Sybil Dorsett is shy, young graduate who suffers from Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), also known as multiple personality disorder, due to her childhood trauma.This film illustrates on the onset of the disorder and the process of discovering and resolving it with Sybil's psychiatrist, Dr. Wilbur.
Portrayal of Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) symptoms
According to DSM-V, below are the criteria to diagnose DID.
1. Disruption of identity characterized by two or more distinct personality states, which may be described in some cultures as an experience of possession. The disruption in identity involves marked discontinuity in sense of self and sense of agency, accompanied by related alterations in affect, behavior, consciousness, memory, perception, cognition, and/or sensory-motor functioning. These signs and symptoms may be observed by others or reported by the individual.
- Peggy, Vicky, Vanessa, Marcia, Ruthie, Nancy, Clara and etc, all of them had introduced themselves as different identity and person, where they had different personalities and needs. For example, Vanessa was very outgoing and she portrayed herself (Sybil) as young and vibrant. She tried to help Sybil in building a relationship with Richard, whom she fell in love with.
2. Recurrent gaps in the recall of everyday events, important personal information, and/or traumatic events that are inconsistent with ordinary forgetting.
- Sybil revealed that she had a two-year-gap in memories and she could not recall what had happened. It would not be logical to say that it is merely an episode of forgetfulness.
3. The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
- What Sybil was experiencing had even led her to killing herself, which is seriously impairing her life.
4. The disturbance is not a normal part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice.
Note: In children, the symptoms are not better explained by imaginary playmates or other fantasy play.
- It was obviously abnormal to the cultural practice as Sybil was suggested to consult psychiatrist when she broke down in front of her students.
5. The symptoms are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance (e.g., blackouts or chaotic behavior during alcohol intoxication) or another medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures).
- Sybil was not seen to be indulging in any substance or suffering from another medical condition in the movie.
All in all, I think the film accurately depicted the symptoms of DID through Sally Field's acting skills.
Form of therapy
As portrayed in the film, Dr Wilbur had adopted the method of hypnosis to assist Sybil to recall her memories as I think the focus of the therapy was mainly on uncovering her past traumatic experiences and trying to resolve it. Hypnosis is known as a mean to understand or even alter the repressed memories in psychoanalysis approach. It seemed to be the only way to help Sybil to recall her memories, but as mentioned, hypnosis could unintentionally/unknowingly alter her memories too. Thus, the use of hypnosis is still questionable but it was good to see that Sybil had benefited from it in the end.
Ethical challenges
I find the relationship between Sybil and Dr. Wilbur being quite controversial. Although in this case, I could see no other way to get deeper understanding in Sybil's story and help her, I think Dr Wilbur demonstrated a very motherly care towards Sybil. She was even warned by her colleague to not get attached to her. This could be one of the ethical challenges where Dr Wilbur could have been more careful with her behavior and attitude towards Sybil to avoid attachment which might lead to unnecessary ethical issues.
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Schindler's List
Oscar Schindler, a German who saved roughly 1100 Jews by putting them in his factory to work during the Jews' darkest time in Germany. Although Schindler's initial intention was to make money out of them, he realizes he could do something greater with his actions - to save these innocent Jews. Thanks to Itzhak Stern, his administrator, who was also a Jews, falsified documents to retain all the Jews in the factory.
If I were to put a meaning in "war", it would be something that allow you to see the downside of human's behavior, that you would not see in daily life. During that time, the Germans were being extremely cruel and ruthless towards Jews even though the Jews had done nothing wrong.
Talking alongside with Milgram's experiment that was inspired by Nazis' act, it was indicated that the army detached the responsibility as they were merely following order. However, going in deeper, most of them in the army, truly believed that what they were doing was for justice. But how? How did they believe that it was right to kill people? How did they sleep well at night after torturing all these innocent people? And for this, I would attribute this "honor" to the leader, Hitler, of what he had done to "brainwash" his army. According to Reicher, Haslam and Rath (2008), they proposed a social identity model of how people who commit great wrongs actually know what they are doing, choose to do it and celebrate what they did, which explained the background of the movie of why the Nazis committed such crimes without mercy. There were five steps of making a virtue out of evil.
1. Identification: At this stage, they construct and generate an in-group identity, by seeking common ground of interest, which would become a source of empowerment to their acts later.
2. Exclusion: They start to define who and what would be counted as "one of us". "What is the first Commandment of every National Socialist?...Love Germany above all else and your ethnic comrad [Volksgenosse] as your self." (Koonz, 2003). This was the narrow definition they made about them and this stage of exclusions and inclusion would bring about a whole different set of behaviors.
3. Threat: While many groups that do not share identity, they do not necessarily hate each other. The conflict only arises when certain groups are seen as threats to their hosts. From internet, I actually found that Jews were perceived as having too much wealth and power by Germans, which was a justifiable threat. However, it slowly developed to "Jews are a convenient group to single out and blame for our troubles" and "We hate Jews because they are different from us", which I could never understand the hate in it.
4. Virtue: At this stage, Nazis presented themselves as a moral project. They wanted to "clean up" their nation from the "unwanted influences". They no longer mention Jews, but mention more of German supremacy. Reicher et al. (2008) mentioned that the higher the ingroup virtues, the more serious the outgroup threat becomes, and when this happens, their "cleaning" to defend themselves would become more acceptable.
5. Celebration: When virtues are clearly defined, when group boundaries are clear, the stage is set for further problems. If "they" represent "evil", then it would be a necessity for the destruction to take place.
Back to the movie, Schindler, on the other hand, was being very kind to the Jews, to the extent of allowing them to even celebrate Sabbath. At that point, his factory did not produce even one working shell, as he bribed officials and sold shells from other companies to keep his workers alive. The amount of empathy and responsibility that Schindler was having could be observed during the scene of how he was mortified at how he could have save more lives. The "what if"s, "what could have been"s, and "what should have been"s. This is something I would appreciate the most, to see the light in such darkness, to feel the warmth in such coldness, to see the humanity of inhumanities.
If I were to put a meaning in "war", it would be something that allow you to see the downside of human's behavior, that you would not see in daily life. During that time, the Germans were being extremely cruel and ruthless towards Jews even though the Jews had done nothing wrong.
Talking alongside with Milgram's experiment that was inspired by Nazis' act, it was indicated that the army detached the responsibility as they were merely following order. However, going in deeper, most of them in the army, truly believed that what they were doing was for justice. But how? How did they believe that it was right to kill people? How did they sleep well at night after torturing all these innocent people? And for this, I would attribute this "honor" to the leader, Hitler, of what he had done to "brainwash" his army. According to Reicher, Haslam and Rath (2008), they proposed a social identity model of how people who commit great wrongs actually know what they are doing, choose to do it and celebrate what they did, which explained the background of the movie of why the Nazis committed such crimes without mercy. There were five steps of making a virtue out of evil.
1. Identification: At this stage, they construct and generate an in-group identity, by seeking common ground of interest, which would become a source of empowerment to their acts later.
2. Exclusion: They start to define who and what would be counted as "one of us". "What is the first Commandment of every National Socialist?...Love Germany above all else and your ethnic comrad [Volksgenosse] as your self." (Koonz, 2003). This was the narrow definition they made about them and this stage of exclusions and inclusion would bring about a whole different set of behaviors.
3. Threat: While many groups that do not share identity, they do not necessarily hate each other. The conflict only arises when certain groups are seen as threats to their hosts. From internet, I actually found that Jews were perceived as having too much wealth and power by Germans, which was a justifiable threat. However, it slowly developed to "Jews are a convenient group to single out and blame for our troubles" and "We hate Jews because they are different from us", which I could never understand the hate in it.
4. Virtue: At this stage, Nazis presented themselves as a moral project. They wanted to "clean up" their nation from the "unwanted influences". They no longer mention Jews, but mention more of German supremacy. Reicher et al. (2008) mentioned that the higher the ingroup virtues, the more serious the outgroup threat becomes, and when this happens, their "cleaning" to defend themselves would become more acceptable.
5. Celebration: When virtues are clearly defined, when group boundaries are clear, the stage is set for further problems. If "they" represent "evil", then it would be a necessity for the destruction to take place.
Back to the movie, Schindler, on the other hand, was being very kind to the Jews, to the extent of allowing them to even celebrate Sabbath. At that point, his factory did not produce even one working shell, as he bribed officials and sold shells from other companies to keep his workers alive. The amount of empathy and responsibility that Schindler was having could be observed during the scene of how he was mortified at how he could have save more lives. The "what if"s, "what could have been"s, and "what should have been"s. This is something I would appreciate the most, to see the light in such darkness, to feel the warmth in such coldness, to see the humanity of inhumanities.
Saturday, March 25, 2017
Hunt for Wilderpeople
According to the attachment theory, both Ricky Baker and Hec would be categorized into the avoidant-attachment style. After he was sent to his new foster family with Hec and Bella, he tried to run away at the very beginning. He did not want to talk to anyone and even though Bella has been trying to make him feel warmth and love, he sneaked out at the midnight and tried to escape. Perhaps it was the abandonment by his mum that led him to this but it is also possible that he did not believe there would be kind people in the world due to his past experience with the child welfare services and the loss of his best friend. Perhaps this is also why he was being described by as a troublesome kid who did "graffiti-ing, littering, smashing stuff, burning stuff, breaking stuff, stealing stuff, throwing rocks...", he wanted to protect himself as he was never loved by anyone. However, it was heartwarming to see that he began to talk to Bella and even starting to form an attachment with her, which was shown when they could sing along for his own birthday although the song was a self-composed one. It was also the beginning of him having a taste of love, that unlock his armed heart, that enabled him to be fearless to try getting closer with Hec after Bella's death.
I would consider Hec was also having the avoidant-attachment style because he hardly form any attachment with anyone too. Even with Bella, he did not have much interaction with her in daily life, he did not show any affection towards anyone. However, we could feel how much he loves Bella especially when he expressed his sadness in tears while holding Bella in his arm when she's dead. His later revelation about his past with Ricky, had also revealed the reason he became what he was.
The process of forming attachment with each other between Ricky and Hec was the highlight of the movie. They were similar to each other, in terms of experience and the way they react to the environment, only one was younger and one was older, which made a huge difference as Ricky still kept a naive side of him where he would want to be loved and cared. His was still not in complete disappointment to the world, which is why he was easily lit up by Bella. However, Hec had much more experience with the world. He was realistic, and he had enough of disappointment with the world that he did not want to give anymore. He only wanted to keep everything to himself and keep himself isolated from the world. Yet, he could not resist this thing called "love", that he got showered by Bella and Ricky, which eventually led him to forming that attachment with Ricky.
"No Child Left Behind"
It's sarcastic to see how the child welfare services has been using this tagline yet their actions have not been really synchronised with it. Yes, they tried to find Ricky when he went missing but the thing is they made a big fuss out of the missing of Ricky by having helicopter and police car to chase him, just to throw him into juvenile prison again, made all the efforts they put in the chase sound really ridiculous. The tagline was supposed to be advocating for children's welfare, but their actions have already gone wild, losing the original intention.
I would consider Hec was also having the avoidant-attachment style because he hardly form any attachment with anyone too. Even with Bella, he did not have much interaction with her in daily life, he did not show any affection towards anyone. However, we could feel how much he loves Bella especially when he expressed his sadness in tears while holding Bella in his arm when she's dead. His later revelation about his past with Ricky, had also revealed the reason he became what he was.
The process of forming attachment with each other between Ricky and Hec was the highlight of the movie. They were similar to each other, in terms of experience and the way they react to the environment, only one was younger and one was older, which made a huge difference as Ricky still kept a naive side of him where he would want to be loved and cared. His was still not in complete disappointment to the world, which is why he was easily lit up by Bella. However, Hec had much more experience with the world. He was realistic, and he had enough of disappointment with the world that he did not want to give anymore. He only wanted to keep everything to himself and keep himself isolated from the world. Yet, he could not resist this thing called "love", that he got showered by Bella and Ricky, which eventually led him to forming that attachment with Ricky.
"No Child Left Behind"
It's sarcastic to see how the child welfare services has been using this tagline yet their actions have not been really synchronised with it. Yes, they tried to find Ricky when he went missing but the thing is they made a big fuss out of the missing of Ricky by having helicopter and police car to chase him, just to throw him into juvenile prison again, made all the efforts they put in the chase sound really ridiculous. The tagline was supposed to be advocating for children's welfare, but their actions have already gone wild, losing the original intention.
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Grace is Gone
Grace is gone is a heartfelt movie about how a veteran, Stanley grieved over the death of his wife, Grace, while contemplated on how to tell his two young children, Dawn and Heidi, about the news.
When Stanley first received the news, he was in great shock. It can be seen that he was in denial of the fact for quite a long time, from the moment when he stopped Dawn and Heidi from eating the food that was given as condolences, to his behavior of calling home, wanting to inform his dead wife everything was alright on the trip. He also deployed the mechanism of reaction formation as his behavior was contrast to the situation he faced at that moment. For example, he told his daughters it was fine to take a break from school. He decided to bring them to their favourite theme park after Dawn's impromptu suggestion and even allowed Heidi and Dawn to get their ear pierced.
If I were to put myself in his shoes, I would not know how to handle the situation too. The death of spouse is heartbreaking, yet I had to stay strong for my children especially when they were so young and I didn't even know how to inform them about it. The hardest part is I will have to manage my emotion and taking care of theirs at the same time. When my grandmother passed away 5 years ago, I remember how my dad was being so calm and strong in front of us about his own mother's death when even my mum could not bear the pain and cried. "This is how life is supposed to be, she has suffered enough and it is good that she is released from the pain now," I remember how my dad said this to me as I felt so sad about her death and went on crying for few consecutive days. I do think that how my parents went through the grief process, deeply affected me, as I learned it through my observation on them. I am glad that they did not just keep everything to themselves but instead shared their thoughts with me, which enabled me to slowly let go of the fact that my grandmother had left us.
This movie revealed the other side of the families who endure the pain and consequences in the battle with Iraq. Throughout the film, audiences are led to pick up the feeling of sympathy and be in the position of Grace's family. The movie subtly uncovered the reality of how the political belief and stand collide with each other, and how it ignites the war, through the father-daughter conversation and the broadcast of television in the movie. During the war, they get to see updates on the news daily and the media was trying to portray and categorize the battle as necessary for the sake of glory of being Americans. We are always proud to see how a villain was defeated by our country heroes. The magnificent explosion in the battle field, soldiers who put their life aside and were fueled up with the courage to fight for the country… Generally, people would expect this kind of story when we were to talk about war. Surprisingly, this movie captures the moment behind the war, the world under the mat we did not expect to see or rather, usually ignored. The impact it brings when the whole family has to endure the pain of losing one or even more family members in a battle, just for the sake of glory, is it worthy? Bear in mind, this movie was only shot and focused on one family, can we imagine how many families are this closely related to war?
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
The Experimenter
The Experimenter is a movie based on the true story of a social psychologist, Stanley Milgram, who had studied on obedience through conducting a series of experiments back in 1961. The study had stirred up controversy to not only the psychology world but also the whole world during that time.
Most of the people tend to believe or assume that they are kind in nature and that they would not intentionally hurt someone. This study conducted by Milgram would have an authority figure, a teacher(participants) and a learner(confederate), where the teacher would be ask to administer shock to the learner when the learner did not answer the question correctly. This idea, that came out of his curiosity of why would the followers of Nazis would obey to instructions of execution without questions or guilt. not only had administered physical test shock to the participants, but also psychological shock to them. The controversy was mainly about the ethical issue in it as participants were observed being under a great amount of distress during the experiment, due to their cognitive dissonance. They knew that it was not appropriate to administer shock to these people, yet they continue doing so. The experiment was indeed very interesting as people kind of found the true side of them when it comes to situation where they are required to merely obey to an authority figure without doubts.
On a side note, I believe that one of the controversies was that people did not feel comfortable being revealed or confronted as being an unkind person. The concept of self-presentation refers to the extent of people behave according to how they want others to perceive themselves. During the experiment, especially during the debriefing after it is over, the participants felt relieved that they did not really hurt the learner, yet they felt contradicted as they could not accept this side of them where they were actually willing to hurt someone else. The criticism regarding ethical issue seems more like a defense mechanism that the world used to defend themselves from being tested on this even further. They want to stop talking / disucssing about it. This is what the movie is trying to portray through the scenes where an elephant was walking behind Milgram. It is actually used to resemble the metaphorical idiom "elephant in the room", hinting on the phenomenon in which people's refusal to admit or discuss about an obvious risk.
I have always had interest in topic about obedience since I first get my hands on this research when I first attended PSY 111 Social Psychology class. I found this study amazing as it reveals a down side of human's behavior. If I were to conduct a social experiment without ethical or budgeting limit, I would really want to do something about to what extent would people go for their own pleasure at the expense of others. I have not had an actual idea on how to do this but I really want to find out more about the selfishness in people.
Most of the people tend to believe or assume that they are kind in nature and that they would not intentionally hurt someone. This study conducted by Milgram would have an authority figure, a teacher(participants) and a learner(confederate), where the teacher would be ask to administer shock to the learner when the learner did not answer the question correctly. This idea, that came out of his curiosity of why would the followers of Nazis would obey to instructions of execution without questions or guilt. not only had administered physical test shock to the participants, but also psychological shock to them. The controversy was mainly about the ethical issue in it as participants were observed being under a great amount of distress during the experiment, due to their cognitive dissonance. They knew that it was not appropriate to administer shock to these people, yet they continue doing so. The experiment was indeed very interesting as people kind of found the true side of them when it comes to situation where they are required to merely obey to an authority figure without doubts.
On a side note, I believe that one of the controversies was that people did not feel comfortable being revealed or confronted as being an unkind person. The concept of self-presentation refers to the extent of people behave according to how they want others to perceive themselves. During the experiment, especially during the debriefing after it is over, the participants felt relieved that they did not really hurt the learner, yet they felt contradicted as they could not accept this side of them where they were actually willing to hurt someone else. The criticism regarding ethical issue seems more like a defense mechanism that the world used to defend themselves from being tested on this even further. They want to stop talking / disucssing about it. This is what the movie is trying to portray through the scenes where an elephant was walking behind Milgram. It is actually used to resemble the metaphorical idiom "elephant in the room", hinting on the phenomenon in which people's refusal to admit or discuss about an obvious risk.
I have always had interest in topic about obedience since I first get my hands on this research when I first attended PSY 111 Social Psychology class. I found this study amazing as it reveals a down side of human's behavior. If I were to conduct a social experiment without ethical or budgeting limit, I would really want to do something about to what extent would people go for their own pleasure at the expense of others. I have not had an actual idea on how to do this but I really want to find out more about the selfishness in people.
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Amadeus
It's a fictional tale of a genius, narrated by a mediocrity. Having mere passion is not enough on the path of music, but with god's gift. Thus, a tragedy begins when a passionate court composer - Antonio Salieri met with the gifted musician - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
Antonio Salieri is no doubt devoted to God, with his passion in music. Before meeting Mozart, he was already amazed by his piece and convinced that his talent was gift from God. Their first encounter was shocking to Salieri, expecting a paradigmatic person but seeing Mozart's libertine's side had crashed his fantasy. Nonetheless, he was subdued by Mozart's piece. During their first official meeting, Salieri presented his creation, "March of Welcome". Mozart could just play it from memory after hearing it once. He critiqued the piece and effortlessly transformed it. From there, Salieri's envy transforming into jealousy, the journey of him revenging on God began with no return.
Cognitive Dissonance
It was very obvious to the audience that Salieri had strong cognitive dissonance. He was left in awe every time after listening to Mozart. He could not help but to recognize and acknowledge Mozart's talent. Yet, he was conflicted because he could not understand God's will in giving such great gift to the childish and presumptuous Mozart. He tried to reduce his dissonance by interpreting it as God's cruel despise on his mediocrity and hence wanted to revenge.
Instead of Mozart's life, this film is more like a journey of transformation of Salieri's state of mind. From awe and admiration to jealousy and hatred, his life was tied to Mozart since the moment they met. Following Mozart's death, Salieri's passion in music and life were gone too.
Perhaps it's another blessing from God that Mozart never know what had led him to his death. Towards the end of his life, thinking that the murderer was his bosom friend while doing something he had devoted his life for, who says he's not the lucky one?
Perhaps it's another blessing from God that Mozart never know what had led him to his death. Towards the end of his life, thinking that the murderer was his bosom friend while doing something he had devoted his life for, who says he's not the lucky one?
At the end of the film, Mozart's significant high-pitched laughter leads to the credit role, as if that was the purest and uncontaminated part of the film.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Whale Rider
Whale Rider is a film of a young girl, Paikea who struggles with the duty she believes she was born to fill and the stereotyped role that her grandfather who is also the leader of the community, Koro expects her to play.
Paikea was born as one of the twins. However, her birth was accompanied by the death of her mother and her elder twin brother. Koro was not happy with her birth as only the first-born male of every generation were allowed to take up the mantle as the chief of the tribe. Koro demanded Paikea's father to get married again so that there would be a successor but Paikea's father was in despair and did not want to obey. Over the years as Paikea grew up, she started to grow on Koro and he no longer looked at her with the same feelings of disappointment yet there is still some beliefs in his mind that he could not abandon.
Cognitive Dissonance
In the film, Koro seems to display cognitive dissonance as he appears to be having conflict between his attitude, belief and behavior. At the beginning of the film, Koro seems to be having an affectionate bond with Paikea through his act of fetching her back from school everyday and his patience while explaining to Paikea about the history of the tribe. However, when he was having an argument with his son, who is also Paikea's father, about his marriage and the issues faced within the tribe, he told his son that Paikea "has no use to him" and asked him to bring her away. At some point of time in the film, Koro even blame Paikea and condemn on her for what had happened in the community. According to Festinger (1962), cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort which would lead to the alteration of one's attitudes, beliefs or behaviors, which in turns help to reduce the discomfort. Koro has always believed that only male descendent could be the leader of the tribe which leads him to be unhappy about Paikea's birth as her dead twin brother was supposed to be the successor. Even so, he managed to develop a strong positive bond with Paikea over the years, which clashed with his belief of dominance of male. This had created a sense of discomfort within Koro and led him to alter his behavior towards Paikea, i.e. not picking up Paikea from school without informing her. It was there that ignited his harsh treatment towards Paikea, which he would punish her for trying to attend lessons to become the chief of the tribe.
Hostile sexism
One thing noteworthy is the element of sexism in the film. As mentioned above, Koro has a strong belief that only male descendent could become the successor, which was why he did not allow Paikea to attend classes. Paikea was not given the opportunity to showcase her ability. He did not want to acknowledge Paikea as the chief candidate even after Paikea demonstrated having the ability to become the chief because the role of tribe leader has traditionally been male. Would it be possible to say that Koro was only trying to fulfill the tradition which at some instances, it's the culture being sexist, and not Koro?
Paikea was born as one of the twins. However, her birth was accompanied by the death of her mother and her elder twin brother. Koro was not happy with her birth as only the first-born male of every generation were allowed to take up the mantle as the chief of the tribe. Koro demanded Paikea's father to get married again so that there would be a successor but Paikea's father was in despair and did not want to obey. Over the years as Paikea grew up, she started to grow on Koro and he no longer looked at her with the same feelings of disappointment yet there is still some beliefs in his mind that he could not abandon.
Cognitive Dissonance
In the film, Koro seems to display cognitive dissonance as he appears to be having conflict between his attitude, belief and behavior. At the beginning of the film, Koro seems to be having an affectionate bond with Paikea through his act of fetching her back from school everyday and his patience while explaining to Paikea about the history of the tribe. However, when he was having an argument with his son, who is also Paikea's father, about his marriage and the issues faced within the tribe, he told his son that Paikea "has no use to him" and asked him to bring her away. At some point of time in the film, Koro even blame Paikea and condemn on her for what had happened in the community. According to Festinger (1962), cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort which would lead to the alteration of one's attitudes, beliefs or behaviors, which in turns help to reduce the discomfort. Koro has always believed that only male descendent could be the leader of the tribe which leads him to be unhappy about Paikea's birth as her dead twin brother was supposed to be the successor. Even so, he managed to develop a strong positive bond with Paikea over the years, which clashed with his belief of dominance of male. This had created a sense of discomfort within Koro and led him to alter his behavior towards Paikea, i.e. not picking up Paikea from school without informing her. It was there that ignited his harsh treatment towards Paikea, which he would punish her for trying to attend lessons to become the chief of the tribe.
Hostile sexism
One thing noteworthy is the element of sexism in the film. As mentioned above, Koro has a strong belief that only male descendent could become the successor, which was why he did not allow Paikea to attend classes. Paikea was not given the opportunity to showcase her ability. He did not want to acknowledge Paikea as the chief candidate even after Paikea demonstrated having the ability to become the chief because the role of tribe leader has traditionally been male. Would it be possible to say that Koro was only trying to fulfill the tradition which at some instances, it's the culture being sexist, and not Koro?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)