Split (2017) and Mental Illness

Title: Split 
Year: 2017
Director: M. Night Syamalan
Country: US
Language: English

In 1999 Director M.Night Shyamalan arrived in Hollywood with his universally acclaimed picture The Sixth Sense, which would eventually be nominated for an Oscar for "Best Picture" at that year's Academy Awards. His "twist ending" was so shocking to audiences that Hollywood couldn't help but made the "twist ending" a fad for the next couple of years (see: Fight Club, A Beautiful Mind) He followed this with the beloved Unbreakable (2000) and Signs (2002) then killed his career with flop after flop like The Village (2004) and The Happening (2008). With Split (2017) it seems he revitalized his career with a quick shot of adrenaline to the heart.

In Shyamalan's latest, three girls are kidnapped by a man (James McAvoy) with a diagnosed 23 distinct personalities. They must try to escape before the apparent emergence of a frightful new 24th.

Upon watching Split (2017) with my wife, she noted that while the film was "good" it had a very problematic and cliched view of psychological disorders. My response was "Filmmakers aren't doctors, they are entertainers. They don't need to be accurate when it comes to psychological disorders movies." However as time has passed I wonder if my initial response was too shallow and thus incorrect. After-all M.Night Shyamalan's film will reach millions of people all across the world, many of whom have never met a person with dissociative identity disorder.

While making Split, Shyamalan confessed to having had a lifelong fascination with dissociative identity disorder (DID), formerly known as split personality, or multiple personality disorder, and frequently mislabeled as schizophrenia. Unfortunately he is not a psychologist nor does he personally know anybody with the disorder (which is actually a pretty rare illness in real life) so he gets his information on mental illness the same way most of us do; the media. 

Unfortunately the media, especially when it comes to DID, is not very fair in the way it handles mental illness. In his 1991 study, Paul Hunt revealed the top ten ways disabled people are portrayed in television and film:

1. The disabled person as pitiable or pathetic
2. An object of curiosity or violence
3. Sinister or evil
4. The super cripple
5. As atmosphere
6. Laughable
7. His/her own worst enemy
8. As a burden
9. As Non-sexual
10. Being unable to participate in daily life

Disability is always at the forefront of a character's personality, even though in reality a person's disability may not have a major impact on who they are as a person. I have a heart condition, but this does not really make me "different" from anybody else. I can have relationships, I can hold a job, I can go to school, I can participate in everyday life. The only thing I can't do is exercise as much as the next person. So what? 

People with DID have it especially difficult, because the connection with the mental illness and the "horror" genre was created long before Cinema was even a thing. In 1886, Robert Louis Stevenson published The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, a literally classic that negatively portrayed a "multiplex personality" during a time when being sent to the mental institution was pretty much a death sentence. Seriously, the people of the 1800's had little respect for the mentally disabled as human beings. 

Presently Dr Simone Reinders, a neuroscientist studying DID at King’s College London in collaboration with universities in the Netherlands, claims that films like Split can be seriously damaging when it comes to public perception of mental illness. "They make it seem as if patients with DID are extremely violent and prone to doing bad thing." In reality people with that condition, as well as Schizophrenia and a whole host of other typically "dangerous" disorders are no more violent than people without any disorders. However, this understanding may make it harder for people with DID to find help as many people will judge them based on their condition alone. 

With Split Shyamalan stumbles in his ham-handed use of mental abnormality as a stand-in for the superpowers of heroes and villains. Juxtaposing real hardships with fictional tropes lends itself to gross oversimplifications. This isn't the first time the Director has made slanderous use of mental illness (In The Village the twist is that the monster all along was a group of mentally challenged people) The man loves to portray the disabled as "others" who shouldn't be understood and are just objects in the way of "normal" people's lives. 

Spectrum "disorders" ought to be viewed as a different way of functioning, rather than "inferior" or "wrong" . Most people who are non neurotypical can function just well in our society if they are not constantly stigmatized. Of course non-nerotypicals are not told they can be "anything they want to be" and have to overcome prejudices to get to where any "regular" person can be.  All this misconception does make it difficult for one to want to get a diagnosis and to "come out" as differently abled. 

Of course, maybe this is all nit-picky. Perhaps a baseline for factual accuracy is a bit much when it comes to the horror genre and perhaps we're giving the media too much credit when it comes to shaping our worldview of disability. Granted Darren Arnofsky's Black Swan (2010) deals with mental illness in a more respectable and subtle matter. Even Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs is more than just his illness

Personally I'm torn on Split (2017). On one hand Shyamalan gives us a very exploitative view of mental illness; taping into misunderstood fears created by the media. His character, though wonderfully acted by James McAvoy, is shaped solely out of a misconception of DID. The other characters, though neurotypical, don't have much of a personality either.

On the other hand, Split is an intelligently crafted film that builds up into a shocking climax. We are told about this "beast" throughout the film and we constantly anticipate its arrival. The score, as well as the atmosphere, is haunting. The 2hr run-time feels fairly short and I do like that this doesn't rely on horror cliches like jump scares or an excess of blood and guts. If viewed without the implications of disability and the media, it's a pretty fun film.

Watch Split (2017) for yourself and determine if it's a great horror or a cliched exploitative mess. Please also communicate with non-neurotypical people to get a good understanding of what they are really like.

Review #979: Lifeboat (1944)

Title: Lifeboat
Year: 1944
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Country: US
Language: English

At the time that Lifeboat went into production, Alfred Hitchcock was under contract to David O. Selznick. Twentieth Century-Fox obtained the director's services in exchange for that of several actors and technicians, as well as the rights to three stories that Fox owned. The "Master of Suspense" was to make two pictures, but due to Zelznick being unimpressed by the length of time it took for him to make Lifeboat they only made one. Hitch himself didn't care, as he would receive the same salary regardless of how many pictures he made. 

In Lifeboat, several survivors of a torpedoed ship find themselves in the same boat with one of the men who sunk it.

Hitchcock came up with the idea of this film, but commissioned John Steinbeck (Of Mice and Men) to write the script. His original intention was to publish the work, but his literary agents thought of it as "inferior" to his other works. Steinbeck himself  was unhappy with the overall film, as he thought it was racist and against unionized labor. I must admit that the lone black character (played by Canada Lee) is not ideal in terms of eliminating stereotypes, though Hitch is a lot more insightful regarding race relations that most directors would have been at the time. 

There is no doubt that Lifeboat is pro-allied propaganda, but it's far smarter than your average newsreel at the time. Lifeboat asks profound questions about war, and values, and vulnerability.It asks us to review our morality and ethics, letting us wonder what the "right" thing to do would be in a survival scenario. Made during a time in America when anti-German sentiments were at an all time high, this film ponders if Germans are worth trusting in our "melting pot" of a democracy. 

With Lifeboat, Hitchcock has made a rather curious picture that exceeds on every technical level even though at times it can be morally dubious. Without a soundtrack (because as Hitch says "Where would the music come from!?") the Director still manages to grip us in his suspenseful claws and take us on a tense ride. 

Review #978: Ash vs. Evil Dead (2015-Present)

Title: Ash vs. Evil Dead
Year: 2015-Present
Creator: Sam Raimi
Country: US
Language: English

Ash vs. Evil Dead was originally meant to be the fourth Evil Dead movie (previous installments having been Evil Dead I, Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness) but so much material had been written that the producers decided to turn it into a tv series instead. Though Army of Darkness (1992) was originally ignored because Starz couldn't get the rights from Universal Studios, the second season saw more clear references as Universal had become much more flexible on this issue. 

Ash (Bruce Campbell) has spent the last 30 years avoiding responsibility, maturity and the terrors of the Evil Dead until a Deadite plague threatens to destroy all of mankind and Ash becomes mankind's only hope. 

Bruce Campbell, the actor with the chiseled chin, is back as our arrogant yet foolish hero with a chainsaw for an arm. Rather than going the serious horror route of the recent remake or The Walking Dead creators Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell fully embrace the over-the-top goofiness and playful tone of Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness, while still delivering the scares of the first film and an unsightly amount of gore. 

The secondary characters are remarkable as well. Ray Santiago as Pablo and Dana DeLorenzo as Kelly are able to have their own unique character arcs. The addition of Lucy Lawless (formerly Xena: Warrior Princess) is astounding as she is playing perhaps her greatest role in this series. As the story moves on their situations become a little bit convoluted, but you can forgive some unnecessary plot holes when the slapstick is just so damn funny. 

Ash vs Evil Dead is a good television show that serves as a great half hour of mindless humor, action and a staggering amount of gore. More Army of Darkness than Evil Dead I, you're guaranteed to have a good time with this show even if you're sick of the horror genre of television. 

Review #977: Spiderman Homecoming

Title: Spiderman Homecoming
Year: 2017
Director: Jon Watts
Country: US
Language: English

Out of all of Marvel's superheros, Spiderman/Peter Parker may be my favourite. Though he has super strength, web shooting, and great agility, he reminds me of Jackie Chan in that he is frequently the underdog in most of his fights. I also like that our hero has more common problems such as dealing with rejection, trying to maintain good grades, and actually trying to maintain a good quality of living. This is a lot more refreshing than say, Ironman/Tony Stark, who is a millionaire that has very little to worry about. 

Several months after the events of Captain America: Civil War, Peter Parker (Tom Holland), with the help of his mentor Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) , tries to balance his life as an ordinary high school student in Queens, New York City while fighting crime as Spiderman. 

Spider-Man: Homecoming presents a joyous, sharp-witted, and teen-centric entry into the MCU. The intentional lack of origin story is refreshing as we don't need to see the spider-biting/death of Parker's uncle for the hundredth time in a row. Despite working with a staggering number of screenwriters, director Jon Watts creates a coherent story to go along with an endearing character arc. 

Peter Parker's fallibility and vulnerability is a nice change from the usual all knowing/all powerful heroes of the MCU. Tom Holland is perhaps more convincing in this role than Tobey Maguire was in Sam Raimi's trilogy. I love the villain known as The Vulture. Michael Keaton plays a menacing baddy who is just out for power. It's a nice departure from Raimi's villains who were meant to be sympathetic tragic "I'm just doing it for my family" figures. No, The Vulture is just a straightforward bad and dangerous man. 

Spiderman Homecoming becomes a conventional superhero flick when it gets to the action, as copious amounts of CGI take us out of the imaginative narrative that we've been following. Thankfully the film isn't all mindless action and does give us plenty of breathing room to enjoy Peter Parker's civilian life. It's a fun film that is certainly worth watching at least once. 

Review #976: Captain Underpants (2017)

Title: Captain Underpants
Year: 2017
Director: David Soren
Country: US
Language: English

When I was in my pre-teens I came upon a weird children's book series by American author Dav Pilkey. It featured a superhero in underwear and had titles such as Wrath of the Wicked Wedgie Woman, Plight of the Purple Potty People and Attack of the Talking Toilets. Few books were steeped in such low-brow humour and thus reading them became a treat. In 2017 a movie adaptation was released and had decent commercial and critical success. 

Two overly imaginative pranksters named George (Kevin Hart) and Harold (Thomas Middleditch) hypnotize their principal (Ed Helms) into thinking he's a ridiculously enthusiastic, incredibly dimwitted superhero named Captain Underpants. 

I went into this movie with very low expectations considering the trailer looked horrendous and Kevin Hart, an actor whom I despise, was given a lead role. After watching Captain Underpants I must admit that my initial fears have been vanquished; this film is a fairly faithful adaptation to the series I loved as a child. Its animation holds the same tone, atmosphere and energy as its source material. The material onscreen surpasses expectations by being relentlessly weird. 

Though steeped in low-brow humour, Captain Underpants never looses its charm and remains embroiled in its main theme about brotherhood. You can't help but feel greatly for George and Harold, even if the person harassing them is a teeny German named Professor Poopypants. Has Cinema ever seen such an absurd villain? The giant radioactive toilet is certainly a monster Universal has never picked up. 

As suggested with the ending, and with the title (the FIRST movie), there is likely going to be a sequel to this movie...and you know what? I don't mind! I'd love to see another Captain Underpants movie because this was very well made. Its unique strangeness certainly ought to turn heads no matter what age. 

Review #975: Mystery Science Theatre 3000 (1988-1999)

Title: Mystery Science Theatre 3000
Year(s): 1988-1999
Creator: Joel Hodgson
Country: US
Language: English

Created by Joel Hodgson and produced by Best Brains Inc. Mystery Science Theatre 3000 (lovingly known as MST3K) has a timultous airing history. It first aired on KTMA in Minneapolis Minnesota, then later aired on The Comedy Channel/Comedy central for a number of seasons, and was later picked up by The Sci-Fi Channel until cancellation in 1999. During its original run MST3K did not gain high viewership, but became a cult favourite by word of mouth and syndication.

In the not-too-distant future, a man and his robots are trapped aboard the Satellite of Love, where mad scientists force them to sit through the worst movies ever made.

Before the age of the internet, and when television channels were not in the hundreds like they are today, there was often very little to watch during the most boring times of the day. Thus you would flip to a channel that was playing B-movies and comment like a wise-ass because there was nothing else to do (aside from reading a book, going outside etc.) MST3K picked up on this phenomenon and did it better than any amateur drooling on his couch could do.  

Forget The Big Bang Theory or (insert show that vaguely comments on geek culture)  MST3K is truly a champion of nerd culture. The setting, characters, premise and overall dialogue all shout NEEEEERD! yet it doesn't sell out by sticking to low-brow humour. The movies they chose--The Brain That Wouldn't Die, Time of the Apes, and Danger Death Ray!- are just about the worst films ever made, but with their unique commentary each picture is made into a fun ride. 

Enough time has gone by since the series ended that we can see how MST3K inspired our culture. The riffing style from MST3K is considered part of the influence for DVD commentaries and successful YouTube reviewers (Nostalgia Critic). Partly due to social media, "riffing" on bad film has gone from a basement hobby to a successful social platform. I love MST3K, it is a "must see" television show.

Review #974: Louie (2010-2015)

Title: Louie
Year(s): 2010-2015
Created By: Louis C.K
Country: US
Language: English

Louie is written, directed, produced and starred in by the show's creator, American comedian Louis C.K. The show has a loose format, consisting largely of unconnected storylines and segments. It is a unique show that has been met with critical acclaim; having won awards for Outstanding Comedy Series at the 64th and 65th Primetime Emmy Awards. Currently the show is on hiatus as C.K is temporarily tired of working on the series. 

Louie is a stand-up comedian and divorced father of two girls. This series follows him through his everyday life, as he meets various characters, struggles with his love life and pursues humor.

Louis C.K's old HBO show Lucky Louie was original, edgy and often hilarious, but it was basically a sitcom, constrained by the traditional Seinfeld-esque format. In Louie the comedian plays a much more honest version of himself, and the show is much more deliberately paced. A joke doesn't pay off immediately, rather it takes its sweet time. The show feels much more organic this way. 

Indeed much of the humor arises from the characters, their situations and how they react to an absurd society. He recognizes the demoralizing nature of urban life and laces discussions of modern taboos with a wit not seen since George Carlin. There is a considerable proliferation of long takes in which two characters will share dialogue that sounds and feels no less real than the conversations you'll have today. Louis C.K's writing is masterful.

Louis C.K will make you laugh at both low-brow and high-brow humour. He'll make you question a lot of society's odd quirks as well. His dry humor is quite effective, and the dramatic moments are bound to stir your emotions. Louie is a great show.

Review #973: Better Call Saul (2015-Present)

Title: Better Call Saul
Year(s): 2015- Present
Creator: Vince Gilligan
Country: US
Language: English

Better Call Saul was originally the eight episode of the second season of Breaking Bad, a show about a chemistry teacher with cancer (Bryan Cranston) and his former drop-out student Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul) making meth . In the episode Pinkman's friend Badger gets busted by the police and they go to "criminal lawyer" Saul Goodman (Bob Odenkirk) for help. After Breaking Bad ended, creator Vince Gilligan decided to create a spin-off show based off the sleazy lawyer. It has been renewed for its 4th Season. 

Better Call Saul is about the trials and tribulations of criminal lawyer, Jimmy McGill (Bob Odenkirk), in the time leading up to establishing his strip-mall law office in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

At the time of its conception creator Vince Gilligan had originally thought of Better Call Saul as a half hour comedy for AMC. Thankfully his mind was changed and what we received was an hour of mixed drama and comedy. Much of the show follows Slippin Jimmy's antics, but we also get a side of Mike Ehrmantrout (Jonathon Banks) and the story of how he became involved with Gus Fring. This side story gives us a much needed break from the main storyline. 

The writing, directing, acting and camerawork are on par with the masterpiece of television that is Breaking Bad. The villains are less immediately threatening and the consequences of losing aren't as bad as what Walter White had to endure, but damn are the situations still compelling. Michael McKean plays a convincing and conniving villain in Chuck McGill, Jimmy's self righteous yet ill brother. He plays the antagonist role so well that you can't help but yell "FUCK CHUCK" at your television screen.

For Better Call Saul to follow Breaking Bad and not get crushed under the weight of fan expectation is an achievement in itself. I find myself enthralled with this show and anticipating what will come of our main characters each episode. This is certainly one of the best shows to come out of the 2010's. 

Review #972: Girls (2012-2017)

Title: Girls
Year(s): 2012-2017
Created by: Lena Dunham 
Country: US
Language: English

Created by and starring Lena Dunham (Tiny Furniture) and executive produced by Judd Apatow (40 Year Old Virgin), Girls is a polarizing television show that has as much hate thrown at it as it does love. It has been praised for its portrayal of women and female friendship but criticized as classist, racist, transphobic and misguided. Consisting of six seasons which have 62 episodes in total, this is a fairly difficult show to review fairly. 

Girls is about the assorted humiliations, disasters and rare triumphs of four very different twenty-something girls: Hannah (Lena Dunham) an aspiring writer; Marnie (Allison Williams), an art gallery assistant and cousins Jessa (Jemima Kirke) and Shoshanna (Zosia Memet) 

First off, this may not be the most accurate review of Girls since, although I am pretty much the same age as our characters, I am not the right sex/gender.  Often the choices of the girls in this series are baffling to me. In one episode a character has an abortion...without telling her boyfriend and then doesn't care when he later finds out and is shocked. What!? The shows politics are often way too far left for me and leave me bewildered by the apparent lack of logic. Of course our main characters aren't supposed to be the ideal; they are misguided, misinformed and often irrational 20-somethings that have no idea how the real world is supposed to work.

The same aggravation I get from Dunham's stupidity is also partly why I like the show. Girls challenges me to think differently. to reflect on who I am as a person, and sometimes exposes my bias'. Is it coincidence that I, a man, think the most logical characters in this show are men? Though sometimes episodes are poorly written wanna-be feminist nonsense, more often than not I come across really thought provoking episodes that act as a window into how society acts and feels. I like Girls even though I often find myself rolling my eyes at it. 

Girls is a MUCH smarter and more reckless Sex in the City. It is a difficult show, filled with baffling plot points, but is ultimately worthwhile and fun to reflect upon and revisit. I have a feeling Dunham and I would not get along at all in real life.

Review #971: Horace and Pete (2016)

Title: Horace and Pete
Year: 2016
Director: Louis C.K
Country: US
Language: English

When is the last time a Web series left you in awe due to its character driven writing? Horace and Pete is a heartfelt episodic venture by Comedian Louis C.K, who decided to release the series on the web as a Saturday morning surprise.  Created, written, directed and starring Louis, each of the 10 episodes cost $3 USD a piece to download from his website, but boy was that money well spent. 

Horace (Louis C.K) is a 50-something year old operator of a 100-year-old dive bar in Brooklyn. His partner (Steve Buscemi) is a schizophrenic man who has gone off his meds due to insurance reasons. Horace’s grown daughter, Alice (Aidy Bryant), resents him. His sister, Sylvia (Edie Falco), comes with a lawyer to contest the ownership of the foundering bar.

Horace and Pete changed how I view television (even though it's not quite television to begin with). Louis C.K's drama plays out like a great Steinbeck novel; each part of this tragic symphony slowly building up towards a raging climax. It’s shot as if through a whiskey glass and staged like theater, albeit without a live audience. The pace is deliberate, the shots are long, and the soundtrack is ever so mournful. 

The show feels like it could be set in yesteryear, yet contains dialogue that indicates that the characters are operating in the present time period. Much of the character's problems (such as Buscemi losing his insurance) are very relevant and urgent. Overall it's a probing, engaging, enthralling and tear-jerking series that will leave audiences stunned. 

Rumours persist that Louis C.K is in deep debt because of this series and I hope this is not true. It is far to good to not leave its creator with plenty of cash. If you aren't convinced that Louis C.K is one of the greatest television writers of all time, I urge you to watch this show and see for yourself.

Review #970: A Series of Unfortunate Events (2017)

Title: A Series of Unfortunate Events
Year: 2017
Season: 1
Country: US 
Language: English

As a child I was an eager bookworm, consuming every piece of literature I could come across. A Series of Unfortunate Events was certainly a favorite of mine. Created by Lemony Snicket (pen name of American author Daniel Handler) they are a series of thirteen books that have sold more than 65 million copies worldwide. The series was known for its dark humor, sarcastic storytelling, and anachronistic elements.

After the loss of their parents in a mysterious fire, the three Baudelaire children face trials and tribulations attempting to uncover dark family secrets. The creepy Count Olaf (Neil Patrick Harris) follows them wherever they go. 

An adaptation starring Jim Carrey and directed by Brad Silberling was made in 2004, but it failed miserably due to a mismatched tone and the fact that they tried to condense 13 books into one feature length film. One film is not a "series" of unfortunate events. Thankfully Netflix fixed this issue by giving each book two episodes; spreading the overarching story out and giving the characters far more room to grow. 

A Series of Unfortunate Events succeeds in reaching a vast variety of demographics. It certainly has a story meant for youth, but the themes of loss, grief and disappointment resonate amongst all ages particularly because of how serious these emotions are treated. Neil Patrick Harris plays the Nosferatu inspired Count Olaf quite impressively, managing to be both a dastardly heel that the audience can hate and cannon fodder for the audience to laugh at. 

Overall Netflix's episodic adaptation of A Series of Unfortunate Events is a captivating picture that will have audiences of all ages hooked from beginning to end. I went in with low expectations and found myself astonished by how much work went into this production. I can't wait for Season 2!

Review #969: GLOW (2017)

Title: GLOW
Year: 2017
Season: 1
Country: US
Language: English

GLOW is also known as Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling. It was a women's only wrestling show that began in 1986 and ended in 1992. Created by David B. McLane, he formed a partnership with the television distribution company known as the Independent Network Incorporated (INI) to find airtime for the struggling company. Overall the company did quite well and created a number of stars, most notably Lisa Moretti, who is known as Ivory in WWE.

On June 23rd, 2017 Netflix released the first season of GLOW. It consists of 10 episodes that are 35 minutes each and is essentially about the tumultuous creation of the ladies' wrestling show.

The first documentary about GLOW (What!? GLOW: The Story of Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling) can be easily viewed on Youtube. I've seen that, in addition to a few episodes of the original show. years before this Netflix series. Unfortunately this series doesn't quite follow the actual real-life story, which would probably have been less dramatic albeit still engaging. In lieu of truth we are given a surprisingly deep story with some rather complex characters. 

If you're a wrestling fan and expect to hear a lot of inside terms or learn about wrestling psychology you may be disappointed, as most of this show is about backstage drama and an overarching underdog story. Think A League of Their Own or Bad News Bears but with far better writing and character development. It is fun to see the brief wrestler cameos, I particularly liked the scenes with Carlito.

Each episode of GLOW has plenty of funny, entertaining and dramatic moments. It's a serious show in presentation, but quirky enough to have you coming back for the next episode. I never grew up in the 80's, but I'm betting this will hit a few nostalgia buttons for many.