Sybil

“In calming Peggy, she was calming her own heart.”

            I had got a mix of feelings by watching the movie, Sybil; it is so intense that I doubt someone could finish it without having a word or two to say.

            Firstly, as mentioned in DSM 5, there are some criterion for Dissociative Identity Disorder to be diagnosed including the presence of two or more distinct personality states, recurrent episodes of amnesia, symptoms causing significantly impairment in daily life, disturbance is not part of cultural practice, and symptoms are not attributed to physiological effect of substance or medical use (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). In the movie, Sybil had possessed more than two distinct personality states; Peggy, Vicky, Sybil, Marcia, and Vanessa are the examples of those rather prevalent ones. Sybil had also suffered from remembering parts of her daily life like how she ended up of seeing Dr. Wilbur, or the experiencing of blackouts, and due to all these issues, she could not live normally, but being distracted seriously. I was simply amazed by how one could switch from one identity to another so quickly and easily, and the different identities did not necessary aware of the existence of each other.

Then it was so much saddening to know that Sybil was actually abused and traumatized by her schizophrenic mother. Sybil was so helpless as a child to understand that the acts of her mother was not really love towards her, let alone to inform somebody about the abuse. And, because of these traumatizing experience, her defense mechanism had shaped out many different identities, or led to the development of Dissociative Identity Disorder in order to protect her, with the painful experience to be placed into her deepest unconscious mind. However, thanks to the psychoanalytic approach and hypnosis used by Dr. Wilbur, Sybil was set free, though the accuracy of Dr. Wilbur doing it in the movie was highly arguable. Understanding that under hypnosis, patient gets to enter a deep relaxation with heightened state of awareness to explore the underlying unconsciousness, but Sybil was appeared to be rather easily to be hypnotized within seconds, or even simply accepting to be hypnotized in the first place. Even though Sybil did experience some serious struggle and pain while exploring her deeply rooted traumatizing experience, but she still rather easily to follow all the instructions and inductions given by Dr. Wilbur during hypnosis. Speaking of Dr. Wilbur, she had arguably appeared to be crossing the boundary between a professional psychologist and client; she was more of a motherly figure to Sybil, considering the food offer, tons of physical contact, as well as the private investigation to Sybil’s house. Acknowledging that everything she did might just purely intend to help Sybil to recover, but at the same time, these boundary-crossings could actually cause client to form a sort of dependence and transference on therapist, or even unconditionally follow the instructions given by the therapist, which might however manipulate the accuracy of the traumatic experience. Nevertheless, I personally think that Dr. Wilbur was indeed being an unethical therapist, but her acts were debatably acceptable, considering she just wanted to help Sybil to walk out from her deepest pain. However, I think it is not really suggestible for therapists to cross the ethical boundary, but when it comes to extreme case, careful and situational boundary-crossing may be necessary if it can help and comfort the client.

Although some parts of Sybil’s reactions and responses seemed to be rather exaggerated, but I think most of them were quite accurately matching the criterion mentioned in DSM 5 because those identities were appeared to serve a respective function basing on her traumatic childhood than being faked out as nonsenses. For instance, Marcia who was obsessed with suicidal thoughts due to all the traumatizing experience Sybil had, Peggy who had a bad temper tantrums with the fears to piano, purple colour and mother-like figure because of Sybil’s anger towards to her mother’s abuse, and also Vicky who was well-mannered and confident, representing the capability of Sybil being able to do things well.

Just one thing that I was very angry at, why did not someone out there to actually realize the paranoid and schizophrenic Sybil’s mother, or the abuse Sybil suffered during her childhood, especially her father was the one annoyed me the most which enhanced my anger towards people who choose to ignorantly and blindly put their faith into religion, rather than considering the importance of science. Her father’s overly trust towards her mother had become a mask for him to not recognize all the painful and inhumane sufferings Sybil had had form her mother’s abuse on top of his great extent of belief and faith in religion. Sybil could have not suffered from all the traumatizing experiencing if her father were more rational and sensible towards his surroundings, and not chose to be an ignorant individual.

All in all, I had learned a lot from this film, especially the treatment of hypnosis; shamefully to say that I was originally misled by the other commercialized movies to perceive hypnosis as some kind of deep sleep with the unawareness to be easily controlled and instructed by the therapist. People with Dissociative Identity Disorder are pitiful, considering the severe trauma they went through in their life, but on the other hand, the hope legitimate counselling and therapy can give is calming. To go through the traumatic experience is perhaps the toughest moment of life, but to walk out from it, makes one the bravest and toughest person.

Reference

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Association.

Schindler's List

Does human being born with compassion?

            Oftentimes, people may easily use the word “insane” to express the feeling of them being shocked or surprised intensely, then after watching this movie, Schindler’s List, I fully understand “insane” would be better used to describe Nazi. I just cannot accept; seeing all the scenes where innocent victims had been killed randomly by the Germany army, even the kids were killed by them without having to show a single sign of mercy or regret because they just did not care. All they saw was just powerless and filthy Jews, or simply some toys for them to have fun with, as in life of a human being was not even sounded anything to them. Understanding that Germany was being on the winning side of the war, but did that even translate to be able to kill anyone they wanted to? I would certainly say no; only I realized how much I have taken life for granted; millions of guiltless lives were hoping for a chance just to be alive though they did not even do a single wrong thing.

            It has got me started to wonder about humanity, like was there a such thing back in the past, or exists in contemporary world. It was scary, so scary to see that envy of someone’s ability and capability was arguably the cause of the idea of Anti-Semitism, which led to the death of so many poor souls. Putting the sense of superiority of own race to the others, or “pure Aryan race” altogether with Anti-Semitism, there came a miserable Holocaust. However, did every German actually support the idea of this; affirmatively no. It was not really that they did not want to stop it, but the unarmed or powerless them had got themselves to confirm to it. Fortunately, Oskar Schindler in the movie had found his compassion, his basic sympathy towards the innocent ones.

            Schindler was a war profiteer and womanizer who initially had no intention to help or even save any Jews; he kept on denying that he was shown to be inclined to help the Jews. It has become obvious when he turned out to help a woman’s parents by giving them jobs in his factory although he was rejecting her angrily at the first place. This was debatable of him started to show the first sign of altruism that led to his later action. Though it was really confusing with his narcissism shown in the beginning of the movie, imaging himself as a great one to be written in the history, and to be remembered by everyone of him doing something extraordinary, making a hell lot of money with originally nothing, but later his emphasis of being powerful to Goeth was to have the ability to let go a person when one has the every justification to kill the person was just another sign that he showed his subtle altruism indirectly in my opinion. And, Schindler again tried to spray the water to the people on the trains, helping them to ease their suffering although it was perceived as an evil act by the Nazi of him trying to give the people a fake hope. In the very end, he spent almost all of his money just to get as many Jews as possible to move with him to his so-called new manufacturing factory; he was not pleased or forced to do all these, but doing all these willingly. Schindler could not take it anymore, and burst with tears when he was actually being thanked by all his workers. He was a hero, a hero in their hearts.

            It was really hard to explain why Schindler had actually decided to behave in this altruistic way, but he indeed showed the altruistic act during the very hard time. He showed that humanity did exist in a very least way; compassion might certainly not be something one born to have, but a realization in the possibly worst mankind or most miserable circumstances. Schindler was a serious contrast to those evil Nazi although he admitted himself as a part of them, but his later altruistic acts just did not justify that. He had risked his life and everything to save the others without any reciprocal return, and perhaps that demonstrated one’s most humble altruism and nobility of humanity. Schindler might not the greatest one in history, but he certainly showcased what a person could at least do with his or her very own limited yet influential ability to contribute an effort to humanity, to remind human beings what made us different from insane animals, and to human civilization.  

Grace is gone

Grace is hurt seriously…

She is… gone…

            No eye-catching computer graphics, no exaggerated acting, no mind-blowing storyline, no bombastic languages and no complex scientific materials were presented in the movie, but a calm yet saddening flow permeated throughout the whole movie, Grace is gone, which emphasized a lot on the experiencing of grief over death.

            Grace was a soldier who had died in a war, and the wife of Stanley. Due to her death, Stanley had been experiencing a series of mixed and complicated feelings, or intense grief. Interestingly, the ways he had gone through the grief was relatively similar to the five stages of grief model suggested by Kubler-Ross (1969) — Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance.

Denial is the first stage of the model; it is the initial reaction of one responds to the loss or death of a person means a lot to him or her; typically trying to deny the facts. It was obvious when Stanley was reacting in a huge shock after being informed by the officers about the death of Grace, and doing nothing for the whole day. Later, he stopped his daughters from eating the casserole; this was a sign of him denying the fact.

Stanley was very angry and behaved aggressively when his younger brother, John was trying to offer a sincere help; this could be explained by Anger. After the masking effect of denial wears off, the more direct and intense emotion will start to appear, and that it is anger, which is projected to innocent target that is not to be blamed rationally. Moving to the third stage, or Bargaining, Stanley started to feel vulnerable and helpless towards the loss of Grace; he was talking to himself in the phone call, and wishing that he was the one to be in the war and Grace was the one to stay, blaming himself for this.

Though the sequence of Depression happened before the second stage in this movie, as well as the absence of associated mourning, Stanley had still indeed showed a breakdown when he could not keep it to himself anymore; he cried in pain miserably. Lastly, the Acceptance where one has finally decided to face and accept the truth, understanding the loss can no longer be underdone. This could be told when Stanley had eventually told his daughter about the death of Grace after he had actually accepted the fact of the death of his wife.

Stanley was a strict father; he set rules for his daughters and wanted them to follow strictly until the death of Grace. He allowed them to pierce their ears before 13 years old, brought them to Enchanted Garden that they longed to go, and let them to sleep late. It was because Stanley had realized, realized that life is too fragile, things can be gone out of sudden, and leave with regret, and so, living a life with so many restrictions and rules was not for himself nor his daughters anymore as he did not want to filled with regret again.

It is life, something that one can never had a full control of. Life can be excellently good to one today, but leave one with grief the next day; it is unpredictable. Instead of keep on crying over the spilled milk or put the blame of everything to oneself, one should rather keep moving forward as long as one lives. Hence, it is important to live in the moment, and be appreciative of every possible second one can have; live a life of one wants, stop holding one’s own back with all the unnecessary worry and responsibility.

Death of the closed one is not the end of the world, but perhaps a grieving moment, which allow people to view the world more differently with opened mind, to have a thorough self-reflection, and live a better life.

Reference

Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On Death and Dying (1st ed.). Macmillan, New York: The Macmillan Company.

Experimenter

Had Milgram actually gone too far or...?

            Yes, most of the students were like “well, we have seen this and know about it already.” So, what exactly did this movie, Experimenter want to tell the audiences when most of the students have already learned and known about the Milgram’s Experiment?

            Milgram’s primary intention was pretty simple which was to test whether people would obey the instructions from an authority to perform acts that might hurt the others, but it has got a lot of negative criticism and bad feedback from the ethical review board due to the deception involved in his study that was likely to cause traumatic experience or potential psychological harm. Then, after carrying out the other variations of this study, he proposed several factors that possibly affected the decisions of people whether to give high voltage electric shock to the others including the presence of authority, the professional uniform of authority, and the application of electric shock on “teachers” themselves when they refused to give it to the “learners” (McLeod, 2007).

            Apparently, the main issue of Milgram’s experiment was revolved around the ethical concerns, but since when did these “ethical concerns” ever had to be something to put into considerations when ones are making decisions? It is hard to accurately trace back the actual invention, imposition or discovery of ethics to mankind, but it is commonly believed that the existence of ethics is to forbid human beings from conducting unjustified harm to the others. It is indeed true that the practice of these ethics has been providing the society to work in an organized manner, promising human beings a constant civilization. However, on the other hand, do this so-called authority and professional have always actually behaved well and never misused their powers, or are people giving too much respect and obey to them more than people actually should?        

Isn’t it obvious that the “elephant in the room” in this movie had symbolized the reality of people not voicing out when they see an issue or a problem, alongside the phenomenon of people following the instructions of the authority despite of themselves claiming that they were not “these kind” of obedient individuals afterwards. Personally, I suppose that people are being too afraid to disobey an authority’s instruction or voice out an issue, and most importantly, to not getting themselves into any possible trouble. However, at the same time, in my opinions, it is such an irony when those respects or titles of the authority should actually be earned compared to be given as granted, especially when the authorities are not even doing their jobs right. With this being said, people always do have their rights to stop from doing anything that goes against their will; obedience is not the only option.

Just trying to look back what kind of life human beings have had in the past; our ancestors used to practice the concept of “only the strong ones could survive”, but later it had all evolved to should human beings follow the rules and norms set by the authority and the society. Are not we as human beings have been living a life that has becoming with too many restrictions gradually?

If I were given the chance to conduct a social experiment without the restriction of money, resources and possibly ethical concerns, I would definitely want to find out that how people are going to respond to injustice in life because the current system of society does not really justify how things should work; laws and regulations no longer appear to be fair and square to everyone. And, most of the authorities or the wealthy ones tend to misuse their powers to gain themselves unjustified benefits, with the likelihood to harm the welfare or well-being of the others; therefore, I am interested to know whether the inner beast of human beings would do the work when people are in the situation to express their feelings of injustice towards the individuals who misuse their powers, as in physical punishment. For example, people who do corruption.

Reference

McLeod, S. A. (2007). The Milgram Experiment. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

Amadeus

Envy can help, but also kills;

Innocence is good, but also lethal.

            Let’s see, you have been spending almost all your life trying to be an expert of music composer, but someone can do it with minimum effort in one shot, and craft a masterpiece. And, you got responses like “You are doing good,” “she is just being talented,” and “You are good at your own.” How do you feel? Sad? Envy? Disappointed?

Without a doubt, most people can relate to sentences like these, but why? Are most of the people doing not good enough, or they are just being normal. Are certain people just born to be talented, or to be the love of God — uncompetable?

In this movie, Amadeus, Mozart and Salieri would certainly fit into this situation. Mozart was so young and innocent, yet a talented person in music; Salieri on the other hand, seemed to be on the opposite end. To be fair, Salieri was not totally bad or not talented in music, but he was just not as good as Mozart. Compared to Mozart, he perceived himself as a mediocre one, or the saint of mediocrities which he called himself as. Undeniably, Salieri did pay a lot of effort in his work, and kept on improving himself, but he just cannot be as good as Mozart. It was extremely ironic when Mozart’s Eine Kleine Nachtmusik was easily identifiable by a young priest who was not well trained in music in the movie compared to his own music.

Salieri was so angry and being so envious of Mozart’s talent, yet at the same time, he just cannot help himself because he truly appreciated and enjoyed every piece of Mozart’s music; he never missed Mozart’s performance. Salieri always compared himself to Mozart, questioning why Mozart was so good, to the extent that he had finally decided to identify Mozart as a love of God who was uncompetable. However, Salieri did not want to show his envy and hatred to Mozart, but choosing to help Mozart by time to time. It was cognitive dissonance, where Salieri’s attitudes and behaviors were contradicting to each other (Ciccarelli & White, 2015). Sadly, Salieri’s intense envy slowly engulfed his rationale, and eventually pushed Mozart to the boundary of death; whether had it come to his realization, his helps towards Mozart were more like stresses, severe stresses that killed Mozart.

Nevertheless, perhaps Salieri was not solely the one to blame. This was because Mozart himself on the other hand, was so playful, spending all his earnings on alcohols and leisure, and so innocent, believing Salieri was his genuine friend who was always being supportive and helpful to him all the times. Yes, if only if Mozart were to be more sensitive and cautious, realizing all the bad intentions from the others, and being more well-behaved, he could have saved himself from death. Pitiful, he did not. Well, at the very least, Mozart’s innocence had indeed granted him the sincerest happiness and gratification. His behaviors and attitudes maybe were less pleasing to the others, but his passion and confidence in this music was affirmatively something to learn. Despite of having doubts from the Majesty and the royal musicians towards his music, he was certain, certainly enough to tell that he was a vulgar man, but assuring that his music was not; it was his attitude towards music.

At the end of the day, perhaps it was all about perceptions. Rather than putting too much of emphasis on the wrong or true side, people might want to learn from the history, and reflect upon themselves. Everyone has indeed born to be different, different on the external side and internal side, or physical and mental. Just like Mozart, and many other people are born to be gifted or talented, but such giftedness and talents have caused some of them to be overwhelmed in their own worlds, disregarding themselves from the others and missing out the other essences of life and threats. On the other end, some might be born to be normal, but they are being appreciative and grateful of the life they have, treating everyone as equally well and putting the least defense on the others.

Civilization has surely provided human beings a better, modern and advanced life compared to the past, but sarcastically, people are still being hurt and harmed by each other due to their own mentalities. Taking envy and innocence as example; they are not absolutely a good or bad thing, but a subjective matter depends on how one would perceive and take it. Personally, to me, it is all about having to achieve the balance of everything, having an absolute and extreme idea on either endpoint does not guarantee how a thing would work. And, most importantly, live a life that you would find yourself to be at the utmost joy prior of not hurting the well-being of the others, period.

Reference

Ciccarelli, S. K., & White, J. N. (2015). Psychology (4th ed.). England: Pearson Education Limited.

Forget Paris

How to love?

            Oftentimes, people are easily to fall in love with each other, but not there to stay. “He is not the type that I like, she is being inconsiderate all the time, he is always not here when I need him the most, she does not have the caring that I expect” — certainly the most common breakup reasons one is familiar with. So, why? Do people breakup actually because they do not love each other anymore or their partners are always being disappointing, or that is not even “love” in the first place?

Over the decades, some spent their whole life finding the person suits them the most, some tried to provide the “most complete love guides” for couples, some might also emphasize and associate sex with love a lot; undoubtedly, there is a list of positive and negative character traits that one can always refer to, but is there really a staple love “formula” out there for people to find their “true” or “real” love? I would say no.

             In this movie, Forget Paris, I was able to see how Mickey and Ellen met each other, fall in love and got married to each other. They have had a most memorable memory of that one week in Paris, yet the most serious argument and separation between each other later. Their experience and story might not the most romantic and lovely one, but definitively a meaningful one to me. From them, I have learned that a couple do not necessary have to give up and change their habits and interests to fit the will of the other half, but rather appreciating and cherishing each other’s dreams or differences. Eventually, Mickey and Ellen had showed that they were not stayed together to demand each other to do the things they did not like, but being the supportive one for each other to do the things each other wanted to do himself and herself. Additionally, they had demonstrated that the individual differences between each other shall be embraced and not to be shaped into one’s own liking; how the other half behaves and believes is what make him or her as a unique and attractive individual.

            Based on the triangular theory of love by Robert Stenberg, I would say that Mickey and Ellen had finally gone through all the obstacles between themselves, and achieve the ultimate happiness of love or consummate love that includes the main three components, namely intimacy, passion and commitment (Sternberg, 1986). Passion, they are physically aroused when they saw each other and had sex, and feeling emotional whenever they had to leave each other; Intimacy, it was a tough one for them to go through because they were not willingly to share with each other about their own feelings and thinking initially, but then they had realized what they really need was to share and listen to each other’s most genuine feelings; Commitment, even with the other two previously mentioned components, they were still lacking of commitment between themselves as they had been having demanding attitudes towards each other, only until in the end, they have understood that respecting each other’s values and attitudes, and being supportive of each other’s interests and wills was the key to their happiness.

Undeniably that communication plays an important role between couple, but it should be done properly. Being expectant or irrationally project emotions into the communication is not going to help, but worsen the situation. For example, when Mickey was discussing with Ellen that he wanted to work as a referee after having all the unhappiness of working as a cars salesman, he was expecting Ellen to notice him of feeling unhappy, and turned up to be emotional after knowing she was not aware of it. As suggested by Wiley (2007), a healthy communication within couple should be kept in a soft and safe manner, in the sense that couple should not bring in their own aggressive, unstable, insulting and judgmental feeling and thinking into the conversation.

Nevertheless, is the way of how Mickey and Ellen treating and loving each other the primal way people should thoroughly follow? I would say yes and no. Yes, as they had truly showed a way to love, that was workable on themselves; No, though they had many to be learned from the others, but people should always remember that everyone is different, nobody should really be the copy of another, living a life that provides the true happiness is more of the thing to chase after. And, most importantly, for me, love is not always all about perfection and fairytale-like experience, but the journey that I can find myself to live comfortably with my other half, in a respectful and support manner to share each other’s feelings and dreams, with the willingness to go through the obstacles in life or between each other.

References

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.

Wiley, A. R. (2007). Connecting as a couple: Communication skills for healthy relationships. The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues, 12(1).

Strictly Ballroom

Dance isn’t always strictly ballroom; Life is full of possibilities

            Not going to lie, it definitely took me awhile to understand the meaning of the title of this movie, Strictly Ballroom. And, I got to admit the choosing of this title was smart. Though the behaviors of the main character, Scott had much contradicted with the movie title, but it was done in a good way; audiences are likely to be reminded of the primal intention of dancing or the ways to live a life.

Isn’t dancing a way of expressing oneself and a form of art, but ironically, in the movie, people were tightly restricted by all the rules, refraining themselves from dancing in the ways they wanted, with freedom or free will as the basics. Yes, undoubtedly, one might easily argue that the rules and standards set for dancing competition were to provide a guideline for dancers on what kind of dances shall be presented, preventing themselves from performing something that was merely out of tune, and possibly putting other dancers into an unfair competition due to the unstandardized dance moves to be potentially presented. In the movie, Scott had clearly gone against the rules of the competition, yet he got the most intensive responds from the crowd, why? I think that it was because he put winning the competition as a least concern, but wanted to demonstrate something new, and most importantly — the initial purpose of dancing.

Therefore, should such behavior be encouraged? I will certainly say yes, but not necessary in all sort of contents. Indeed, art is the expression of one’s free will and creativity, intended to be appreciated of its beauty on its own unique way, so limiting people from presenting it in the ways they want will definitely kill its purpose and people’s creativity, but when it comes to a competitive sense, I think people should be competed against each other under a same category. For example, in the movie, Scott and Fran were dancing the Pasodoble that was not included in the competition format. I mean it was not wrong to dance Pasodoble, but it was rather unsuitable in a formal competition that did not include this kind of dance style. Based on the movie, perhaps Scott was lacking a platform other than the Pan Pacific Grand Prix to showcase his own dance steps or dance style, or he was just being egoistic and wanted to show off his crazy and crowd-pleasing dance steps, nonetheless, I think the main intention of the filmmaker was wanting the audiences to have the courage to do the things we want without letting the fears conquering us.

“Son, it was the dancing that mattered.

            We should have put that above everything else.

            We had the chance, but we were scared!

            We walked away! We lived our lives in fear!”

            These were the quoting of Scott’s father, Doug in the movie that seems to be meaningful to me. How many of us are actually living a life that is filled with fears that could be overcame; fear to lose, fear to be judged, fear to voice out, or fear of commitment. People are living on the outside, but dying on the inside; many people choose to handicap their will and dream themselves, or it is the society has been crippling the human nature and their unharmful free will to just to live out their life. Additionally, I think most of the Asians, including myself were brought up with the culture of disallowing ourselves from voicing out our opinions, let alone a good one or a bad one. Over the years, we are so afraid to do whatever we want, and fears have gradually engulfed our confidence.

            Life might not always be good to a person, but it is surely full with possibilities and not always be limited by all the rules and norms that obstruct the ways we should act and behave. It is definitely the time to change, people might not be born the same or equally, but each of us possess the chance to change; changing ourselves to become better ones, starting to do things that we want, showcasing the talents we have got, and not living our lives in fear.