Where is the hype for ‘Drive My Car’ ?(The unsophistication of film snobs)

I remember when excited film nuts were hyping Bon Joon Ho’s Parasite and how happy they were when it won Best Picture at the Oscars. At the time when I started writing this, people were hyping Everything Everywhere All At Once and many celebrated its eleven Oscar nominations.

Parasite is a dark comedy satire that loves emphasising its messages through “hidden” visual clues and metaphors. EEAAO is a genre-bending film that provides a refreshing take on the multiverse. They have genuinely interesting premises.

Some MCU bashers who love the two movies often compare them – especially EEAAO – to Marvel films. They love reminding Marvel fans about the existence of quality cinema.

But, for some reasons, they didn’t hype Drive My Car. I found it baffling.

It was released in 2021 and won many awards, including Best International Feature Film at the Oscars in 2022. Meanwhile, Parasite was released in 2019 and won Best Picture at the Oscars in 2020 and EEAAO was released in 2022 and got nominated in 2023. Basically, it was not in direct competitions with any of the two.

So, why didn’t they hype it?

Well, I have one observation: they are not as sophisticated as they think they are.

Yes, the other two films indeed represent quality cinema, there is no doubt about that. But, they still bear traits of mainstream and commercial cinema: action-oriented, (relatively) fast-paced and visually striking. Traits which Drive My Car lacks.

In fact, not only it is dialogue-driven and slow-paced, it also has a very modest storytelling style; the acting is very deadpan and the story is straightforwardly told, without any symbolism (as far as I am concerned). It also keeps referencing Uncle Vanya, a play which many people – including myself – aren’t familiar with.

Yet, despite what I said above, the film still manages to be rich in emotions. It is a good example of less is more. If I – someone who cannot consider himself a film snob – can appreciate it, then actual film snobs should appreciate it even more.

But, what if they are unable to?

They have expressed what kinds of films they love to watch… and it is very telling.

They love filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese and James Cameron. They love films like Jaws, original Star Wars trilogy, Pulp Fiction, the first three Terminator films, the first Jurassic Park, the earlier Indiana Jones, the first and second Mummy, Lord of the Rings and the earlier Alien and Predator films… which “coincidentally” also happens to be films they grew up with.

They won’t mention directors like Luis Buñuel, Andrei Tarkovsky, Ingmar Bergman, Robert Bresson, Atom Egoyan, Robert Altman, Shane Carruth, Jan Švankmajer, Sergei Parajanov, Frederico Fellini, Abbas Kiarostami and Yasujirō Ozu. They won’t mention films like Taste of Cherry, The Sweet Hereafter, 3 Women, Mirror, 8 1/2, Persona, An Andalusian Dog, Primer, The Color of Pomegranates and Tokyo Story.

They love the exciting, fast-paced and nostalgic escapism of mainstream and highly-commercialised Hollywood films. But, they don’t seem to appreciate the oblique, dialogue-heavy and/or calm-paced storytelling of non-Hollywood arthouse films.

Basically, they are basic bitches who criticise others for being basic bitches. Pot calling the kettle black, alcoholics calling stoners addicts, neocons calling Putin supporters warmongers. They don’t have the pedestals to bash the other side. They are each other’s equals.

Being basic is not bad in itself. But, being a hypocrite is.

Oh, and if many/most of the films and directors they praise are also the ones they grew up with, there is nostalgia bias. They cannot expect us to believe it is just a mere coincidence.

Nostalgia is also not bad in itself. But, let’s not pretend your feeling is objective.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

MCU films kill movie stars…. and how is that supposed to be bad?

Seriously, how?

When I was a much more unsophisticated film consumer, I watched films because of their premises, they were adaptations of certain source materials and they were sequels of films that I liked. I was not star struck by the actors.

As a teen, I started taking more heed of of my sexual attractions and I did find some actors more attractive than the others. But, I still didn’t watch films because of the actors. Still wasn’t star struck by them.

When I was around 19, I started exploring cinema beyond the mainstream Hollywood. Apart from the aforementioned ones, I also added a new reason for me to watch a film: the director. Nowadays, I already have three personal favourites.

And this was when I started to bewildered by the concept of a “movie star”.

You are watching a film and yet, instead of focusing on the story and maybe on how its execution, you choose to focus on your favourite actors, even though they are supposed to be the characters they are depicting instead of being themselves; that’s literally what actors are hired for.

Yes, I do know some actors perform better than the others; I have certainly caught myself fawning over their sublime performances. But, it still does not make me star struck for multiple reasons.

Good acting skills aren’t unique to specific actors, the most acclaimed actors don’t always give their best performances and, most importantly, the most popular actors aren’t always the best performers.

It should also be noted that some actors are famous for portraying characters with similar traits, over and over and over again.

I don’t think this is necessarily bad. If they are actors who always perform characters specifically made for them and cannot be performed by anyone else, then I can see why people watch films just for them. I am thinking of the likes of Rowan Atkinson, Jackie Chan and Charlie Chaplin, whom we never expect to have a wide acting range (even though they may have it).

But, most actors aren’t like that. We expect most of them to have an actually wide range instead of simply performing their public personas.

Okay, if you love them solely for their public personas, then why bother watching their films? I mean, you can simply tune in to any of their media appearances, including their interviews and any shows they guest star in.

Heck, we are in 2023. I am certain some of your favourite movie stars have become Youtubers as well. You can definitely watch their videos.

My point is people love to bash MCU for supposedly showcasing filmmaking at its shallowest… and yet, they often have nothing but the shallowest arguments.

First, Martin Scorcese – supposedly one of the most acclaimed directors of all time – argued MCU films are not cinema; he made his own definition of the word “cinema” and act like it is the most objective one. Basically, if I didn’t know who uttered the words, I would assume they were uttered by a snot-nosed and self-righteous teenager.

Then, we also have Quentin Tarantino – another supposedly acclaimed director – who thinks MCU films are bad because they kill the movie stars.

I mean, there are lots to criticise about MCU films. The extreme commercialisation, the lack of risk-taking and the excessive amount of jokes. But, he criticises them because they kill celebrity worship, something that actually deserves to be killed off?

He is a fucking film director. He should be focused on the stories and how they are executed. But, for some reasons, he thinks upholding celebrity worship – something of no value – is just as important. Are you fucking kidding me?

I don’t know if they are desperate with their criticisms or they genuinely believe they are onto something.

But, one thing is certain: their simps will take their words like the gospel, regardless of the profundity or lack thereof. Because status trumps everything.

.

.

Oh, and there are times when I actually watch films solely for their actors.

Those films are called porn.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

‘Everything Everywhere All At Once’ isn’t that confusing

*spoiler alert*

I admit it is far from the most escapist film ever.

It is a comedic, psychological, absurdist, action-packed sci-fi film. Its story starts as one before splitting into two main branches that symbolically paralleling each other. It depicts existentialism, nihilism, generational gaps and identity crisis of children with foreign-born parents.

It is an undoubtedly highly-thematic, idiosyncratic and cerebral film that cannot put into any boxes. It is definitely not for everyone. In fact, I am surprised by its box office success.

But, is it really hard to follow?

In the beginning, we see our main protagonist Evelyn Wang struggling not only with the IRS’s audit of her laundromat business, but also with her strained relationships with her (supposedly) meek and naive husband, demanding father and queer daughter who seems detached from her ancestral heritage. The story starts branching out when someone from a parallel universe approaches her.

The film mainly focuses on two branches. One is a continuation of her earthly struggles story. The other one is about her fight against a powerful being – a parallel universe version of her daughter – who wants to destroy the multiverse, with the help of her husband’s parallel universe version.

There are lots to take in and I have barely scratched the surface by not detailing the minor but still consequential stories and discussing the film’s loaded themes. But, the plot is still clearly laid out for us.

In both main stories, you can easily determine the introduction, rise, climax, fall and resolution. Even though the parallel universes overlap with each other, we still can tell which is which. They are linearly and unambiguously depicted.

I have watched arthouse films where the lines between the past and present and between the physical and metaphysical worlds are blurred. I have watched arthouse films where the stories are partially or entirely conveyed through unexplained and seemingly-random imagery.

I have watched Shane Carruth’s Primer (hard to enjoy his works after knowing what he did), a time travel film where the characters speak with lots of technical jargons and create paradoxes so complex, you can’t discern the different timelines from each other.

There are many films with plots open to interpretations, where you are required to figure everything out yourself. But, Everything Everywhere All At Once is not one of them. If you simply pay attention, you would know what is going on.

Unfortunately, I have encountered something like this before.

I have heard people complaining how the 2009 Sherlock Holmes film has a very complex mystery, even though it is overwhelmed by the many action scenes and the explanations barely use any jargons.

While watching La La Land in the theatre with me, my sister overheard another filmgoer’s confusion about what those fantasy sequences are supposed to be, even though it is blatantly obvious they depict the characters’ fantasies.

Some Harry Potter fans complain the film adaptation of Half-Blood Prince is boring and has nothing going on, even though it clearly has things going on… in the forms of calm-paced and dialogue-driven scenes.

Basically, some people are unable to understand a story if it requires slightly more efforts and isn’t 99.9% escapist.

I don’t know if they are that stupid or just lazy. I hope it is the latter. I already have many reasons to be cynical.

The last thing I need is to have another one.

Oh, and one more thing:

If you watched the trailer and/or saw the weird poster that I use for this blogpost prior watching the film, why did you expect it to be “normal”?

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Being basic: not a sin, not something to be proud of

Basic is a pejorative slang word which means preference to anything that is mainstream and inability to enjoy anything niche and are of acquired tastes.

I think it is appropriate to extend the definition to one’s lack of interest in any highbrow and heavy topics. You prefer to keep the conversations simple and light.

Obviously, there is nothing inherently wrong about any of those. Being basic does not harm anyone. Being the opposite does not help anyone either.

Besides, ‘basic’ is relative. In the US, you would stand out if you love spices and fermented seafood. But, if you live among Indonesians who love both, you are basic.

Your ‘sophistication’ may be unimpressive in some places. It may also be something you involuntarily grew up with, instead of something you voluntarily and diligently learned to love; if you did learn to love it, it is possible you had the means to do so.

You cannot be too proud of it when the opportunities were handed to you.

But, I also hate how some people are proud of being basic; they even have the gall to look down on anyone who aren’t. Seriously, what is something to be proud about that?

If you love only purely escapist entertainment, it means you cannot enjoy anything which has the slightest negative emotions as they are enough to remind you of reality.

If you enjoy only chicken nuggets, vanilla ice creams and the likes, it means your tastebuds are limited to salt, sugar and grease.

If you enjoy only the latest pop songs, it means you cannot enjoy unpredictable melodies, more complex music arrangement and/or you are not open to different or new sounds.

If you enjoy only Hollywood blockbusters, it means you cannot enjoy motion picture works with more slow-paced, more complex and/or more offbeat storytellings.

If you enjoy only light conversations and small talks, it means you refuse or are unable to contemplate about the convoluted nature of the world you live in.

To sum them up, you refuse or are unable to comprehend complexities, be reminded of reality while being entertained, take new tastes into consideration and appreciate the beauty of silence and calmness.

Again, there is nothing immoral about the things I mentioned above. You shouldn’t be condemned for having traits that harm no one.

But, those traits reveal your incapabilities, not your capabilities. They are not strengths, they are weaknesses. Celebrating ‘basicness’ is the celebration of ineptitude.

Maybe you are thinking of contentment. You love yourself despite your inoffensive weaknesses. If that’s what you mean, then I am on your side (and I can definitely relate).

But, if you insist it is not contentment and you genuinely love yourself because of those weaknesses, then you can go fuck yourself.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

No, Ayam Geprek is not the ultimate Indonesian dish (not yet)

Yes, I have to commend Indonesians who actively promote our cultures to foreigners. I also have to appreciate foreigners who genuinely love our cuisines without any desire to pander to validation-hungry Indonesians.

But, I also need to criticise them for overselling ayam geprek.

In a previous blog, I talk about how Indonesians are clumsy in translating certain words and act like Indomie is the only existing instant noodle brand. But, I find theayam geprek problem to be more infuriating.

While the origin is unclear, it is believed to be created in the early 2000’s. It started gaining national popularity in the mid 2010’s. Basically, it is so recent, I would be surprised if there are younger Millennials and older Zoomers who consider it a comfort food.

Nasi goreng, mie goreng, bakmi, soto, bubur ayam, sate, those are dishes which evoke strong nostalgia among many Indonesians. Personally, I would also add ayam goreng lengkuas, ayam pop and ayam penyet – three other variants of fried chickens (yes, there are others) – to the list.

I am not a hater. I actually love the dish. The texture of crispy batter and succulent meat mushed together, the heat level customisation, the additional salted egg sauce or melted cheese, I love them all. If I am okay with having my stomach scorched, I would definitely eat it.

My problem is that people – both Indonesians and foreigners – use it as the introduction to Indonesian cuisine. It gives an impression of deep-rootedness, like tempura and sushi are in Japan, even though it is an ongoing new trend.

Yes, I know we are talking about food here. Such misperception, as annoying as it is, won’t cause harm to anyone. But, misleading nonetheless.

Talking about religion and politics, however, would actually be consequential. Misperception would cause certain phenomena to appear more or less entrenched than they really are, giving societies undeservingly negative or positive reputations.

People – again, both Indonesians and foreigners – have also screwed up when talking about politics and religion in Indonesia; as a nation, we seem either more progressive or more backward than we really are.

If you cannot be trusted to represent trivial facts, you cannot be trusted with the more consequential ones. I don’t care if I sound petty.

Just wait for the next few decades. If ayam geprek is still popular, then it has achieved traditional status.*

But, even if it already is, it makes a bad gateway dish.

It is unbelievably spicy, even for the spice-loving locals. Unless you are a hardcore chili lover or an adventurous foodie, the extremeness of the introduction will put you off.

Just stick with nasi goreng, mie goreng, bakmi and bakso; they are easy for foreigners to enjoy or, at least, tolerate. Imagine being introduced to Japanese foods and, instead of starting with tonkatsu, gyoza, ramen and tempura, they want you to go straight to natto and anything involving raw fish.

You will find the entire cuisine off-putting.

.

.

*Note: decades may sound like a relatively short time for something to become traditional. But, the longer something stays popular, the more deep-rooted it will become.

Besides, tinutuan – also known as bubur manado – is considered a traditional dish, despite being created (allegedly) in the 70’s or 80’s.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Stop pretending that looting preserves cultures

The European colonisers looted them not because they cared about preserving the local heritages, but because they wanted to impose hard power.

If that wasn’t the case, not only they would try their best to not damage the artefacts, they also wouldn’t massacre the humans who created the heritage and imposed western cultures upon the survivors. We know damn well it was the exact opposites.

And yes, even the contemporary westerners who oppose repatriation also don’t care about cultures.

Even without those vultures of private collectors, the artefacts still end up in museums in faraway lands, trapped behind glass panels. Yes, the visitors are able to admire the unique aesthetics and read the descriptions on the plaques. But, they only perceive them as mere foreign and exotic items and will always do. They won’t understand how culturally significant the artefacts are.

If they are in their “natural habitats” (they are often small bits of a huge archeological site), we can see how they make important parts of entire cultures. In fact, we may witness them being used in the rituals.

Never mind the immersion. How can the artefacts help us witnessing the still-living cultures in action if we don’t see them being “utilised” as originally intended?

No, the “they-don’t-care-about-their-own-cultures” argument is invalid. If you even bother trying, you can find those who still cling onto their heritage. The ones who don’t care are the westernised big city dwellers and government officials and, believe it or not, they don’t represent their entire countries.

Now, what if the cultures represented by the artefacts are already extinct? Surely, it doesn’t matter where they are kept. Well, it still does.

Just take a look at those dinosaurs. They went extinct sixty five million years ago and yet, we still see their descendants not only as modern day reptiles, but also as birds.

Extinct cultures also have left legacies.

Egypt has been an Arabised and Muslim-majority territory for a long time and yet, its Coptic Christian citizens still use Coptic – a Greek-influenced, modern descendent of Ancient Egyptian – as their liturgical language.

Indonesia, my home country, is a Muslim-majority country with Christianity as the biggest minority religion. But, you still can see hints of our Buddhist and Hindu pasts.

Not only we have Sanskrit loanwords in some of our languages (including the national one) and we occasionally use the sembah gesture (which is based on Añjali Mudrā), our official national symbols are derived from Hindu and Buddhist mythologies and most government institutions use Sanskrit mottos.

I don’t have to use non-western countries as examples. The entire western civilisation has its roots in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, two long-extinct civilisations. Latin and Greek are still studied as the classical languages.

If you take a look at western individual countries, you can see some uniqueness as well.

In the United States, one can sees Native American and West African influences through its many different music genres and some of its regional cuisines, even though Native Americans are now an unbelievably tiny minority due to genocides and most black Americans are descendants of slaves who were forcibly uprooted from their homelands.

Even though Al-Andalus has ceased to exist for half a millennium, you still can see the Middle Eastern influences in the Iberian peninsula: from the abundance of Arabic loanwords in Spanish and Portuguese to the abundance of Moorish architecture in, unsurprisingly, modern-day Andalusia.

Nothing lives in a vacuum. Just because something happened a long time ago, that does not mean it won’t leave its marks. The immersion may be weak. But, it still there.

I am also certain learning languages and cuisines is a more effective cultural immersion method than simply staring at goddamn objects.

Obviously, the arguments I stated above are not entirely mine; I either paraphrased them or added my own personal thoughts to them. But, there is one argument which also isn’t mine…. and it is an argument so obvious, I hate myself for not thinking about it earlier: political stability.

Some argue the artefacts should stay in the west because it is the only place free from any political instabilities. But, Youtuber Andrew Rakich – better known as Atun-Shei films – reminds us to expect the unexpected.

In a video which title I forget, he asserts that just because places like London are stable, that does not mean they will always; we cannot certainly predict the future… because we humans are so goddamn unpredictable.

That statement reminds me of what I have learned about history.

Places like Syria, Afghanistan Somalia and Iraq were peaceful (at least, on a surface level as I am deriving this info from photos and videos). Now, they are synonymous with wars, wars and wars.

Less than a century ago, Europe was involved in two world wars; the second started just twenty one years after the first one ended. Now, it is often one of the main destinations for war refugees.

Basically, unless you are into historical denialism and see humans as nothing but predictable androids, the political stability argument does not hold water.

Just like the British Museum’s roof.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

You cultist royalist motherfuckers need to be consistent

You love to claim how the monarch is the reason for the good things that exist in the UK, despite the fact that they are nothing but a mere symbol…

And yet, every time someone condemns the Queen for past colonialism, you fervently and zealously defend her, asserting that she had nothing to do with the atrocities.

Which one is it, then? Does the monarch contribute to the country or not? Unless you proudly declare yourself as a cult member, you cannot pick and choose. You have to acknowledge both sides of her legacy.

No, I don’t believe she was personally responsible for the atrocities. The UK has been a constitutional monarchy for a long time and the monarch is just a symbolic representation of the state; if I want to credit or blame someone, I have to turn my head to the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

But, that does not mean the Queen was never complicit.

Not only she enjoyed the seemingly infinite wealth which would never exist without colonialism, she also willingly became the symbol of it. No, fuck the neutrality bullshit. If you are aware of immorality committed in your name, the least you can do is to publicly speak out against it.

Morality is not a trivial matter, it is a matter of whether you treat your fellow human beings humanely or not. If you feel or act neutral about certain acts of inhumanity, you tolerate them; you are as good as their perpetrators.

She had the power to influence her subjects to reconcile with their country’s dark past. Instead, she chose symbolically represent it.

I bet you that some of you are also the same people who blame entire minority groups for the actions of few, despite the fact that most members have nothing to do with those few and never condone their actions.

Also, if you take offense at my cultist accusation, you have no one but yourselves to blame.

British media outlets spending 24/7 reporting her death, the state spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money for her funeral amid an ongoing economic crisis, the country shutting many activities down – including medical appointments and flights – just for her, fellow royalists demanding everyone – including citizens of former colonies- to mourn her, arresting peaceful protestors, Labour party prohibiting members from making any social media posts unless they were about the Queen, royalists condemning businesses for staying open.

You either consider them as trivial non-stories which we shouldn’t make a big deal about OR consider them as wonderful things. Don’t deny it, I have seen your online comments.

Even worse, some of you had the gall to claim that no one forced Brits to mourn her, despite the fact that you didn’t let them to live their daily lives as usual and you also deliberately ruined their goddamn plans.

The gaslighting attempt really adds to the cultist atmosphere.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

No, homogeneity is not a strength

When people argue against multiculturalism, they often project themselves. They think their inability to handle human differences is universal and sectarian conflicts are mundane in diverse places.

Another one of their favourite argument is citing the success of South Korea and Japan. They argue the countries’ near 100% homogeneity is the reason why they are globally successful.

Of course, there are multiple issues with that assertion.

Issue number one: success is relative. While South Korea and Japan have wealth and greater soft power than my country Indonesia does, I will never be envious of their high suicide rates, drinking cultures, stressful student life, severe school bullying and, in this case of Japan, strong history of fascism and historical denialism.

Issue number two: correlation does not equal causation. Those people never provide evidences. They simply connect two things and expect others to believe it at face value. Life is also complicatedly interconnected; even if homogeneity is a factor, it is definitely not the only factor.

Issue number three: even if I accept that shallow definition of success and correlation equals causation, I still don’t see how it proves the inherent superiority of South Korea and Japan.

If homogeneity brings prosperity as they claim it does, then it is comparable to wealth we are born into.

Both give us unbelievably massive leverages. Children born into wealth have better access to education and they can pursue their passions without financial worry. Due to the stricter conformity, homogenous societies have an easier time achieving their collective goals.

Neither wealth nor homogeneity is inherently bad. But, praising a country’s homogeneity is like praising someone for coming from a wealthy family.

You basically praise someone for being born with cheat codes.

Personally, I don’t believe we must commend people who can find common grounds despite their stark differences. Not only I consider that to be a bare minimum, I also don’t want them to pat themselves on the back.

But, I would rather reserve my praise for them. Considering they are the ones who do extra efforts, it is just sensical.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

That’s not how you preserve traditions (and treat your own family)

As an Indonesian, I rarely watch Indonesian films voluntarily. So, the fact that I decided to watch this newly-released feature is a rarity.

Ngeri-Ngeri Sedap (I still don’t know how to translate the title) tells the story of a fractured Batak family; the parents struggle to persuade their university-educated adult sons return home after years. They cannot stand their cold, headstrong father who disapprove of their life decisions.

One of them wants to marry a woman from another ethnic group, one becomes a TV comedian instead of a law practitioner and the youngest child isn’t interested returning home for good, even though tradition calls for it.

Desperate, the parents pretend they are going to divorce, which would compel the sons to return home and talk their mom and dad out of it. The plan works. But, the moment they saw their father, the atmosphere immediately thickens and it will get even worse from here.

The film is not that great, execution wise. The dialogues are full of info dumps, the cinematography fails to capture the beauty of rural North Sumatra (I have visited Lake Toba and I know how ethereally beautiful it is), the crying scene is unintentionally funny, the emotions could have been more intense and the conflict resolves a bit too quickly.

But, the film does have some gems in it.

While I cannot verify the authenticity of the Batak life depiction as I am not a Batak, I adore how it does not use a regional and/or ethnic identity as a punchline or a token, as the common practice in a country where media productions mostly centered in one snobby, cosmopolitan city.

I also love that it is written and directed by an actual Batak filmmaker and most of the main cast members are of Batak lineage; the ones who aren’t grew up surrounded by Batak people. It is refreshing how a film about a certain culture is made by people who have experiences with it.

But, that’s not even the best part: it is also a giant middle finger to “traditional” parenting and toxic loyalty to family.

The father loves accusing his sons of selfishness, even though he is the one who makes everything about himself. The sons always look uneasy and awkward in his presence. The comedian son loves making spiteful comments, even saying that his family is a joke, something to be laugh at. Even though the mother is just as traditional, she openly disapproves how her husband behaves.

It becomes so toxic, not only his sons depart angrily, his wife ends up wanting to divorce for real and the daughter – I forgot to mention the family has a daughter – leaves with her as well.

It also has unexpected commentaries about gender.

When the daughter asked why her brothers seem awkward with each other, the eldest son said their father was always aloof towards his sons, hence their inability to be warm towards other men.

She is also a testament that girls and women often have to sacrifice the most in a patriarchal society. She had to break a romantic relationship because the man was a non-Batak and she gave up her dream as a chef – her cooking talent has been shown from the very beginning – because the father thinks it is not a real job.

She could have easily rebelled. But, if she does, she would severe ties with her elderly parents and no one would take care of them.

The grandma – the father’s mother – is unbelievably wise. She gently points out that different children require different parenting style. You shouldn’t raise university-educated children like you raise ones who didn’t finish middle school, she says.

Okay, maybe not that wise. Surely, you deserve your parents’ warmth regardless of your educational level; I don’t see how dropping out of school makes you less of a human being with feelings.

But, as problematic as her advice is, her point about there is no one correct way to raise children still stands.

The daughter and grandma also represent the gender situation in Indonesia. While the film barely focuses on either character, they add depth to the story. Men are at the forefront with women supporting them behind the scenes.

What I love about the ending is the father finally and sincerely realises his mistakes and tries to amend his mistakes.

He makes a surprise appearance at his comedian son’s TV show which is shot in Jakarta, asserting he is not proud of his son’s success. Why? Because it is his son’s, not his. He has no right to take credit for it.

He visits his other son’s non-Batak lover in West Java and, much to his surprise, she is interested in learning Batak traditions. As a rural dweller, he seems unaware that many urban Indonesians have experiences traversing different cultures; dealing with other regional Indonesian cultures is a mundane task for them.

His visits his youngest son’s boss in Jogjakarta and he learns that his son helps the local farmers – a vulnerable group of people – increasing their agricultural yield, practically making their lives better.

After he gains his sons’ sincere forgiveness (which is what their mother desires), the family reunites.

I love how the film asserts that a family’s unity cannot be achieved unless every member – including the parents – makes their best efforts. In this case, the family reunites after the father finally leaves his bubble, both in literal and figurative sense.

Literally as in he leaves his rural homeland and travels to three different provinces, none of which are in Sumatra. Figuratively as in he leaves the world where views like his are king and enter one with greater diversity of thoughts.

I also love how the film is not anti-tradition. The traditional festival is depicted respectfully (or so it seems), the sons still love Batak food and the soundtracks feature Batak-language songs.

It is not about whether we should preserve traditions or not, it is more about HOW we do it. It is a cautionary tale of how tactlessness will tear your family apart and putting your beloved heritage in even greater risk of extinction.

And, in a rare moment, I feel proud of my fellow countrymen. I don’t know what the haters have to say about the film. But, I have seen so many positive comments online; many feel their negative experiences with traditional parents and/or husbands are validated.

I am glad such Indonesian film exists.

.

.

.

A tangent about religion:

Indonesia is a place where religiosity is held with high regards, regardless of one’s ethnic and religious backgrounds. The film not-so-subtly hints at that fact.

The family’s house has a quite a few Christian-themed ornaments (if I can call them that), like the cross and pictures of Jesus Christ. There is a moment of brief close-up on a knitted(?) The Last Supper picture and the parents’ bed are often filmed using wide shot, ensuring the overhead cross is seen as well.

They also respect the local pastor. The father wants to impress him by putting a pristine mask on his marriage. The sons also ask him to discourage their parents from divorcing, even though his advice is the same as theirs.

Oh, and in the beginning of the film, one of the sons explicitly say, “we are Christians”.

While religion is not focused on, the film makes sure we don’t forget about its existence.

I wonder how much of the conservative attitude is attributed to their religious beliefs.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

“You should ‘go out’ more”…

… is what people usually say to me in arguments. When they say ‘go out’, they mean leaving my safe space and exposing myself to different worldview.

Obviously, that’s a sound advice. We should thrive to avoid any echo chambers if we truly have the desire to grow and discern our reality. But, I do know those people don’t care about my well-being; they just hate it that I refuse to appease to them.

People who love exaggerating the flaws of Marvel films think I need to watch anything other than Hollywood blockbusters, not realising that my favourite film directors are Andrei Tarkovsky, Ingmar Bergman and Stanley Kubrick, arguably giants of arthouse cinema, and some of my favourite films are not even American, let alone Hollywood.

Some people think I will grow out of my “extremely woke” politics and suggest leaving my echo chamber. It is interesting because not only there is nothing radical about centre-left politics, I used to be a lot more conservative. I also live in a country where even self-proclaimed moderates are very socially conservative. Not to mention the many conservatives, libertarians, liberals and centrists I constantly run into online.

Pro and anti-multiculturalism and anti-Muslim westerners have something in common: they genuinely believe that the west is the only diverse place on earth. The differences? The pro wants to feel superior about their own countries, thinking simply seeing minorities on the streets and having foreign ancestors boost their multicultural cred. The other camps think other places aren’t being forced to be diverse. When I refute their factually incorrect claims, they condescendingly suggest me to interact with people of differing cultural and religious backgrounds.

What they don’t know is I am from Indonesia, a country with six officially recognised religions and literally hundreds of ethnic groups; my hometown specifically has five dominant ethnic groups, which is unusual even for an Indonesian city, and has visible Christian and Buddhist minorities. I attended a middle school where I was one of the few non-Chinese-Indonesian and non-Buddhist students and I got my degree from an Australian university. Oh, and virtually all of my online friends are foreigners and much of them are non-Muslims.

My exposure to different cultures and religions is so mundane. If it wasn’t for my interactions with dumb westerners, I would have kept taking my diverse upbringing for granted.

“The more you know, the more you don’t know”

The older I get, the more I can relate to the quote. As much as I want to see myself as extremely knowledgeable, I have to acknowledge the horizon’s infinite vastness.

I haven’t tasted every film style of imaginable. I haven’t matured politically. And I have only been exposed to a tiny chunk of the world’s cultures and religions. I need to keep learning.

But, as one can tell, my aforementioned opponents clearly don’t care. They all share something in common: the belief that some or all of their opinions are absolutely correct. My mere disagreement is more than enough for them to make a baseless assumption about my personal life, which they make even before I say anything about it.

One may argue I am a hypocrite because I also make assumptions about others when I disagree with them. But, there is a difference.

My aforementioned opponents make assumptions simply because I disagree, that’s literally the sole reason. Meanwhile, I make assumptions based not only on how (un)reasonable and factually (in)accurate their opinions are, but also the anecdotes which they willingly share.

If you say enjoyment of pop culture is a sign of immaturity, I can assume you are a self-righteous bitch who want to feel undeservingly high and mighty about your tastes.

If you say centre-left politics – which is closer to the centre than it is to the far end – is too “woke”, I can assume you are swinging too far to the right end. I can also assume you are unable to perceive life’s many many shades of grey.

If you say multiculturalism can only be found in the west, I can assume you are jingostic westerners who think your countries are more special than they really are and/or you know nothing about lives beyond your borders.

If you admit that you intentionally avoid interactions with the “others” and avoid visiting other countries because you “know” how bad they are, I can definitely say you don’t care about the truth, you just want to affirm your preconceived beliefs.

Again, I refuse to say I have fully escaped all kinds of bubbles. But, I am confident I have escaped more bubbles than my opponents do.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.