Two films about trauma (and how the theme heightens my appreciation of them)

Those films are The Babadook and Good Will Hunting.

I already liked them at the first watch. I liked the former for its slow-burn and jumpscare-free horror. I liked the latter for its heart-warming drama. But, I didn’t find them special and I certainly thought the latter was way too overrated.

Recently, I tried rewatching them and I realised I missed something. Both films are about trauma.

Well, technically, The Babadook is still about grief. But. the film also focuses its long-term psychological effects and yes, grief can be traumatising. In the case of Amelia Vanek, the mother in the film, it is doubly traumatic because her husband died in a car accident while driving her to the hospital to give birth.

Good Will Hunting is about how trauma affects the titular character’s personal growth and his relationship with the other characters. His genius brain is just a mere detail to make him more captivating for the audience. If he doesn’t have it, I guarantee the story would not feel much different emotionally.

Now, how does the trauma theme improve my appreciation of the films? Well, it makes me understand the characters on a deeper level.

In The Babadook, while I already recognised her grief, I genuinely thought the film was about her daily stress of being a working single mother. But, it doesn’t explain why she seems distressed all the time – as if the stress is “permanent” – and it certainly doesn’t explain her emotional instability.

Trauma can also explain the behaviours of Samuel, the son. I don’t know if he inherits his mom’s trauma or not (as it can be hereditary). But, it is very possible he can sense something is wrong with her; he can sense there is something sinister brewing inside his mom and she can snap at any time. He is not being annoying, he is being reasonably fearful.

It also explains why the monster still lives in the end. From what I understand, trauma – the more severe one, at least – is not something you can get rid of; it is something you can only put a leash on. You cannot kill the Babadook. But, you can tame it.

And that segues to Good Will Hunting, specifically the therapist character, Sean Maguire. We don’t seem to realise that, like Will, he also suffers from trauma.

Will insulted his wife, which was enough to provoke Sean to throttle and threaten to kill him… and that happened on their very first session, by the way; anger issue is one of the most common symptoms of trauma. Sean was also abused by his father and he is a Vietnam war veteran who saw his best friend dying in front of him.

We can make an intriguing comparison between the two characters. On one hand, they are very similar to each other; not only they are “Southies” AKA from South Boston, they also have traumatic life experiences, which include being abused by their so-called parental figures.

But, at the same time, they are also different from each other. Will – to put it simply – is a mess of a person; he is aimless, he cannot be emotionally vulnerable in front of his lover and he has constant problems with the law. Meanwhile, Sean has sorted his life together; he works as a therapist and a community college professor and, most importantly, he romantically pursued a woman and married her for eighteen years until her death.

Of course, unlike Sean, Will was also an orphan, which means he had less opportunities and – without any intention to minimise Sean’s suffering – was also in a far more vulnerable state; self-improvement is admittedly harder to obtain for him.

But, at the same time, Sean’s life story feels hopeful. It shows we can overcome our pain and not letting it holding us down. We can prevail against the storm.

I still don’t think both films are among the best in the history. But, my acknowledgement of the underlying theme puts light on new perspectives. The films are much deeper than I realised.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Non-fat people can also be greedy motherf***ers

Before Smosh, I was only occasionally exposed to Reddit stories. Now, thanks to the videos, I am more familiar with them.

Many of the stories are undoubtedly infuriating. But, there is one which hits different: this is the first one which I find….. triggering.

In this story, an obese man got called a pig because he finished the last remaining sandwiches at a party and the reddit comment section thought he was the asshole. If you pay attention to the details, calling him the asshole is a bit too much.

First thing first, it was at a party and the foods were meant to be eaten. Unless you are one of those weirdos who think foods should be purely decorative.

Second, he said he waited for an hour before he ate the last remaining sandwiches, ensuring no one else wanted them. Despite having large appetite, he still had some self-control and tact.

Third, he brought chicken wings and, like the feral hairless apes they were, they gobbled every single one, leaving none for him. Not to mention they just watched, waited for him finishing the food before unleashing hell upon him.

While I may not be obese, I am still an overweight person with large appetite and I find the story too painfully relatable.

I am fatter than most people around me and yet, I have better self-control than many of them. My mom’s the worst.

Every time we eat at a restaurant, she almost always over-order the foods. When she doesn’t take heed of my complain, we – especially me – often end up feeling extremely nauseous at the end because I hate wasting foods and she has what we Indonesians call the “hungry eyes”: a condition in which we want certain things simply because we love their sights and not because we need them…. and that includes foods; yes, she rarely finish the food she over-orders.

Not only she lets her eyes conquering her guts, she also lets her tongue to do the same. It doesn’t matter how heavy and greasy a meal is, it would not satisfy her if it tastes like snacks. So, after a nauseating dinner of crispy fried wonton with cheesey potato filling (a recipe of her friend) which she insisted to be served with rice, she still wanted a “proper meal”; I had to buy fried chickens and fries from the McDonald’s for her.

And I haven’t talked about my high school friends. We were celebrating something at a restaurant (I forgot what) and we opted for buffet dinner. When it was time to eat, many of them acted like they hadn’t eat in days; they immediately took two plates and each was filled with a mountainous pile. And yes, they didn’t finish their foods.

While I admittedly eat a lot of foods and I am definitely guilty of regular emotional eating, I always finish my foods; food wise, I NEVER bite off more than I can chew. I never over-buy foods in supermarkets, I never over-order in restaurants and I certainly never pile foods in buffets. I certainly know my stomach’s limit.

Of course, unsurprisingly my mom thinks I am the one who lacks restraint. She also acts surprises every time I say I am full, as if greasy foods and snacks should never fill me up. Not to mention the fat-shaming I endured growing up, along with the other emotional abuses she committed.

And those high school friends? They had the gall to mock me for taking a second helping. While they were not abusive like she is, their hypocrisy is just as frustrating.

Nowadays, I am much braver in calling her out (which really violates her conservative Indonesian boomer sensibility). But, that trauma still lingers to this day, as shown by how triggered I am by the reddit story.

Obviously, the redditor and I do need to fix our eating habits. I acknowledge that people like us are endangering our own health and personally, I despise how the body positivity movement is hijacked by people who whitewash fatness; you can humanise fat people without pretending they are healthy.

But, at the same time, we must be honest with ourselves: non-fat people can also have bad eating habits and, if you have basic knowledge in health, there are other unhealthy habits that won’t make you fat. Fat-shamers never care about other people’s well-beings, they are just abusive cunts who hide behind so-called “good intentions” which gullible fucks fall for.

Despite his own shortcoming, he is obviously not the asshole. But, unfortunately, many on reddit think he is.

I have different assumptions of why that is.

Maybe they are just unfortunately myopic and thoughtlessly negligent with the details luridly displayed in front of them. As regrettable as it is, I can acknowledge they mean no harm with their opinions and their condition can be cured by teaching them basic reading comprehensions and empathy.

Maybe they are those self-hating fat and former fat people. They have yet to accept that they deserve criticisms and the opportunity of self-improvements without the abuses.

Or maybe they are those abusers. They read how the narrator is obese and they immediately go predatory-mode, seeing him as someone to prey upon for their own sadistic amusement.

.

.

As I said before, I found this story from one of Smosh’s reddit videos, hosted by Shayne Topp. Since I have been watching Smosh videos regularly, I – along with many – have been charmed by him.

Yes, he is physically attractive and funny. But, when he is not “performing”, he is also very chill and doesn’t take himself too seriously; judging from what his colleagues say about him (assuming they are telling the truth), he seems to be very likeable off-camera, so likeable they want to eat their lunches with him.

The reddit videos make him even more lovable for me. Even though I may not always agree with his assessments, he is the perfect host for such show: he is able to read between the lines, he is able to be nuanced without falling for false neutrality and he is not dismissive of other people’s life experiences.

With that reddit story, while he understands why people might get upset with the redditor’s behaviours, he also thinks the backlash is disproportionately harsh. He believes we can criticise the redditor without spewing venom.

And my crush for him gets him even stronger.

Yes, I know I have parasocial relationship with him. He doesn’t know I exist and if we ever meet, there is still very low chance we will ever be friends.

And yes, I also realise those traits of his may just be parts of his manufactured public persona. I shouldn’t be surprised or upset if they are eventually exposed as an act.

I have had parasocial relationships before. But, this is the first time I experience a very strong one in a long time. While I am more mentally impervious than most people I know, it still feels empowering when you grew up feeling lonely with your life experiences and a public figure validates them.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The problem with math and sports

Quite a while ago, I wrote a blogpost about how people’s hatred and fear of math was caused by the poor teaching; I even wrote an Indonesian version of it. While I didn’t write any about sports education, my sentiment was more or less the same.

But, recently, I realised I didn’t get the full story.

I remember that even when my sports and math teachers were pleasant, I still hated their classes. When I hear anecdotes about other people (from different countries, mind you) telling their bad experiences in those subjects, very rarely they mention abusive teachers.

While I still stand by my previous assertion, it is clear I was missing something. It took me some time to realise one glaring problem: the wider society.

Societies perceive math with high regards, albeit implicitly. It is believed that if you are good in natural sciences and engineering, disciplines which definitely incorporate math to some degree, you are immediately considered intelligent, regardless of the reality.

Sports are also culturally significant in many societies. They are more than just about health (if it was ever a concern in the first place), they are also about collective, borderline-religious identities and – most frustratingly – upholding arbitrary and ever-changing gender roles.

And those put pressures on us.

If you lack any penchant for STEM, let alone not showcasing talents for them, you are considered intellectually inferior cretins with no bright future; God forbids if you choose to major in “useless” and “soft” disciplines like social sciences and humanities, especially humanities.

If you lack any interests in sports, you will be perceived as anti-social (which is ironic considering the well-known behaviours of sports fans all over the world) and uncaring about your health (ignoring that many people do sports for the cool factor, for fun or to get laid and many of them still smoke and have poor eating habits). If you are male, that trait will make others perceive you as unmanly and effeminate.

Those pressures are already taunting enough. In this case, they seep in to the classrooms, adding even more stress to the already-stressful environments.

Some of you may argue the injury is “self-inflicted” and we let ourselves affected by other people. And I call that victim-blaming.

The thing about social pressures is they are not optional; they are forcibly imposed upon us and if we fail to fulfill them, we will be forcibly given unsavoury labels. Not giving a damn is harder than it sounds, especially when you are an impressionable teenager or you grew up with the belief that absolute conformity is a virtue.

Oh and, considering you actively participate in the shaming, you genuinely sound like a gaslighting abuser.

Some of you may also argue we are too whiny, considering every school class can also be traumatic and, in the end, we get the benefits of math and sports, anyway.

Benefits, what benefits?

Okay, math classes taught us basic calculating skills. But, what else? They fail to teach all of us rational thinking and they certainly fail to give all of us an entirely new perspective on life.

In my personal case, social science and humanities are the ones who gave me both; I started appreciating the complex and multifaceted nature of life – both in its tangible and intangible forms – after studying the disciplines in greater details.

Sports classes fail to make students physically fit and socially cooperative, not even in the short term. They fail to make us appreciate physical health and social interactions.

Let’s be honest here: how often do you hear about anyone traumatised by other school subjects, especially ones like arts and humanities?

Unless they involve abusive teachers and classmates or there are expectations to succeed in said disciplines, I am confident your answer is “rarely”. If you ask people about their least favorite subjects, I am confident math and sports would be among the top answers everywhere.

Admittedly, I cannot find any data which affirm my beliefs; I am entirely reliant on my personal observations. If you can provide multiple peer-reviewed studies which results can be replicated in various culturally distinct countries, I would change my view.

My point is that don’t put math and sports on the highest pedestals. Being high and mighty about them won’t do any good; it only makes people hate those school subjects even more.

And the more they hate those subjects, the less they will get the benefits.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Remember when Pope Francis shamed childless people who prefer pets?

I remember seeing people came to his defense, saying he was stating the truth: replacing children pets is a selfish act.

Of course, it is stupid. There is nothing selfish about a life decision that affects no one about yourself. If anything, it is selfish to have kids just for the sake of having them, without any considerations about your parenting skills.

If yours are terrible, not only your children would end up miserable, they would also end up giving nothing but negative contributions to their respective societies.

Deep down, those people hate that their subjective personal opinion is… well… subjective personal opinion. They hate that it cannot be defended scientifically, only philosophically.

But, the backlash also contains a more serious criticism: the tactlessness.

The Roman Catholic church is globally known for its complicity to child sexual abuse. It is one thing to have sexual predators within your ranks, it is another when you always try your best to protect them, ensuring they will never face justice.

If you shame couples for being childless while also leading an organisation infamous for enabling sexual predatory, how do you think your message will come across?

Well, it sounds like you want to please the predators within your ranks by giving them more children to prey on. I know that’s not your intention. But, you have years of experiences as a public figure: from all people, you should know about the importance of tactfully sending your messages across.

When I made that argument, his defenders argued the Catholic church was not the only organisation complicit of sexual abuse and it had positively contributed by building high-quality schools and hospitals all over.

I don’t know why they had to mention schools and hospitals. So what if the church build them?

Maybe they wanted to minimise the severity or validity of the allegations. Maybe they were pissed that their beloved church – a wealthy, non-profit religious organisation – didn’t get any praises for doing the bare minimums.

And yes, it is true Catholic church is the not only organisation complicit of sexual abuse. But, again, so what? Since when normalcy absolves you?

If anything, I would argue the church sticks out from the other organisations; it is one of the biggest in the whole world and also one of the most influential, religiously, culturally and politically. Not to mention the others do not have leaders who shame childless couples.

They also argued the church had started taking actions about the sexual predators. Yes, better be late than never. But, the lateness allows those predators to prey upon more people and evade justice. Again, why should we praise others for doing the bare minimums?

You are not a part of the clergy, you are not the one being condemned here; even some of your fellow Catholics condemn the church. What’s with the defensiveness?

If you are not being defensive, you wouldn’t try deflecting our attention from the problem, you wouldn’t insist the church deserves praises for doing the bare minimums… And you certainly wouldn’t minimise the severity of the problem.

I don’t know why those people are behaving the way they are. Obviously, they are not supportive of sexual predatory.

Maybe they are insecure with their morality and they feel personally attacked when their fellow believers get rightfully condemned. Maybe they are into identity politics, thinking they must defend their fellow believers, regardless of how immoral they are.

It reminds me a bit of my fellow Muslims. They get riled up when others – including their fellow Muslims – call out Islamic extremism.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Admit it, fat shamers: you never care about health

If that’s not the case, then why do you only target fat people?

First, non-fat people also eat junk foods and don’t exercise. While they are not as unhealthy, it is clear they are also far from healthy…. and yet, I don’t see you shaming them.

Second, there are other forms of unhealthiness. Drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, recreationally using drugs, those are also very unhealthy and yet, I don’t see you abusing people who do them. In fact, I would argue those things can negatively and more tangibly affect other people, more than fatness does.

I have never heard of fat people directly causing people around them to suffer from obesity-related diseases and I have definitely never heard about fatness makes us abusive towards others.

Speaking of affecting others, there are also other things that can negatively affect public health. Littering can harm public hygiene. Unnecessary driving can be harmful because, not only cars emit exhaust, they also create much of urban noises and they cause asphalt particles to go airborne. Oh, and don’t forget about the people who consciously helped exacerbating the pandemic, in the name of partying and personal freedom.

And yet, you only target fat people.

Maybe your health knowledge is so embarrassingly and laughably poor that you think non-fat people cannot be unhealthy. Or maybe, you hate those people because they do not conform to your aesthetic standards, because you cannot masturbate to their images.

I am more inclined to believe the latter.

Why? You treat those people as if they are worse than pedophiles and Holocaust perpetrators. You treat them as if they have committed genocide against your people.

Instead of trying to persuade them to change their lifestyles, you choose to dehumanise them. You behave as if they have personally wronged you.

You feel entitled to the sight of aesthetically-pleasing and sexually attractive people… and those fat people rob you of that “god-given right”.

Obviously, I don’t have proofs to back this up. I make those claims just to rile you up.

But, it is clear that your never care about objective health assessments. If you do, you would care about health in general instead of being obsessively single-minded on fatness….

And you certainly wouldn’t be this emotionally-charged.

Yes, persuasion requires emotions. But, not only your words should be dense with facts, you should appeal to other people’s emotions instead of being the emotional one.

Just admit that you have an issue.

I don’t know what that is. But, anyone reasonable can see your behaviours as signs of unsound mental health.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to not be judgemental

*puts on a mask*

One may assume the way to not be judgemental is to judge others accordingly. Do not exaggerate their flaws and failures, do not diminish their strengths and achievements and do not claim that you are on a higher pedestal than you really are.

But, because there is still room for judgement, I vehemently disagree.

The only reasonable way to not be judgemental….. is to not judge people at all, not even when they have committed horrible sins. How can we achieve that?

Well, you have to embrace absolute forgiveness.

You have to be absolutely forgiving towards any wrongdoers… even when you are not their victims, they have yet to fully suffer the consequences and they have no remorse.

Yes, many bullies will never suffer consequences for their actions and will never feel any remorse. Yes, Chris Brown is still thriving professionally even after cases of violence against multiple women and a probation was his only punishment.

But, forgiveness is not negotiable; you have to commit to it at all cost… and that includes putting a blind eye and disregarding the victims’ feelings.

If that isn’t your style, you can do this method: before you judge someone, pretend that you have committed equally heinous acts, even though that’ s far from the truth.

Before you judge a cruel and remorseless bully, pretend that you have also remorselessly bullied people to the point where they are traumatised for life.

Before you judge Chris Brown, pretend that you have also committed domestic violence.

Before you judge Nazis, pretend that you have also committed genocide.

Before you judge a pilot whose recklessness caused a deadly accident, pretend that you are also a reckless pilot who caused a deadly accident.

Before you judge that one fascist Capitol insurrectionist who killed a person in drunk driving, pretend that you are also a fascist insurrectionist who have killed someone in drunk driving

I can do this all day.

It is obvious why those methods are effective: they give zero room for judgements.

If you feel obligated to forgive every single sin you encounter without any hesitation or you pretend that everyone is equally sinful, you would feel hypocritical about giving anyone the slightest criticisms, let alone moral condemnations, consequentially refraining yourself from judging others.

Literally zero judgements is the only way to be non-judgemental.

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Destructive criticism shouldn’t motivate you

Why should it?

The proceeding adjective should have been enough. Destructive critics don’t care about our well-being; they inject mind-controlling parasites into our minds and make sure they are hard to get rid off. They want the power to control our lives, they want to live rent free in our minds, free to release toxins within them.

If they do care about us, they wouldn’t exaggerate our weaknesses and make us feel guilty for having trivial ones that do not affect them personally. If they do care about us, their criticism would have been factual and they would have targeted weaknesses that are actually detrimental to us and/or others.

Why do you exercise? Is it because you want to be healthier or want to be more physically attractive? Or is it because some people bully you because they don’t like seeing fat people?

Why do you work long hours? Is it because you love your job or you want more money? Or is it because you want people stop calling you a lazy pig?

Why do you study hard? Is it because you love the subjects or you want the diplomas for future employment? Or is it because you want people stop calling you a stupid pig?

Why do you do those adrenaline-inducing activities? Is it because you are an adrenaline junkie or you want to overcome your fear? Or is it because you want people stop calling you a pussy?

Why do you do the things you do? Is it because you love doing them and/or you want to reap the benefits, regardless of how shallow or profound those benefits are? Or is it because you want others to stop verbally abusing you?

If your answer is always the latter, then you have a problem. Even if those destructive criticism brings us worldly successes, your life still revolves around the desires of your abusers, NOT your own.

Yes, thriving to achieve worldly successes is great. But, is it really worth our time and energy if our goal isn’t to please ourselves but to please our abusers?

One may argue that we shouldn’t complain; if the abuses bring us those worldly successes, shouldn’t we show gratitude instead of behaving like ungrateful brats?

First, how can those successes of yours bring pleasure when they were never intended to please you? If they do bring pleasure, is it possible that you and your abusers just happen to share the same dreams?

Second, what if other people abuse you not for your weight and lack of workaholism, but for your sexuality, facial features, cultural backgrounds and skin colour? Believe it or not, if yours are the right kind, your life would be practically easier; not only you would be less likely to suffer abuse, you would have easier time achieving professional successes as promotions become more likely to occur.

Now, if you are a giant cunt who think simply being different is inflammatory, you would not see anything wrong with the whole thing. But, if you are one of the lessers cunts, you would be troubled by it.

One may argue the two groups are not comparable. Weight and workaholism can be achieved and un-achieved while sexuality, skin colour and cultural backgrounds are not things we can pick and choose. I acknowledge the difference.

But, how do those things affect other people? How the fuck does your fatness negatively affect others? Your so-called “laziness”? Your so-called “pussiness”?

Well…

Your fatness affect others either by not affirming to their aesthetic standard 0r making you unable to be used as their 0bjects of masturbation.

Your lack of workaholism affect others either by disrespecting their love of workers exploitations or reminding them that workaholism does not always pay off.

Your lack of thrill-seeking affect other people by refusing to put adrenaline junkies on a higher pedestal for their “bravery”.

Basically, those traits of yours affect other people like your skin colours and sexuality do: robbing them the chance to feel undeservingly superior about themselves.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

As a stutterer, what do I think of non-stutterers?

It depends on the non-stutterers.

If you are patient with me and never belittle my speech impediment, then I appreciate you. I truly do. Even though you have the opportunity to punch me down, you are too dignified to do so. Your understanding show you are indeed special human beings… and I am not being sarcastic.

If you treat me like shit, then you can ram cactuses to your unwiped asses, you fucking pigs.

The King’s Speech is not that impressive artistically and I cannot comment on its historical accuracy. But, I can definitely say it is very relatable to me.

The main character is mocked and bullied for his stuttering by people who see themselves as the so-called real victims for having listened to his stuttering, resulting in his bouts of anger… which actually help him speaking articulately.

And that’s literally my life!

While I don’t think my stuttering is the sole cause of my short temper, I do think it is certainly a cause. I stop stuttering only when I forget about my condition… or when I am so fucking pissed, I have to restrain myself from popping fucktards’ heads like fucking water balloons.

I don’t know why anger works. Maybe anger boosts my confidence. Maybe being emotionally-intense in general improves my articulation. Who knows?

And those victim card players…

I am the fucking stutterer. I am the one who gets his fucking self-worth bled out of himself, I am the one who fucking experiences the defect and emotionally fucking suffers as a result. In what retarded world is it logical to deem the listeners as the fucking victims here?

Framing themselves as the victims means they are implying that I am deliberately fucking abusing them with my defect, that I stutter by fucking choice, that I fake my fucking stuttering.

And, in my case, they are not just mere implications. They are the things people have confidently said to my face.

I have encountered people who accused me of enjoying torturing people with my defect by making them feeling ashamed for being associated with me!

I have encountered people who still insist to this day that my stuttering is just all just in my head, which means it is easily curable and people who still stutter don’t have the desire to be cured from it.

I even have encountered one person who literally accused me of faking my defect because I wanted people to pity me, even though he/she knew damn fucking well that they mocked me because of it.

It is infuriating how those retarded mongoloids inhumanely dismiss my suffering… and it is disturbing how they treat my speech impediment like the average people AKA idiots treat mental illnesses.

I did mention how anger helps me. The older I get, the more obvious it is how I have no incentive to lengthen my fuse.

Why should I when anger enhances my verbal articulation? Why should I when people like those animals constantly want to subjugate me with their barbarism? It is cheaper and more effective than therapies and if it wasn’t for my explosive temperament, I would have no means to protect myself.

I make it sounds like I am surrounded by such creatures. I am not. Most people I have encountered actually never abuse me for my impediment; they are either empathetic or very good in hiding their snake-ness.

Un-fucking-fortunately, people still don’t realise how their heartlessness can negatively affect their fellow human beings (whom probably they don’t consider ones). Apart from becoming an angry person, I also grew up as a obedient little bitch who gave too much fuck about what other people thought.

While I am still struggling to stand up for myself and stop caring too much, I am now way better at them… much to my abusers’ disappointment.

And, the best of all, I am using my short temper -which those bastards exacerbate- as my personal weapon against them.

After I think of it, The King’s Speech has one thing that I cannot relate. Unlike me, Bertie actually found the right therapist.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jiří Trnka’s The Hand: not falling for the other side

If it wasn’t for my Intro to Animation class, I would have never heard of this stop-motion animated masterpiece.

To summarise the plot, it tells the story of a harlequin whose impoverished yet contented life of flower pot-making is disrupted by a literal and seemingly-omnipresent hand who demands him to make hand sculptures instead, compelling him to constantly fight for his freedom. Unfortunately, near the end of the story, he dies when one of his pots accidentally fell on his head (seemingly foreshadowed by the recurring accidental pot-breaking). He is given a lavish funeral by the hand.

One can guess why I love this short film.

It is an allegory of censorship enforced under authoritarianism. It sublimely evokes the terror of living as an artist and entertainer in such condition, amplified by the fantastical elements and the atmospheric percussion-oriented soundtracks. In fact, both Wikipedia and IMDB categorise this film as horror.

Unsurprisingly, I picked The Hand as one of the animated shorts I analysed for the final essay. My writings were even abysmal then. Thankfully, I lost it. But, I remember having a great time analysing every single one of them.

While analysing it, I found two peculiarities.

First thing first, the funeral. Why would the hand hold a state funeral to a rebel? Surely, shouldn’t he be demonised as an enemy of the state in the end?

Well, I found an article (forget which one, cannot find it again) about how the USSR and its satellite states honoured their artists posthumously, regardless of how obedient or disobedient they were; the writer said even Trnka himself was given a state funeral.

As I am too lazy to do more research, I cannot confirm or debunk the article’s factual validity. But, as the hand symbolises an authoritarian government (I cannot think of any other interpretations), what the article is saying makes too much sense for me to dismiss.

This reminds me of the legendary and ideologically-dissenting director Andrei Tarkovsky (can’t stop referencing him). After his death, the Soviet authorities regretted that he died in exile. Yes, linking Trnka, a Czechoslovakian puppeteer and animator with, to Tarkovsky, a live-action Russian director who loved exploring the metaphysical aspect of humanity, is far-fetched. But, I can’t help myself.

Oh, and the hand.

At first, I noticed the hand was a left one. I assumed it represented the far-left government of Czechoslovakia. But, when I took a greater look, the hand was not always left.

Sometimes, it appears as a right one. In fact, the first hand sculpture to appear in the video depicts a right hand.  So, I quickly dumped the interpretation, dismissed it as reading too much into things. But then, I remembered the funeral scene, where the hand can be seen making a salute eerily similar to the Nazi one; I could hear my classmates’ shock.

I was more baffled than shocked, as Czechoslovakia was a communist country, not a fascist one. Due to my slowness, it took me days to realise the film criticises authoritarianism in general, not just the communist Czechoslovakian government.

The film also subtly warns us to not fall for any forms of extremism. Your suffering under a far-left government cannot morally justify your support of a far-right government… and vice versa. One form of  zealotry does not justify the other.

I write as if I grasped the thematic depth immediately. I didn’t. Back then, my mind only thought about the Far-Left vs Far-Right.  It took me years to realise how the message is also applicable to any kinds of extreme dichotomies.

Yes, I know I seem to be reading too much into things again. The nazi salute may not be one after all and I don’t know enough about different types of salutes. I also cannot prove that extreme dichotomies in general were what Trnka had in mind.

But, you have to admit: the film does not target a specific ideology. My interpretation fits really well into the narrative.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to condemn the Hong Kong protesters?

*puts on a mask*

Instead of condemning them for violence and vandalism, condemn them for the followings:

Condemn them for hating prosperity

Hong Kongers would never know how it feels to be wealthy if it wasn’t for their generous and clearly-more civilised cousins from the mainland. I mean, literally every person in the world knows Hong Kong transformed into a rich city literally after the handover. Literally!

Literally the morning after the handover, money started literally raining on Hong Kong, high-rises literally started appearing out of nowhere and foreign investors started flocking in, seemingly for no reasons.

LOL! Seemingly! We all know China told them to!

The footage that supposedly shows olden days Hong Kong is literally fake. The cars and high-rises were not real, they were CGI created by the CIA!

How do I know? Uncle Xi and the internet said so!

Condemn them for disrespecting China’s sovereignty

Contrary to popular belief, sovereignty is not arbitrary. It is something that has been decided by the universe since long before earth’s creation!

It has been decided that the People’s Republic of China will always be the highest ruler of the people of Macau, Taiwan and yes, even Hong Kong! Hong Kongers don’t have the right to make decisions for themselves!

Condemn them for pissing on humanity

Seriously, do I even fucking need to explain this?

Do I really need to explain that only monsters love liberty? Do I really need to explain that real humans love it when any or all of their freedoms? Do I really need to explain that literally every human is destined to be slaves of the emotionally-fragile establishments?

If you really are a human being, you would love being abused 24/7.

Trust me. My methods are waaaay more effective!

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.