permeated in the psychology field, often under the guise of being ethical. Commentators, other psychologists, critics, mere consumers and observers of this phenomenon have shown worry towards the past participants of Milgram's study who exhibited characteristics of stress and nervousness that were experienced when the study was carried out. The same people believed that deception as a tool to reveal the participants' true behaviour was a form of manipulation, even insinuating that it is synonymous with a form of torture - as they were made to administer electric shocks to another person in the study - even though only 1.3% of participants indicated negative feelings after the experiment itself, and 74% learned something of personal importance through it.

Moreover, they believed that the participants were forced to administer these shocks, Milgram's character in response to this: "what happened between the command and outcome is up to the individual - their choice to obey or not." This encapsulates the idea that Milgram was originally trying to deliver, in which people have a choice to obey authority and to disobey it. But, real life situations often show that people follow the authority's instructions. Why is that?

During the debriefing sessions, past participants were called in and interviewed. They said they didn't understand the point of the experiment and could not seem to handle that they would be considered as bad people. People think everything a person does is due to the feelings and ideas within the person, but sometimes it is important to acknowledge that a person's actions depend on the situation that they are put in. Again, a major point that is often misinterpreted or looked past at. Not only did they feel upset over being deceived (i.e. the negative aspects that came from it, like feeling nervous, feeling bad for administering the shocks, etc) and possibly felt some sort of betrayment from their vulnerability during the experiment itself, but it also seemed that the participants shifted the blame towards Milgram because most of them were not able to face what they did (and of which they found horrific) - they couldn't accept that part of themselves. Instead of trying to understand why and seeing the underlying processes that may caused them to do such a thing, they chose the easier thing to do and blamed it on Milgram.

2. People can't think for themselves

After its publication, Milgram's study was talked about and discussed by a range of people - even being translated into eight other languages. It is no surprise that people would pick sides (either seeing it as a brilliant study that is a gate to more similar studies, or that it was unethical and vile) and see which side their opinions lined up with, rather than forming their own opinions about it and dissecting it to see what its original goals were. People seemed to be fixated on the 'electric shock' and 'deception' part of the experiment, forgetting the main idea of what it aimed to study in human behaviour - to understand the reasoning behind blind obedience towards authority even if its instructions included hurting another human to killing a mass amount of them.

A prime example was that scene where the blonde lady bumped into Milgram outside the university's building and said she saw him published on Times - even read his book reviews (but not the actual book) and thought the experiment was harsh. This goes to show that people will listen to what others say rather than forming their own opinion rather than analysing it themselves - it is the easier option anyway. As Milgram's character said it to be a totalitarian world, in which a government exercises its control over the freedom and thoughts of its people; not allowing them to have differing opinions. Once zoomed out and the bigger picture is laid out, there will always be people who look to the authority and do as they are told - obedience is something that is taught since we were young. We have internalised obedience through so many forms - in school, at home, at work, our cultures, our society as a whole. We look up to authorities and look past their bad character; we get punished if we sway out of the linear path shaped and readied for us; we follow and obey things we do not believe in because that is the right thing to do, or at least what we're told. The way we justify doing horrific acts is by blaming it on someone else - that authoritative figure. This is where the agentic state takes place. These are acts based on the direction that is given to us; we are the instruments carrying out the wishes of others, "I'm just following order", "I'm just doing my job", "It's the law."

Week 7: Whale Rider (2002)

Koro has a traditional mindset and represents people who are likeminded as him. He wants everything to stay the same, e.g. the rituals and traditions of their community and town, how the men must always lead and girls follow behind, and so on. He has an issue with females wanting to be the leader (i.e. Pai wanting to learn the ways of leadership, but Koro repeatedly and stubbornly telling her that she can't do it simply because she's a girl).

These traditions are based on patriarchal ideology, and Koro believes in this system entirely. Thus, reserving the chance to learn this part of their culture for the boys in the village. For instance, when Pai wanted to learn how to use a fighting stick, she seemed just as qualified as the other boys, but she was still not allowed despite her efforts. It's ironic because Pai wants to learn so badly and feels that she can do it, but isn't given the opportunity to do so - not even a look to see how well she is or an explanation as to what she has been doing. Yet, the boys are dragged into this, even though they show hesitation and little interest - they were given the opportunity to learn simply because it was expected of their gender roles. As boys, they have been taught that they must be strong, able to defend themselves and fight their enemies as they grow older; they're expected to be fit, masculine and to lead a village.

This can be applied to many communities and traditions given that it is very common in customs and beliefs that have been passed down generation to generation. Women and girls are usually not allowed to be the head and not given equal opportunities as their counterparts - boys and men.

Week 5: Strictly Ballroom (1992)

1. Courage and conformity

This Baz Lurhmann film touched the themes of courage and conformity. It seemed to focus on those who do not conform to the rules of ballroom -- you get ridiculed when you are different from the rest. When Scott's character decided to incorporate his own dance moves into his dance routines, he was frowned upon -- it was something that you should not do, everyone had known this. When he broke the rules by doing so, people were surprised and did not know how else to react other than negatively. In order to be creative and innovative, one must take a risk. Scott took a risk that was out of the norm in the world of competitive ballroom dancing, and people did not like it.

By taking a risk and following his heart by doing so, this risk could have led to failure as no one supported him and no genuine feedback was given to him. At some points in the film, Scott was close to giving up and giving in to do what was expected of him, rather than what he felt was good for him.

In the end, though, Scott ended up going with his instincts and decided to take that leap, even after being disqualified. The positive and encouraging reactions from the audience surprised the judges and proved them wrong. This action takes a lot of courage to perform and go ahead with.

2. Control and self-expression

Barry and the rest of the people of the Australian Dancing Federation (ADF) treat the dancing industry as a business, even Scott's mother thinks the same. Barry seems to be afraid of losing his power. He says that if one cannot dance it, one cannot teach it. With an increasing amount of young talents rising up, it is not surprising that Barry would be intimidated that someone else more talented would take his place and shoo him out of his current position instead. By having this sort of control in the competitions, the competitors will feel the need to follow these rules in order to win -- hence why not many people have attempted to do their own moves during these competitions.

These unreasonable rules seem to be a distraction from the bigger issue -- that Barry gives an illusion of his own control, almost to a point of brainwashing the rest into thinking that there is only one way to dance. Which is pretty ironic, considering that dance is widely known to be a freedom of expression of the self. Thus, to let it be contained in an ideal box and having checklists of certain moves to make sure that everyone stays within their safety net seems quite paradoxical. Barry is afraid to let go and try new things, thus his obsession with holding onto power, even driving him to do horrible things such as lie to Scott about the demise of his parents' careers as ballroom dancers, for his personal gain.

Week 3: Eat, Drink, Man, Woman (1994)

1. Traditional Chinese cooking as a way of expressing love

The expression of love is portrayed in different forms in this film, as it deals with lots of relationships between the characters. Mr Chu is portrayed as the stereotypical Asian parent who does not explicitly express his love towards his children in an outwardly affectionate manner, although he does it in other ways. For instance, the Sunday dinner that the family has each week is symbolic to their ritual, even though the daughters do not see it that way. Instead, they feel as if they are being dragged to the dinner every time and feel as if they have other better things to do.

However, Mr Chu chooses this channel to express his love for them - elaborate meals that require a lot of preparation into them. He also does it in other forms, such as doing their laundry, folding their clothes, making sure they wake up before they're late, scolding Jia-Chen for falling asleep on her desk, and of course, cooking for them. The daughters sometimes miss these expressions and they do not pay attention. They've grown up in a generation where Hollywood movies is a norm, and so are instances of verbally saying "I Love You," on their screens that it instilled different expectations for them compared to their father.

In these cooking scenes, it demonstrates just how much goes into food preparation for their Sunday dinners. The meticulous nature of it symbolises the care they take in making each dish. Mr Chu shows that when he expresses his love, he expresses it wholeheartedly.

2. Daughters' personalities according to Freud's theory of personality

Jia-Ning, the youngest sister among the rest. She resembles the Id, one of three in Freud's theory of personality. The Id runs unconsciously and urges one to take part in activities that are considered to be pleasurable (Lapsley & Stey, 2011). In the film, Jia-Ning was the first sister to meet her partner, then unexpectedly got pregnant and had to arrange a shotgun wedding. It was the most impulsive decision and could symbolise the Id.

Jia-Jen, the eldest sister of the Chu family. She was the second sister to get married unexpectedly, albeit not as impulsively as Jia-Ning. As a devout Christian, at least she gave a bit of thought into marrying her partner and the reasons behind it, unlike her younger sister. Jia-Jen represents the Ego in which she often represses her true feelings and functions with self-preservation (Lapsley & Stey, 2011). According to Lapsley and Stey (2011), "the internal drive stimuli attempts to control the demands of the instincts by judiciously deciding the mode of satisfaction, or if satisfaction is to be had at all." This mirrors Jia-Jen in several scenes, such as when she tells Jia-Chen that she will stay with their dad to take care of him, or when she daydreams about Mingdao but refuses to act on her feelings (but she eventually gave in and kissed him anyway). It shows how she holds back, especially due to her religion, but eventually, she can't help but have her emotions make her decisions. It could also be due to the pressure of being the eldest and from people surrounding her to remind about finding a boyfriend, which made her act impulsively in the end.

  

And Jia-Chen, the middle sister. She is the most responsible and most hardworking; she does things logically and rationally. She resembles the Superego -- it represents the moral sense of a personality, as it generates guilt as a response against the flaws and deficiencies of the ego (Lapsley & Stey, 2011). When she wanted to move out, she felt guilty for wanting to do so. And when she got promoted, she declined the offer to stay in order to take care of her father; she was worried about his health. Even in times of wanting to escape, or receiving great opportunities that can take her forward, she decided to stay and does what is morally right in her eyes.

3. Mr Chu's relationship with Jia-Chien

In the beginning of the film, Jia-Chen decides to buy a new apartment and plans to move out, but she eventually had to stay due to circumstances at that time. The irony of it all is that she was very vocal about wanting to move out at first, but ends up the one who stays after everyone leaves -- even the father leaves, when in fact, she stayed because of him.

As the film goes along, the characters' layers unpeel. We develop a deeper understanding and a certain depth to these characters as they unveil more layers and dimensions of themselves. It becomes more of a transformation on their part to be able to see how they progress throughout the film.

It seemed that Jia-Chen was the closest to her father, despite wanting to get away the most. Her relationship with Mr Chu is built on their passion for cooking, as she used to watch him cook when she was younger. This created somewhat of a special bond that she has with him that her sisters do not have. Moreover, certain scenes in the film show snapshots of their family portrait, and Jia-Chen appears to have an uncanny resemblance to her mother. Perhaps a contribution to their relationship as Mr Chu would be reminded constantly of his late wife.

Reference:

Lapsley, D. K. and Stey, P. C. (2011) Encyclopedia of Human Behaviour. Second edn. Elsevier.

Week 2: Awakenings (1990)

Synopsis

The movie is an adaptation of Oliver Sack's book (1973) based on a true story. He was a British neurologist who discovered the effects of L-dopa and administered these drugs to catatonic patients who survived the 1917-1928 epidemic of encephalitis lethargica.

Leonard's Character (and Other Patients)

The experience of suffering was quite graphic with powerful scenes, conveying the pain that these patients went through. It showed the deterioration of the patients' health, such as being unable to do basic things (like to read or to talk) and having no control over their own body due to their condition.

Seeing the transition of how the patients were prior to the L-dopa medication and during the time of their medication itself created a sense of intrigue among the audience towards the patients, and caused us to empathise with the patients even more -- especially after seeing how much it affected their loved ones; the ones who stayed. During the medication, the patients' personalities were brought to the surface and engaged the audience even more. This made it compelling to watch their interactions with each other -- it humanised them, not just portraying them as catatonic patients who were 'asleep'. It was able to grasp the audience's attention as it was fascinating to see them finally 'come to life' and 'awaken'; to see their true selves. This linked the audience to the characters even more and formed more of a connection.

Moreover, the treatment of the patients was shown through a realistic light - that not every doctor treats their patients nicely. They just wanted to be treated like normal human beings, but instead, are viewed as sick and unable to do things on their own. Their label as patients had stuck to them that even the doctors themselves treat them as such, rather than viewing them as capable humans (especially during medication) who are willing to try and get better. These are the simple things that we take for granted, and definitely the take away message from this film.

Emotional Element

The movie touched the audience's hearts from arousing a range of emotions. The movie was able to build a connection with the characters at first, as we see how they are on a day to day basis. How difficult and challenging it is for their remaining loved ones who stayed to take care of them, and how much they hold deeply to every bit of hope that they have any chance of them getting better eventually. While for others, their families and spouses have left them - again, a realistic depiction as it happens in everyday life as well. It is such a tragic thing to happen to them as they have lost hope and the patients awaken to them not by their side anymore.

The connection we have with the characters toy with our emotions as we feel happy for them when they eventually got better. There were comedic reliefs that helped lifted up the spirit of the movie at times, as it would have been too intense to watch. This was more towards during the time of their medication, when everyone was better, which elevated the emotions felt.

However, towards the end when the effects backfired and the patients' condition were deteriorating, the mood plummeted again because of how close and connected we feel to the characters. We cried when they cried and laughed when they laughed. The movie brought out a fluctuation of reactions, making the audience feel as though they are on the journey with the characters, too.




Dr. Sayer's Character
His character is layered and complex, actually being displayed as a real person and not just one dimensional. As the movie goes along, we learn more about Dr Sayer, such as him not being a people-person, and it could be seen how uncomfortable he is with human interactions. But eventually, it is seen that the patients had an effect on his outlook on life, causing him to eventually try to be around people. It also shows his journey of how the actions of someone can have a ripple effect.