Movie Review: "The Fault in our Stars"

I remember a time when I, as a socially awkward teenager, started to emerge from the shell of my shyness, rebel against my parents, had the most crazy and yet fun times with my high school peers, and engage in a multitude of activities in my school so as to slowly gain a place and status in the social setting of my school. Viewing these in hindsight after being in a university for two and a half years, I miss those times, those awkward times where we pursue for relationships relentlessly, where we have the most carefree times of our lives, where our body image concerns us the most, where our hormonal fluctuations induce us sometimes into perma-rage towards our family members and friends. Being a teenager is fun, it is exciting, it is filled with exploration towards the unknown, and if developmental psychologist Erik Erikson is right, it is a time where we find our true identities.

But then, I remember my cousin. A cousin who was barely two months younger than me has been diagnosed with cancer. A diabolical disease that slowly consumes my living cousin into a lifeless corpse. It was painful to watch, it was devastating. To slowly look at a person, previously so full with life, filled with endless possibilities, who was so curious about the future, slowly decay and immobilized and ultimately confined to a bed was as horrible an event one can possibly imagine. One can only deal with so much despair until one starts to question the futility of life if suffering is such an inevitable circumstance in our meager lives. But he was an optimistic fellow, his family embraced Christianity, and together they endured the suffering through the guidance of the words of Christ, of the pastor, and of God. And in the end, he passed away, after years of suffering, into a state of eternal slumber. He died.

There is a disparity here that was irreconcilable. Two individuals of the same age, filled with equal possibilities, faced different fates. Their roads diverged. His was a cruel road, and although I do not wish to travel the road that he did, I do wish sincerely to have accompanied him farther down, to watch him grow, to watch him fly. Instead, he lies in a coffin, and I'm here typing. The scar he left behind is barely visible now that many years have passed since his death, but it is a scar that I am willing to take on for the rest of my life.

"The Fault in our Stars" (which was a film adapted from John Green's book with the same title) proposed an essentially similar story, a story of courage, a story of love, and a story that teaches us that one's attitude while facing a terminal illness is sometimes all that the patient has in his/her arsenal. But there is a catch, it views this story from the standpoint of the cancer patient itself. In that, the book and the film is ultimately a phenomenological study of how the cancer patient themselves lived through such a harrowing experience.

There cannot be a more obvious contradiction between Hazel, the female protagonist, and Augustus ("Gus" from here on for simplicity), the male protagonist. Hazel is a girl who seemingly has gotten everything in her life straightened out ever since she received her "death sentence" (the diagnosis). She is a realist. She sees death as inevitable, an oblivion that cannot be escaped from. She sees no value in trying to leave a significant trace behind while she is still alive.

Then there is Gus, the charming boy who has a happy-go-lucky attitude towards life even though he survived through a osteosarcoma (bone cancer) attack that robs him of his leg. Unlike Hazel, he is a romanticist. He likes using metaphors to explain everything (they are super pretentious). He held a romantic view on life itself. And although he holds Hazel's "rationality" and "smartness" in high esteem, I do believe that he is the one that has the most constancy with regards to his outlooks on life. In fact, subconsciously he may be the anchor that held Hazel down, and bring a sense of meaning and purpose to Hazel's life, which will profoundly change her life from hereon. He is realistically optimistic, in the sense that he realizes his flaws, his vulnerabilities, and his weaknesses, and yet hold on to a cheerful outlook even in the bleakest of times.

Yet, despite these seemingly wide set of differences, they actually have much in common. They are non-conformists. They are smart, and they are quirky and seemingly have a different kind of aura that cloaks them, making them appear much more different than any other teenagers. I believe this is inevitable, and they must be different from other people of their age. Because they have battled the demons of disease while others are still pondering whether Nike or Adidas is better; because they have stared the abyss of mortality in the eye while others are hanging out in shopping malls. This is what sets them apart from other kids, and this is what the film wanted to explore.

But what intrigues me the most is not what is explicitly shown in front of me on the screen. The importance of this work, the theme of the movie lies not what is being shown or said; rather, it lies behind what is not being said. There is a tension and a subtle flow of emotions that paints, pervades, and underlies each and every scene and dialogue in between the characters. In one scene, we can see Hazel looking at Gus while Gus is looking at the other direction, and lowers her head and avoided Gus shyly when he returns his gaze towards Hazel lovingly. All the delicacy, the tenderness, and the intimacy Hazel held towards Gus (and vice versa) culminates in that one gaze, and although no dialogue is exchanged between the two in that scene, there is nothing else that needs to be said. Take another scene for example, in that scene, Hazel is talking with her parents, and one might start getting suspicious of a certain ambiguity in their conversations. It seems as if they are circumventing around a topic that they are clearly avoiding, namely that of death itself, or more precisely, the fear of death itself.

There are many other factors that made this movie stand out so much among this years numerous films, namely John Green's or the director's smart decision to make the characters unique and memorable while dispensing them from the horrors of cardboard characterizations and cliched teenager stereotypes. The editing is really good, and the soundtrack is pure eargasm to listen to. But one of my favorite reasons (my most biased reason) is that I personally admire Shailene Woodley greatly ever since I saw her previous works in the equally amazing films "The Descendants" and "The Spectacular Now". "The Spectacular Now", "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" are smart coming-of-age films that depict our adolescent years with clarity and a touch of painful honesty that is tinged in nostalgia. It is these films that dared to break through the swamp of cliche "High School Musical" genre stagnation.

Watch it! It's worth it!

Watch it!!!!!

Bask in all the glories of Shailene Woodley-ness

I encourage you to go and watch this film, as it is a film that depicts the human life at its most painful and heartbreaking, yet it provides profound hope that even though our mortality is the one fact with which we have to bear with, we can control how we confront it. Everything essentially distills into this one point: we have the choice, and it is up to us to make that choice, since no one else can make it. So whether you face it courageously, despairingly, with or without the support of loved ones, one must remember this:

The fault is never in our stars, it is in us. :)

Book Review: "Love's Executioner (and Other Tales of Psychotherapy)"

"I do not like to work with patients who are in love. Perhaps it is because of envy -- I, too, crave enchantment. Perhaps it is because love and psychotherapy are fundamentally incompatible. The good therapist fights darkness and seeks illumination, while romantic love is sustained by mystery and crumbles upon introspection. I hate to be love's executioner."

The book

With these words in the first paragraph, Dr. Irvin D. Yalom opens up his searing examination of the psychotherapeutic process in his ten case studies, provided in detail and clarity throughout his book. Perhaps because it was his honesty in accounting for his own faults during his therapy sessions. Perhaps because it was his lucidity in writing his case studies and his own thought processes during the therapy sessions. But to account my fascination and admiration for his book through these singular reasons cannot do justice to the enlightenment and awakening experience that Yalom's book brought forth to me. What cannot be denied however was that through his examinations of his clientele and how they achieve success (or encounter failures) after their psychotherapies, Yalom was also simultaneously analyzing his own self, his identity as a psychotherapist, and the importance of his occupation. Indeed, the title was self-referential, and throughout the pages and lines of this book, he was an omnipresent guide, a background voice of self-awareness in the midst of chaos in the therapeutic sessions.

The author: Dr. Irvin D. Yalom

Written when he was in his fifties and published in 1989, the book remains an influential and relevant account of the importance of psychotherapy in our tumultuous times, where the medicalization of psychological distress and pseudo-alternative treatments ran abundant. Ever since Sigmund Freud introduced psychoanalysis as a form of "talking cure" to relieve patients of neuroses (and in some instances, psychoses), psychotherapy metamorphosed into a form of treatment that patients increasingly sought after in their times of crises. Yet at the same time, the thought of revealing the innermost recesses of our psyche, the fears and obsessions and secret thoughts, to another person who has a parent-like presence, albeit in anonymity, is very much frightening, and as a result, many view psychotherapy as an intrusion towards their mental life and thus regard it with disdain and distrust.

Lying on the couch

But what Yalom achieves in his book is very much the opposite, in a fashion much like Freud and Breuer's influential case study, "Studies on Hysteria", and Oliver Sacks' neurological case studies, he elucidates and provides in clear light how psychotherapy is like in real life. His psychotherapy approach is, however, very much different from other modern mainstream psychotherapies, such as psychoanalysis, interpersonal psychotherapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). His is an approach of psychotherapy that is heavily influenced by existential philosophies, which he termed "existential psychotherapy". But what is even more important is that he never sought to construct a clear-cut approach whereby there is a rigid construction on how therapy should run, and his approach is very pragmatic in which he integrates all forms of approaches (psychoanalytic dream interpretations, CBT's Socratic dialogue, interpersonal psychotherapy's emphasis on societal relationships) to form his own therapy sessions.

To be or not to be, that is the question!

Existential therapy is unique in that it incorporates a plethora of existential issues into the therapeutic sessions and analyzes them with the patients. Yalom drew heavy influence from existential philosophers such as Søren Kierkegaard, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Yalom's favorite, Friedrich Nietzsche. And from these philosophers, he distilled their lessons and theories into four main themes (death, freedom, meaning, isolation) which we will surely encounter in our lives, and which if left unresolved, will further progress to form a multitude of psychological distresses that incapacitate our everyday functioning. (There are other existential psychotherapists such as Viktor Frankl, Rollo May, Emmy Van Deurzen etc. and they have each written their own books on their subjects, each with differing views on the therapy itself. Do search for them if you are interested on the subject. :D)

Viktor Frankl

Emmy Van Deurzen

Rollo May

It is normal for us to encounter such dilemmas in our life, such as our anxiety towards death (or even our denial of death), our quest to find meaning in our lives, our feelings of existential isolation (even when we are surrounded by other, as there is an unbreachable gap between one another), and our feelings of anxiety when faced with the responsibility and with our inherent freedom to make choices in life. As the Danish philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard, once said, "Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom." And so it is, as the responsibility to change, and the freedom to acquire a sense of purpose in this inherently meaningless cosmos lies upon our shoulders, and the burden it gives is often times more greater than the joy it brings.

Say what?!

But as this book optimistically illustrates again and again, we can change, we can create our own meaning of the world, and we can overcome these obstacles. Because we simply can, if we will it, and if we pursue it.




(We recommend this book not only to those who are interested in psychotherapy, but also to all others who just wanted a good book to read, as there is surely something which may be beneficial to you. I encourage you guys to purchase the Basic Books edition, as it additionally includes an author's afterword on how he views his writing 25 years after the first publication.)

Other books on this subject:
1. Irvin D. Yalom. (1980). Existential Psychotherapy. Basic Books.
2. Emmy Van Deurzen. (2012). Existential Counselling & Psychotherapy in Practice. Sage Pub.
3. Rollo May. (2012). The Discovery of Being: Writings in Existential Psychology. W. W. Norton Co.
4. Viktor E. Frankl. (2006). Man's Search for Meaning. Beacon Press.
5. Rollo May. (2007). Love and Will. W. W. Norton Co. 

Movie Review: "Ikiru (To Live)"

“How can I keep silent? How can I stay quiet?

My friend, whom I loved, has turned to clay,

my friend Enkidu, whom I loved has turned to clay.

Shall I not be like him, and also lie down,

never to rise again, through all eternity?” 

- The Epic of Gilgamesh

Mortality is a deep wound that is forever embedded in the impenetrable depths of our human existence. No matter how advanced our scientific prowess, no matter how deep our understanding is of our cosmos, of our nature, of our world, the question remains, stifling our heart whenever we are in contemplation of the purpose or the meaning of our existence. The question is: "If one day we are destined to die, why then shall we live?" Indeed, why? The question has plagued us ever since the dawn of humanity, ever since the development of our self-awareness, of our consciousness.

The passage I quoted above is of the ancient mythical Babylonian hero, Gilgamesh's sorrow when his friend Enkidu has died, which lead to his confrontation with his own finiteness, his own mortality. His awareness that one day he too shall fall six feet under was too painful, too unbearable, that he sought to search for a path to immortality (which is unsuccessful, and after which he finally embraced his own mortality, if I may say so). But what does this has to do with the movie that we are about to discuss today (i.e. "Ikiru")?

Why, everything. 

"Ikiru" is a Japanese film that was made in 1954 (I am an old fashioned guy) by one of the greatest Japanese director alive, Akira Kurosawa. It depicts one of the most relevant issues that has since been labelled as a taboo topic in our contemporary society, namely that of death and dying. The title itself can be translated into "To Live", and as Buddhism taught us, life and death are inseparable, they are like two sides of the same coin, therefore, as Sogyal Rinpoche stated elegantly in his marvelous book, "The Tibetan Book of Living & Dying": "to learn how to die, is to learn how to live".

The movie itself is about a government bureaucrat who "lived" his entire life in a mundane pace, filled with endless and yet worthless jobs, such as stamping on document papers in an office that never gets anything done. The main character, Mr. Watanabe, has such a banal life that he was secretly nicknamed "The Mummy" by everyone in his office. He also never get to connect with his son, which was all the more ironic, since it was his son whom he dedicated his entire life working for in order to bring his son up. He lived what French novelist and philosopher, Albert Camus, would call an "absurd life", which is inherently lacking in meaning.

But all this was about to change when Watanabe went to the doctor because of constant stomach pains but instead found out, much to his astonishment, that he actually has terminal stage stomach cancer, and has only less than a year to live. He despaired and while he left the doctor's office visibly shaken but without betraying any outburst of emotion, he cried painfully while he was at home and under his blanket. From here, we can briefly understand what German philosopher Martin Heidegger means in his monolithic book, "Being & Time": "death is understood as an indefinite something, which, above all, must arrive from somewhere or other, but which is proximally not yet present-at-hand for oneself, and is therefore no threat". What this basically means is that although we humans are fully conscious that one day we certainly will die and that we are but finite beings, we do not know when we are going to die. Hence, we schedule and live our lives as if we are going to live on indefinitely whilst not incorporating the fact of our mortality into our life (or as Heidegger will likely put it, we absorb ourselves with the hassles of "everydayness" just so we can put the idea of death behind our selves). As Japanese author Haruki Murakami once put it in his novel, "Hard-Boiled Wonderland", "most of our activities are based on the assumption that life goes on", and so it is only when the announcement was made of our impending death that this illusion of immortality and invulnerability was shattered into smithereens.

So, with the knowledge that he was going to die in the near future, Watanabe became disillusioned of his worthless job, and hence skipped it so that he could go out for some "fun" and finally "live" a life. He met a man at a bar and together they went to a nightclub, drank a lot of alcohol, danced and singed for a while (and here there was a moving scene where he sang a song distilled in pure sadness, which affected everyone in the nightclub), and then the night was over. To his credit, he realized that this mode of "living" was so artificial, so superficial, that he discarded all thoughts of continuing this lifestyle.

And here, he met his second turning point. After a young female subordinate encountered him the next day, he was instantly attracted to her hopeful and optimistic demeanor (not in a sexual way you pervert!). The girl, Toyo, was so vigorous, so enthusiastic, so energetic, so full of life, that Watanabe couldn't help but became curious and thus became desperate to know her secrets. And so, he proposed that they went out for a few days, until the girl became exasperated by his forceful attempts, and it was only when she knew about Watanabe's impending doom (which he kept secret from everyone else, including his son) that she confessed about her new job, which was to make toys for kids and led to a purpose in her life. Although she walked away afterwards due to her fear of a dying person, she threw a last message to Watanabe --- "Make something."

Awakened by this experience, Watanabe resorted to create something in his life, which was to turn a mosquito infested area in a neighborhood into a playground. He dedicated his remaining time to this last project, and with a ferocity such as never before seen in his life, he finally arrived at his goal. Here we can see a principle at work, mainly that a life with a purpose is a life well-lived. Viktor Frankl, the Austrian psychiatrist who survived the holocaust and who dedicated his entire life to helping others through his newly established logotherapy, wrote in his moving book, "Man's Search for Meaning": "When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves." And I never tire to quote another line from his book: "In some ways suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning, such as the meaning of a sacrifice." Here he was in accord with German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, who once said, "To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering." And Viktor Frankl also frequently quoted Nietzsche in saying that, "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how."

Such was the conviction of the purpose of life, that it can inspire almost anyone, even in their last stages of life, to accomplish something, to achieve in something, even something that is seemingly small and insignificant to others. Irvin Yalom, an American psychiatrist, refers to this process as "rippling", in which we create something that can be passed on to others and enlarge another's life (in this case, it was the playground, which created the happiness of children in the neighborhood), so that we can transform our anxiety towards death into serenity and acceptance, and finally be able to face death with a new-found equanimity. Indeed, Yalom frequently used this quote in his books ("Love's Executioner" & "Staring at the Sun"), that "though the fact, the physicality, of death destroys us, the idea of death may save us."

The film actually paralleled the novella "The Death of Ivan Ilych", written by one of the greatest literary figures, Leo Tolstoy. Indeed, the film was actually inspired by the book, as it featured similar main characters who are bureaucrats faced with impending doom, while only managing to live a life of purpose and tranquility in their last days of life. If one were to look at Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's (one of the pioneers in death and dying research) five stages of dying, one would find that both these characters traveled through this tumultuous process, while finally arriving at the last stage, which is the "acceptance" of death, of coming to terms with their own mortality. (Kubler-Ross's model is somewhat cited as flawed as not all people traveled through all five stages: denial-anger-bargaining-depression-acceptance. And furthermore, most people do not arrive at the fifth and final stage - acceptance. But nonetheless, her model is still very much useful to understand the mentality of a dying person or those who are bereaved, thus it is still very relevant today, even after her own death. I encourage you guys to read her influential book, "On Death & Dying", to find out more about the five-stage model. :D)

In an age where we constantly deny the relevance of death and the importance of giving optimal care towards those who are dying, we encounter a dilemma whereby we actually denied one of the most crucial aspects of what makes us what we are, that is, the mortality of humans. We cease to see death as an issue that needs serious contemplating, that we actually have no insight or even foresight to what we will encounter as the chapters of life turns to an end. Hence, many harbor deep anxieties toward our finitude, and yet we bury all these deep-seated issues underneath our busy everyday life. How many of us has encountered people who lived their lives solely to work, to indulge in sensuous pleasures, and totally ignore the question of dying, only to be shocked to face it one day in the future. I, as a Chinese who lives in a conservative family, am always baffled by the overreactions of my grandparents, aunts, and uncles whenever I brought up the topic of death whether on the dining table or in ordinary conversations. They will always say, "Choi! Don't say that, it will bring about misfortune!" And this does not just happen in my family, as whenever I brought this subject up in front of my friends, the table will grow quiet, and the topic will suddenly change. Such is the excessive "taboo-ization" of death that pervades our community.

We are afraid of death because while we are so adapt at everything else, we are ignorant when it comes to death, this enigmatic presence that always floats around, seizing us when we let our guards down. We have to face death sooner or later, so why not prepare for it now while we have the means and the chances? Why don't we discuss, analyze the prospect of death in order to familiarize ourselves with it? Be it through reading books or literature, watching movies (such as this one), listening to songs, participating in healthcare activities, volunteering in hospice movements, we can enhance our knowledge of death and dying, and acquaint ourselves with it. There is a common saying that we fear because we don't understand.
I say the same goes for death too.

This is a movie that I have watched a few years back, but since then I have rewatched it countless times, and every time I finished it, the movie still never fails to move and inspire me (especially the final scene, which I will not spoil the experience for you), to make me reevaluate my present condition, to think about the future, and to make me want to achieve more. This is a film that truly delivers a life-changing message. I always tell others that they should not judge a movie based on where they are filmed, or in what language they are filmed in. One should not be intimidated by such prospects, as it is ultimately what a film delivers that matters the most. And this is the one film that I always suggested to others. It may be filmed eons ago, it may be filmed in Japanese, it may be black-and-white, but it truly is a film I value with all my soul.

And I hope that it will be of value to you too. :)

Some books that I recommend on this particular subject:
1. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. (1997). On Death & Dying.
2. Irvin D. Yalom. (2009). Staring at the Sun: Overcoming the Terror of Death.
3. Sogyal Rinpoche. (2008). The Tibetan Book of Living & Dying (20th Anniversary Version).
4. Viktor E. Frankl. (2011). Man's Search for Meaning (New Material Version). 
5. Irvin D. Yalom. (2012). Love's Executioner: & Other Tales of Psychotherapy (Basic Books).
6. Ernest Becker. (1997). The Denial of Death.

Some movies that I recommend on this particular subject:
1. Departures (Okuribito). (2008). Director: Yojiro Takita.
2. Dead Man Walking (1995). Director: Tim Robbins.
3. The English Patient (1996). Director: Anthony Minghella.
4. Million Dollar Baby (2004). Director: Clint Eastwood.
5. A Simple Life (Tao Jie). (2012). Director: Ann Hui.
6. Sophie's Choice. (1982). Director: Alan J. Pakula.
(I don't recommend "The Bucket's List", because well.... I don't like it, as I personally feel it to be a shallow and cliched depiction of the process of death and dying, and the Jack Nicholson character is as close to someone you would call an "A*hole". But, to each their own.)

And we made a video about death and dying too, "Mirage"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-huh4tHc03A

I know this looks like blatant self-promotion, but we can't help it, hahaha :)

Book Review: "An Anthropologist on Mars: Seven Paradoxical Tales"

If Darwin and his followers are right, then it should be deemed true that we humans (and in fact all the other organisms on this planet) came to be through the constant and ongoing process of evolution, through the mutation of our collective gene pool, and through the pervading influence of genetic predispositions and external environment. It is the motherload of all theories, since it is all-encompassing, and the "theory of evolution" is one of the most lucid explanations given to describe our origins. Thus, if the theory is true, then our bodies, our inner organs, the way we behave, the way we think, all comes from the evolution of millions of years. And as neuroscientists and all other biologists like to point out in this scientific era, our thoughts, our emotions, our entire psychological makeup, is intrinsically linked to our brains.

:Okay:

Human brains have always been upheld as one of the most evolutionary advanced among the species found on our planet. In fact the human brain is so advanced that we can perform activities that other species are only capable of at a rudimentary and primitive level, such as the creation and utilizing of tools, language and symbols usage, theory of mind (the understanding and speculation of what others are thinking), empathy etc. Therefore, this makes us unique among the vast amount of species located on Earth. But what if this is not our limit? What if our evolution has not yet reached a stagnant period, and our brains are ever more propelled to evolve further, even though we are not conscious of the process (since evolution takes a lot of time)?

Indeed, such is the purpose of Oliver Sacks, one of the most popular writers of neurology and neurologist in our era, in writing this inspiring and moving book. In this profound book there are seven case studies that illuminate the field of neurological deficits, and with a clear and concise prose, you can virtually sense the shimmering empathy and warmth at the core of each and every case study that Dr. Sacks presented in this book. In fact, he drew his inspiration directly (which he so often quotes) from A. R. Luria, also one of the most influential "neuropsychologist" in our modern medical history, who also wrote two influential case studies on neurological deficits: "The Mind of the Mnemonist" and "The Man with a Shattered World".

Oliver Sacks

Teh Booke...

In using Luria's style of presenting case studies of patients, Dr. Sacks abandoned the so often used clinical way of writing that so predominated our modern medical field, which is laden with professional jargon, in favor of a much more informal, personal, and phenomenological approach while presenting every case. The style of writing can be seen in many of his other books, such as "Awakenings" (which is adapted into an Oscar nominated film), "The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat" and etc., which I highly encourage you guys to take a look into.

The seven case studies are of people who suffered from neurological deficits, brain tumors, inborn disorders or syndromes and many more. But what Dr. Sacks is so very interested in revealing through these case studies are not how they faced the disease or how the disease has affected their lives (although there is very much of these in this book), but rather, he is interested in the qualitative changes and the way these people cope and adapt to their situations. It is often astonishing (to me at least) at how Dr. Sacks doesn't seem like the cold, detached and objective scientist that he was, as he focuses much more on these people's inner changes and outlooks on their own neuropathologies, like a psychotherapist or a psychiatrist. In fact, below are the lines in which he wrote at his preface, which I will quote in full (because I like it, so what you gonna do 'bout it?):
"These then are tales of metamorphosis, brought about by neurological chance, but metamorphosis into alternative states of being, other forms of life, no less human for being so different." 

And so, this is what he termed paradoxical, precisely because for "suffering" under these neurological deficits and diseases, the people in these seven case studies are profoundly "disabled", and yet they are simultaneously changed in the most direct ways of their entire existence, many of which even adapted to the situation, and may even start viewing their "disabilities" as normal, incorporating their "deficiencies" into their being, while being unable to imagine how life would be like if they are to return "normal" again. Such is the case with virtually every case study presented in this book.

I would like to present then, in summary, what these seven case studies will be about:
(1) "The Case of the Colorblind Painter": This case study depicts a painter and artist who after suffering a sudden brain damage, develops severe achromatopsia, leading him to be unable to perceive colors anymore.
(2) "The Last Hippie": A man develops a large brain tumor in the frontal lobes (usually associated with our higher levels of brain processing, such as personality, cognitive functioning, executive functioning, etc.), leading his entire personality to change dramatically, and developing severe anterograde amnesia (the inability to form new memories), thus being literally stuck in time.
(3) "The Surgeon's Life": A surgeon who suffered from Tourette Syndrome, learns how to "control" his tics (uncontrollable impulsive motor, verbal, and mental activities, such as sudden muscle spasms) while performing surgeries (!!!!).
(4) "To See and Not to See": A blind man since his early childhood suddenly regains his eyesight through the advent of medical technology, becomes disturbed by the prospect of seeing, and has problems coordinating and adapting to this newly "found" sense.
(5) "The Landscape of His Dreams": An artist retains a highly detailed picture of his early home village in Pontito, Tuscany (Italy), despite him haven't been home for many years. His imagery and memory has an uncanny quality of precision, and he is obsessed with it.
(6) "Prodigies": This case study explores the relationship between Dr. Sacks and the famous autistic savant, Stephen Wiltshire, who is also famous for his accurate memory capabilities and artistry.
(7) "An Anthropologist on Mars": This case study also explores the relationship between Dr. Sacks and the equally famous autistic person, Temple Grandin, who was famous for her designs on lifestock production facilities that are humane. I have briefly discussed this case study on our last movie review, "Rain Man", and the title refers to Grandin's incapability to understand "normal" human interactions.

And thus, this shall conclude this week's book review, and I hope you will find this book enlightening, as much as I do. And I hope that you will enjoy this review. This is a book that I deeply admired, not only for its intellectual clarity, but also for its humane warmth that radiates through the lines and pages. And when you finish it, you may come to realize, that there are no limits to our human capacity to change and adapt, no matter it is our brains, our organs, or even our psychological mechanisms, and no matter how serious the conditions that we are all in.

Because this is inherent in all of us.



(If you like this book, I shall suggest you to go further and read Oliver Sacks' other books, particularly "The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat", as it is written similarly as a collection of diverse and unique case studies of other people suffering under different neurological conditions. And also, please do look up the books by A. R. Luria, which are presented below, as they are also really really good. :D )

The Predecessor: Luria 

Movie Review: "Rain Man"

This is your "main man" speaking (watch the movie and you will understand), and welcome to our first movie review. I'm sure most of you would have already watched this 1988 American classic, and for you guys, I will attempt to write a review that will provide a psychological analysis. As for those who haven't watched it, well, let this be an introductory guide to the film (don't worry, no spoilers here.... not).

This movie starts by focusing on a despicable and clearly unlikable Los Angeles yuppie, Charlie Babbitt (Tom Cruise), who was in the midst of a financial crisis. Charlie is the type of man that we all have seen or are acquainted with before, who lives his life with only a sole purpose, that is, to earn money, and to the exclusion of everything else. His relationships with others are superficial, and only with the aim of gaining benefits from others. Charlie's girlfriend, Susanna (Valeria Golino), was also exasperated by his shallow and quick-tempered attitude towards life. He was a manipulator, a sociopath, and a Machiavellian (but as the movie progresses, the other dimension to his personality is gradually exposed, and there is much depth and substance in his life than previously though, especially in respect to the relationship between him and his father. Freud, I need your help now!)

But Charlie's life was changed entirely when he heard that his father, with whom he had never established contact with since he ran away from home when he was very young, has died. And so, he and his girlfriend went to Cincinnati, Ohio, to settle and acquire his father's will. What Charlie found to his absolute astonishment was that his father has only left behind his house and car for him, and all the money ($3 million!) has been transferred to a mental institution as a trust fund. And so, Charlie went to the mental institution, and again, he was shocked to find that there was a man named Raymond, who was actually his older brother, which he was previously unaware of! And it was Raymond Babbitt (Dustin Hoffman) that inherited their father's money. So, Charlie went on to "kidnap" his brother, with the aim to gain back what was "rightfully" his, the bulk of the will's money, in order to escape his tight financial situation. And thus begins the age old, "buddy-on-the-road" movie, where they will experience adventures and gain insight into each other, that will transform each other's lives.

But (and this is a big BUT) there is a catch. Raymond was not someone who you will call a typical "buddy". In fact, Raymond did not even have the ability to make friends with others. Why? Because he was a man with a well known neurodevelopmental disorder, called "Autism Spectrum Disorder" (ASD).

First of all, what is autism? Autism spectrum disorder, according to the American Psychiatric Association, is a disorder that predominantly manifests in a person's incapability to communicate and socialize "normally" with others, with the addition to render an autistic person with "repetitive, restricted, and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities". What this basically means is that an autistic person will be unable to establish social interactions with others (such as playing with other children), to communicate even their basic needs with others, and they will become very intensely focused with their own activities and perform repetitive behaviors (such as adhering to a strict routine), stereotyped motor movements (such as rocking their bodies, flapping their hands, banging their heads), to the exclusion of everything else; and when someone tries to stop their behaviors or activities, they will grow extremely uncomfortable and will even engage in extreme emotional outbursts. And this is severe in that it is often a lifelong condition, with no-known cures, and unknown causes.

However, what the word "spectrum" in the term means is that the disorder runs along a dimensional spectrum, with "low functioning autism" at one end, and "high functioning autism" at the other (the most commonly associated disorder with the high functioning end is "Asperger's Syndrome"). And Raymond, despite all his deficiencies and disabilities, is a high functioning autistic savant. This, to put it in layman's terms, is to say that Raymond will display outstanding skills and abilities in a particular field even without practice, and the communication and social disabilities is not as severe as those on the low functioning end (in Raymond's case it is mathematical and memory capabilities, which the movie portrays in an extraordinarily uncanny and yet moving way).

But what makes individuals with autism particularly frustrating for others (especially close relatives and friends) is that they seem to have no particular interest in forming relationships with others. They can't understand social or communication norms. They have peculiar or bizzare communication patterns (such as repeating certain terms or words in a sentence, or mimicking another's verbal or vocal pronunciations in an endless loop without knowing the meaning, known as "echolalia"). They don't look at you when they speak. They can't express emotions in ways a "normal" person can. They adhere to a strict (some even say "ritualistic") schedule or routine. In short, they seem to act and behave in ways that resemble an "automaton". (In one of the most fascinating case studies I have read about autism spectrum disorder, Oliver Sacks describes a famous autistic individual, Temple Grandin, as having said that she felt as if she was "an anthropologist on Mars", because she felt so estranged and bewildered by "normal" social rules and emotions. I will write a review of the book in the near future to provide a more in-depth analysis.)

The movie never shies away from the ultimate frustration and disturbance of a person who tries to get close to another autistic individual, as in the movie, Charlie's anger and frustration culminates in one scene where he roared towards Raymond, "I think this autism is a bunch of shit! 'Cause you can't tell me that you're not in there somewhere!"

And yet the movie itself portrays the autistic Raymond in such a poignant way, that you can't help but feel a closeness towards him. One thing to note and praise the film is that it doesn't try to make Raymond's situation sympathetic or impose a certain form of our superiority towards autistic individuals. To feel pity and sympathy towards another is often times rooted in a sense of condescension towards the one being pitied. But to feel a feeling of tenderness and even love towards another, that is compassion. Yet, the movie succeeds in evoking this transcendent feeling of compassion towards a fictional character, now that is true achievement! The movie doesn't provide a sentimental, but ultimately unrealistic picture of Raymond's disorder. It doesn't romanticize the whole issue at hand, it isn't cheesy with its conclusions. It supplies endless amounts of questions, such as "what makes us human?", "how does a man who has a predisposition to not change and adapt to the situation, survive in a constantly changing environment?" And yet, the movie smartly never attempts to answer any of those questions, and left it hanging on an ambiguous, but ultimately satisfying note. Dustin Hoffman never portrays Raymond as cute and adorable, and is frank and realistic with the actions and behaviors of an autistic individual.

Even Charlie, who was a self-serving, absolutely despicable selfish yuppie cannot help but undertake a personal transformation during the entire process of the movie. There are no spiritual revelations or sudden inspirations. There is only this natural and subtle shift of his own perspective, where he learned how to care, how to love, and how to change for the better. But I think the most profound aspect of this whole movie is in the portrayal of Raymond. Movies are about changes, where an event happens, leading to an underlying shift of time, space, and character, and the characters in it moves toward a conclusion throughout the entire event, where they arise differently at the end then when they are from the start of a film. But in this film, everyone changes. Except for Raymond. In fact, the way I see it, Raymond doesn't even know about the necessity or importance of change.

Even though the film propagates and creates a common misconception that autistic individuals often have savant skills (they don't, some never acquire it) -- and there is one scene in the film in which Charlie makes use of Raymond's savantism for his own gains that made me especially uncomfortable -- this film is a very moving and touching film in that it celebrates our shared humanity, despite our difficulties and differences and disabilities. Most of all, it cherishes the virtue of acceptance, whether it is of fate or of each other.

And in the end, we may come to the realization, that all of us, be it "disabled" or not, are not so different from one another at all. After all, all of us has one thing or another to teach each other.



For some information on Autism Spectrum Disorder:
1. A video on the symptoms of ASD http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbXjW-cX9kQ
2. The American Psychiatric Association Fact Sheet on ASD
http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Autism%20Spectrum%20Disorder%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
3. I suggest you all to buy Oliver Sacks books "An Anthropologist on Mars" or "The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat", as he provides moving and phenomenological accounts on autistic individuals and on some autistic savants. :)