Maniac!

Insidious

This movie was so promising at first. The suspense was there. The story was there, and the acting was there. The most upsetting part about this film was being guided along with the promise of something great, in that,the grand reveal was going to be  frightening and stimulating. With so much suspense being the strength of the movie, and the antagonist, being so other worldly, the ending of the film, was obligated to a consummation, that  was suppose to bring the elements of  the film together cohesively, and it did so, but in a sophomoric fashion. The production at the end transformed a film that was so ominous in tone, into a carnival that could be described as a Charles Mason collage of  haphazard statements intended to be axiomatic, but ended up being weird explosive film-salad. 

The Talented Mr. Ripley: A Fake Somebody

"I always thought it'd be better to be a fake somebody than a real nobody ".  This is such a memorable line because it seems so insightful. For a person who is searching for an identity, the appeal of pretending, in order to feel important, and to feel accepted, by denouncing the struggle to find one's genuine interest which is probably essential in realizing one's sense of  fulfillment, is a very real option. 

But the talented Mr. Ripley's efforts to become the real person he pretended to be  ultimately collapsed in a moment of introspection, marked by an honest look at what  he really was, a liar. Wanting to be somebody else because being himself provided no satisfaction, required an incredible measure of duplicity that involved and ever growing inventory of lies. These lies, in the multitude, became too much for Ripley to manage.  Mr. Ripley was talented, and his lack of awareness as to how to use his talents in a manner that would have granted the status of significance he passionately coveted, was his undoing. 

Some seek importance by acting like those who are already considered important. The yearning for significance, and the benefits of achieving this status, is too strong of  a temptation for some to repel, but the consequence acquiescing,  may be an identity conflict, involving the pressure to be truthful against the prestige of being significant.       

The Working Class in Romantic Comedies: My Best Friend's Girl

Minus a few economic details, many of the romantic comedies that I have watched portrays the plight of the working class with a satisfactory degree of accuracy. This is not relative to those who are suffering from considerable economic loss, but to the way of life of those with average economic means in their quest for love. In My Best Friends Girl , the main male characters played by Dane Cook and Jason Biggs, live in a place that seems fitting for college students. Based on how these characters are portrayed in the movie, they do not seem to possess the economic means to own an apartment, but with an injection of reality, the possibility of them owning the apartment with a stated income loan is not so far fetched. 

Keeping in line with reality, Cook's character, Tank, works as a customer service representative/trainer at a call center. Tank's occupation, arguably, does not generate enough income for him to live without roommates, and the same applies to Jason Biggs's character. Toward the end of the film, Kate Hudson's character, Alexis, frankly tells Tank that his job is a "joke". The ending was quintessential Hollywood embellishment. 

Even with a home and a job that is far from impressive, Tank gets the girl; but in reality would there be economic factors that would greatly affect a man's likelihood of getting the girl? In romantic comedies the characters are not customarily affected by outsourcing, but in the real world people's capacity to experience love and romance, among other things, are greatly affected by the availability of jobs to pay for dates. 

Suppose Tank's call center job was outsourced to the Philippines, would this have affected Tank's chances of winning Alexis, who is after all, a career woman? Marked by one partner constantly sponsoring another partner, is a strain on relationships resulting from economic restraints, and in this case, Alexis would have been the sponsor, who is constantly paying for everything because Tank's job was outsourced.

Equilibrium

Equilibrium is a film I like to revisit occasionally, because the premise of human beings' capacity to feel is what begets a chaotic world, almost seems unquestionable, especially for those who are sentimental about the prospect of a Utopian society. As human beings, many of us have been in a situation where our emotions have conquered our sense of diplomacy, allowing some form of violence to serve as the agency for settling the issue. Recognizing that the lack of control of one's emotions can lead to violence, or poor decision making, is a universal human penchant, and abdicating human beings from the dictatorship of emotions in order to establish a world free of violence including war, is grossly self evident.

At first glance this premise strikes as a revelation, but as the film develops the premise is not so cogent and not so epiphanic. Equilibrium presents a society where human emotions are controlled by the scheduled injection of a drug called "prozium" during specific times of the day. Every member of the society takes the drug at the same time. A rigid opposition to emotions is ubiquitous. Everyone must live a life free of emotion, from adults to children. This is a society where music, colors, paintings, and even crying is forbidden. Those who revolt and strive to live an emotional life are branded as "sense offenders", and their offenses are punishable by bullets, or incineration. Paintings are burned. Books are burned. People are burned. Dogs are shot. Obedience to the state is rewarded.

The enforcers of the ethos that emotions are the cause of war and violence, are not cognizant that they are using war and violence to sustain a world free of war and violence. If war and violence are used to sustain a world free of war and violence, is the world really free of war and violence? No. The peaceful society sustained by scheduled injections of "prozium" and violence against sense offenders indicates that there is a war. It is a war against emotion. And the violence against those who choose to feel is the signature of that war.

Those who participate in this society appear to sustain an equable way of life that is partly characterized by a internal trilateral resistance of prozium and reason versus emotion. Is this constitutive of a peaceful and happy person? Peaceful perhaps. Happy perhaps not. Indeed this issue presents an interesting question of whether a peaceful society is a happy society. While this society appears to be peaceful, describing this society has a collection of happy individuals would be challenging. With emotions being so stigmatized, happiness would have to be defined by the ability of people feel the least amount emotions as possible. The less one feels, the happier one is.

Since there is such a relentless vigilance against emotions, the members of this society are watchmen of their own emotional suppression, and they are perpetually encumbered with the task of controlling their emotions by the injection of prozium. As peaceful as this society aims to be, there is constant control by the authorities as people deal with the struggles of controlling their emotions. Sense offenses are dealt with draconian swiftness, and because emotional suppression means no war and violence, this does not necessarily mean there is peace, for one the challenges of being human is to have reason and emotion come to an equilibrium.