What goes on beneath the skull?

Mindhunter (Miniseries, S1-2, 19 episodes)
Director: David Flincher et al.

Growing up, being exposed to all those Hollywood movies and T.V. crime dramas, I used to wonder why was it that they were so many serial killers in America. Fast forward to the present, not necessarily much wiser; I think this type of crime is evenly distributed worldwide. As people become aware of such psychologically-related killings, more get exposed. It used to be that crimes and murders happened because of money, women, power and anger. Now we have another component to feed, our unexplainable inner desire to inflict pain, destroy and gloat in the joy of executing, planning, reminiscing, reliving the moment and being in the limelight dodging it. 

One reason why serial killer murders can be extensively investigated in the USA and Europe is the availability of funds and manpower. Even years after the cases have turned 'cold', there is a push from society to continue investigating these cases. The State has the finances to invest in newer forensic tools and mobilise resources as the situation warrants.

This miniseries was set in 1997 and the years after that. It was a time when the FBI was trying to make sense of the nonsensical killings that happened in the 1960s all through the 1970s. They had started a unit, Behavioural Science Unit (BSU), to look into these crimes and the killers' minds and make sense of it.

If one is expecting swashbuckling police-and-robbers car-chasing drama in this one, he will surely be disappointed. The series is quite cerebral, with a lot of talking and mental gymnastics. The characters are complex, and their life stories form part of the storytelling drama. It revolves around three FBI agents and a psychology professor. They interview convicted serial killers (the name that they came up with for these killers who kill in a particular pattern and leave specific signatures). The initial name was Sequential Killers. They were to build a rapport, map their mind and hopefully use their knowledge to catch future serial killers.

Good casting and makeup of serial killers' lookalike

Some criminals they interviewed include David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), Ed Kemper (Co-ed Killer), Ted Bundy and Charles. Manson (who influenced hippies to do his killings). In the second season, a good portion is spent investigating and catching the Atlanta Child Murders. In real life, the Atlanta murders happened in the 1979-81 bracket, involving up to 26 child murders and two adults. A person was sentenced for the murders of the two adults, but no one has ever been charged for the 26 black children. It has a sore point for the black population in Atlanta in the State of Georgia.

An engaging watch, 4.8/5. Even though everyone knows that the show was left hanging with the story of a man with an ADT uniform acting funny, probably itching to murder someone, begging to be told, the filmmakers have said they have no immediate plans for a third season because it is too expensive.

(P.S. A question often asked is whether criminals are born or are they nurtured? Are the parents to be blamed for their children's murderous malfeasance? Can upbringing mould a wrong design into a useful one? Children's lousy conduct has often strained husband-wife relationships. The desire to give the best for the children has frequently given just the opposite effects. Growing in the same environment, even siblings follow different trajectories.)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

When madness is accepted as norm!

Shutter Island (2010)
Director: Martin Scorsese

Back when India was a newly independent nation, its Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, was officiating the opening of a psychiatric hospital in New Delhi. As part of his visit, he did a walkabout. All its inmates were excited to have a PM visiting them. All of them were standing smiling, waiting for Nehru to speak with them, except one. He was sitting in a corner, looking away, staring into space. Nehru approached him. 

"Hello, how are you?" told Nehru. "I am the Prime Minister of India. How do you find this hospital?" The man slowly turned around, lifted his head to look at the Premier, and replied, "Yeah, that is what I thought when I first arrived, too. Don't worry, they will give you medicine, and you will be alright!"

That is how it is. There is a thin line between reality and insanity, which is detachment from reality. It is all about perspective. Imagine telling the world that someone is watching you all the time, and you will be labelled as having paranoid schizophrenia in the 1980s. Now, it is legitimate to have closed-circuit TV all over the place to monitor citizens for the public's safety. Remember when the Soviet Union and the USA had such high numbers of schizophrenics. The peculiar thing about their condition is that a Soviet schizophrenic will be labelled normal in the US and vice versa. 

We are well aware of the concept of gaslighting and Munchausen Syndrome by proxy. Popularised by Ingrid Bergman's 1944 film 'Gaslight', a husband tinkers with the home fittings and events around the wife to convince her that she is turning mad. Munchausen Syndrome, by proxy, is another favourite theme of Hollywood. Here, the parent or the caregiver, usually with advanced medical knowledge, will wilfully keep their subject either by exaggerating symptoms or by poisoning their ward themselves to give themselves (the caregivers) a sense of importance. 

It seems that it is easy to suggest mental illness. If one does not conform to the perceived acceptable mode of conduct, he is deemed a deviant. He is ignorant if he does not subscribe to one way of thinking. If a specific ritual is not followed, he is unstable. A label would be put upon him by the rest. 

There will come a time, as is already happening now, when bizarre behaviours that used to be frowned upon are considered normal. Many of these acts go under the cloak of self-expression and privacy setting. One is not supposed to bat an eyelid when a hirsute, phenotypically male person with a full moustache and beard decides to don a body-hugging dress and put on a 6-inch stiletto, strutting his posterior to an unamused crowd.

This film is an interesting one where the viewers are left to guess what is real and which are imagined. What is right and what is wrong? Between good and evil. Two US Marshalls are sent to investigate the missing case of an inmate of a hospital for the criminally insane. As the Marshalls get deep into their case, they realise that many things do not match.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Hypnotised to conform?

Old Boy (Korean; 2003)
Director: Park Chan-wook

It looks like we are walking around like hypnotised beings, doing what is taught to us. We were coached to hold specific values close to our hearts because that seems the only correct way to live our lives. Again and again, we are drilled with these ideas to give a sacrosanct feel to it. In a way, we are all zombies walking around doing things expected of us. The funny thing is that nobody knows what is expected from our existence. We are told that, unlike other creations, humans are given that unique sense called consciousness that puts us apart from animals. Hence, there is a need to follow specific rules.

Living life by preset man-made rules must be difficult. Failure to conform carries a baggage load of guilt, and the results may not be most welcoming. Anger toward one's own self may cause malady of the mind. Anger towards others will invoke the very primitive primal desires that we kept suppressed as we become more 'civilised'. That act is Revenge. This film is the second offering of the director's trilogy on Revenge - the first being 'The Sympathy for Mr Vengeance' (2002) and the last being 'Lady Vengeance' (2005).

This story is about the annoying drunk Oh Dae-su, who is caught by the police for unruly behaviour. He is bailed out by his friend. Dae-su soon goes missing afterwards. In fact, he is imprisoned in a hotel for 15 years, where his only contact with the outside world is a TV. He soon realises that he is wanted for killing his wife. Confused with the whole arrangement, he is released one day. Dae-su tries to find his captor and the real reason behind his incarceration.

The convoluted movie deals with many unpleasant subjects like incest and suicide. A thought-provoking one, though. 4.5/5.

(It seems that the 1998 Asian Economic Crisis was a turning point for Korean cinema. When all other industries were down, the government decided to give incentives to its film industry. Pretty soon, the world started seeing quality Korean miniseries and soap operas. Way before 'Paradise' won the Oscars, there were already in existence many avant-garde Korean films which pushed the boundaries of film-making.)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Do we really know?

Drive My Car (Japanese; 2021)
Director: Ryusuke Hamaguchi
Based on Short Story by Haruki Murakami

I have not read any of Murakami's works; I guess I should. His body of work is said to reflect the deep, dark corners of human consciousness. After watching this highly engaging movie, I think I should engage time to appreciate his writings.

As in all good movies, the viewers are clueless for a good one hour into the film. I was wondering where the story was going. Why was the protagonist, Kafuku, a theatre actor, who was acting in 'Waiting for Godot', keeps driving around? Why did he not react when he caught his wife, Oto, sleeping with another man? What is this about Oto and telling stories? Then there is the history of a dead child. And then the wife dies too.

Two years on, Kafuku is on a directing stint in Hiroshima. The company insists that they hire a chauffeur for him to drive his 1987 Saab Turbo. The chauffeur, Misaki, a young 20 something woman, seems to carry a massive burden upon her shoulders. She had lost her mother in a landslide. There is more to that.

The man who was seen in bed with Oto earlier, Kōji, auditions for the play and is selected. The play is Chekov's 'Uncle Vanya'. The crux of the story is how all these characters resolve their respective deep-seated unresolved issues by their actions or inactions. Just like the pandemic that jolts us from the lull of comfort, at the end of the film, the reboot button is set.

We think we have an explanation for everything. Yet, many things do not make sense. We seek clarity but still, the answers elude us. Peace of mind is disrupted by carrying these unresolved matters in our psyche. Maybe, we should let it be. Move on.

(P.S. Another introduction to another of Russia's many talented writers, and considered to be one of the world's greatest writers of the world, Anton Pavlovich Chekov. A doctor by profession, he wrote stories to support his family. Famously is quoted to have said, 

"Medicine is my lawful wife, literature, my mistress."

.)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

A peek into the human psyche...

100 humans (Netflix, 2020)

This could be one of the series which one can skim as he undergoes house arrest during these trying times of combating Covid-19. Even though the show brags of trying to answer all of life's questions on humans and their behaviours through its social experiments, it is, by no means, cerebral. 

The Guardian labels it as one of the most worthless reality-experiment-pseudoscience show in history. Perhaps, it is a bit unkind to label it such, but some of the experiments that the show do are quite outlandish and their conclusions simplistic. 

Some of the life questions that the show asks include 'What makes Us Attractive', 'Best Age to be Alive', 'about the Battle of the Sexes', 'Biasness of Society', 'Happiness', 'Pain versus Pleasure' and 'Distrusting our Senses'.

One of the bizarre assumptions here is that the ability of a male to dance is indicative of attractiveness, hence, potentially fertile. And the fertilising ability is deduced from a seminal analysis. Someone who has the grooves on the dance is supposed to be teeming with swimmers. Of course, one does not develop two left feet once he undergoes a vasectomy. Clinically we know that sperm count is not indicative of virility. 

Besides that, there are a few interesting discussions with their guest psychologists and psychiatrists. Do uniforms make a person more desirable? Maybe a person in authority but definitely not in the lower rung of the society. Does a symmetrically balanced facial cut give one a get-out-of-jail-card free? It apparently does. And being comically funny melt hearts?

The schism between the sexes is discussed. The classic stereotyping of ladies not keeping to time is said to be debunked. The guys are, however, quite economical with their words. The graph of happiness is convexed at either end of one's lifespan. The young look at the life ahead of them of zest while the silver-haired are happy doing what they like at a leisurely pace. The concepts of fluid and crystalline memories are discussed briefly. 

Whether we like it or not, people are biased. Their opinions of people are made from a composite of the colour of their skin, their previous experiences and prejudices, gender biases and accents. (maybe religion too but it is not discussed here.)

To a certain level, we are all social animals and are prone to conform to society. Herd mentality is prevalent. 

Money makes people work harder. However, when it comes to creativity, passion supersedes financial remunerations to create that Van Gogh or Mona Lisa. Music has shown to affect our moods and even increased our boldness to take risks. The idea of a person with a surname that starts in the earlier part of the alphabet list tends to do better in life may not really true.

Overall, when you are quarantined in the house in the company of your loved ones and start questioning the purpose of your existence on Earth, this may be a precursor to the journey of self-discovery.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Does the shepherd really have his flock's interest at heart?

We were told to surrender to the care of the shepherd. We should trust him unconditionally, for he has your best interest at heart. He is selfless and would not call it a day until the last sheep is accounted for. He would not harm his flock. Every member of the herd, small or big, meaty or skinny, young or old, is equally important to him. He will not rest his head until every member is safe and sound. So we were told. And it made perfect sense then. Pack your worries, fold it and give it for safekeeping with the shepherd. He would guide us through, and we would be safe. We will be saved.

Now that we have crossed the hurdles, we become conceited. We think all these successes are our efforts, ours alone. 

When we are told of the good shepherd and their noble intentions, we ask them to think of the true nature of his plan. He has no altruistic purpose. His sole aim to fatten his pack. Every sheep lost is lost revenue. His seemingly caring attitude is merely to fatten us to prepare us for the slaughter. Just like a 'mother hen' grooming a tender spring chicken for the profession, we were just being marinated for the grill. 

We can be the occasion sheep that wanders away, that may be mauled by predators or that he wants us to believe. We may be discarded as a recalcitrant, be abandoned as an insensible loss. Are our actions somehow going to turn the status quo on its back?

The majority find it easier just to follow the pack. It is too much hard work to think. Searching for the truth is too laborious.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

We flock together when the odds are against us.

Sometimes (Sila Samayanggil, Tamil, சில சமயங்கில்; 2018)
Netflix

We consider ourselves one step better than a stranger standing beside us. We gaze at them through our rose-tinted glasses when they are unaware and draw our own conclusions on their moral standards and codify them either 'good' or 'bad'.

All these changes immediately the moment there is an imminent danger or a potentially life-consuming event in the near future. Imagine a group of passengers in a cruise who are stranded in a terrible storm, have lost all radio contacts and just waiting for time to sink if help does not arrive in time. In that scenario, everybody put their prejudices aside, treat each other as equal and try to face the common enemy.

This is the scenario that the filmmakers are trying to create. Seven patients are waiting anxiously in a sparsely populated lobby for their HIV results. Each patient has their own story that brought them to get their blood tested - an ex-girlfriend dying from AIDS, a single contact with a sex worker, a rape victim, someone who helped a road traffic accident victim who later died with HIV and so on. I guess the storyteller decided to stay from a gay or a promiscuous character as he would probably be the focus of the story or take the suspense part out of guessing who would turn HIV+ later. In the midst of all these is a counter clerk at the hospital who has serious money issues. 

The seven patients could not stand the pressure of having to wait until the end of the day to get the results. They try to bribe the clerk to expedite the results, but all she could do was to tell that one of the seven of them got the bad news. The question is which one of them? That creates suspense that lasts throughout the later part of the film.

The whole movie takes place in a single set mostly, and in a single day. A slow-moving but intense drama with enough melodrama to satisfy the appetite of Tamil moviegoers. An AIDS awareness movie. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

You are so gullible!

Derren Brown: Netflix special (2018)
Push, Sacrifice

Darren Brown calls himself a psychological illusionist. He devises elaborate scams with his team of actors, engineers, stuntmen and others to influence his subjects to willingly perform heinous crimes or sometimes unthinkable sacrifices. He does all these with just suggestions as if the subjects are doing it at their own free will. 

In an episode named 'Push', four people are shortlisted from a pool of applicants to help out in a charity event. He used the famous test where applicants stand up at the ring of a bell without any rhyme or reason to pick his choice. This is a classical experiment done by psychologists to illustrate that humans are mere unthinking conformists. To cut the long story short, three out of the four candidates that Brown selected could be coaxed to push a man off the edge of the roof at the order of a person in authority. This result is comparable to the Milgram Experiment in 1963 to illustrate our utter obedience to people in authority. This experiment followed the Eichmann trial in 1961. The world could not fathom how a simple looking civil servant could systemically send prisoners into the gas chamber as if it was a banal thing to do.

In the "Sacrifice' episode, an American man with very fixed negative views on the rise of immigrants in the USA is manipulated, in an elaborate scam that spanned both sides of the Atlantic, to make him take a bullet to protect an illegal Mexican immigrant.

It just goes to illustrate how Man can be manipulated for better or worse. The lessons learnt from these shows are nothing new but may give a new perspective to younger viewers.

The thing often not considered in this type of shows is what happens to the participants after the show. Is knowing that they have dark evil tendencies lurking within them, like pushing a person from the edge of a building going to leave an indelible mark on their future prospect of employment or mental state? Is meddling with the participants' inner crypts of their psyche going to unleash the inner dark thoughts or scar them forever? 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Thinking is hard work...

That is the danger of self-teaching oneself of philosophy. One tends to garble everything up and develop his own 'brand' of philosophy. It cannot be such a wrong thing, on the contrary, since no two philosophers can completely agree with each other. Whatsmore, even students and masters have parted ways upon minor disagreements. Think Plato and Aristotle, Freud and Jung, you know what I am talking about. Even with time, a particular interpretation can morph, perhaps as an afterthought or in keeping with the flavour of the era.

The scope of the field of philosophy itself has evolved over time. If before it used to encompass everything under the sun and beyond, mathematics, grammar and sciences included, it is now agreed that it covers knowledge, life and existence. Since the journey of life does not come with a preset map, I guess that it could be sailed anyway we like as long as we live and let live. Let everybody navigate his own route.

 I always thought Plato was just a scribe to Socrates train of thoughts. Socrates never wrote any books but engaged in public discourses in the marketplace (agora). Plato helped to disseminate Socratic teachings to the world. 

But then, I realise that there are some subtle differences in their approaches in their attempts to explore the meaning of life. Socrates believed that discussion out in the open with any Tom, Dick and Harry would bring out wisdom. Knowledge has no boundaries, and not everyone knows everything. Hence, everyone can bring something to the table; a sailor on the understanding of the high seas, a weaver on mastery of designs, a surgeon the grasp of the functions of the body and so on.

In 'The Apology' Socrates compared himself to an annoying gadfly that constantly irritates the horse. He prods others to think, introspect and find the answers to life questions that lay in front from us. He was a master teacher who could needle out responses. He is quoted to have said that his actions are, "as upon a great noble horse which was somewhat sluggish because of its size and needed to be stirred up by a kind of gadfly."

Maya

Plato, in 'The Republic',  as seen in the Cave allegory, thinks that people are like the prisoners who see the world through shadows on the wall look at reality through their own lenses. They are so convinced of their perception of the world that they are unconvinced when a knowledgeable person tries to convince them of the colourful three-dimensional world out there. People need leaders to pave the path for them; preferably, leaders should be philosophers.

When we look around us, Platonic teachings seem to hold many truths. People find it easier to just follow preset rules without thinking. Using the brain is a very strenuous exercise. Following a set protocol decided by the powers that be absolves them from liabilities and wild accusations. They are protected. At the same time, they forget that, through this means, they can be manipulated by self-serving leaders. Some professions demand such obedience. The country wants a soldier to carry out his assignments without having a second thought. When his superior commands him to kill the bandits, his job is shoot, not introspect. But then, does this rhetoric also apply to the promise of a good after-life or better placing in the karmic ladder by an intangible force in the celestial space?

https://asok22.wixsite.com/real-lesson 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/riflerangeboy/