bad-thinking

[bad-thinking]

The Girl with the Needle [2024] - Magnus Von Horn, Denmark

And I almost would have been missed this movie, I suspected it is a regular drama in war times, but since I had time I went to see it.

And how surprised I was when it only started! The scenery was magnificent! Bleak, disturbing, covered with dirt, poverty, cold and rough. At the same time, evoking intense emotions. I was delighted with every minute of this movie, how what has been projected was sinking into me more and more.

I think Dagmar served as an object to all those women who did not want to see a murdered in themselves within which the unwanted parts could be located. They chose to keep an illusion of them being good mothers and delegated the dark mother who does not want her baby onto another. Why Dagmar does it though? Watching it I had an impression she personificates something else, some figure from beyond her. Like an archetype, or complex. Or complex with a center of an archetype. She had her trauma of miscarriages and I believe that constellated a complex that had its centre fuelled with archetypal forces. The forces wanted to speak through her, using Dagmar as a vessel. Women projected onto her the dark mother parts but also that matched because Dagmar was already inpregnated with the seed of an archetypal energy through the complex. For me Dagmar is more interesting than Karoline. Karoline is an example of a woman who first wanted to give away a baby but then motherhood started to awake within her and she wanted to have it. Motherhood is not just about the connection, like seeing a little creature that is hopeless and connection builds absolute dependency for the baby. Motherhood is something very much within that is in every woman, that can be brought up to the surface if conditions are right. I understand Karoline that she wanted to give away her baby. It was a sign and reminiscence of a lost relationship, betrayal and disappointment, lost hope for a better life. It was a fruit of a cut romance. Wanted baby must come from a couple that survived together and decides to move through life together. If a man leaves a woman who had hopes and loved him, and then she has his baby, I cannot imagine she is able to await and want the baby. If a man was never the most important part, but rather family and baby, then baby might be kept. That is just to say, that I cannot judge Karoline's decision. She would be raising a child for many years that for all the years would remind her of him. Him, who was unable to face his mother and who had no courage to marry a woman he loved.

I was thinking what part plays Karoline's husband. He adds to general mood of the movie, with his deformed face and pain written all over it. But how he fits with mothers and babies? I think he, like Dagmar, represents some part in us. Part that is damaged, crippled, maybe disgusting, that we pitty, that nobody wants to touch. That others laugh at. Part that cannot even show its face, because it would scare off others. Part that we are ashamed of? Piece that was spilled out by a war we had with our perpetrator. Torturer. That is made to keep living with a face as a reminder of cruelty. He embodies an archetype of a crippled victim, victim that was tortured but survived. Victim that has not became stronger really but keeps its quality. Cripple, maybe repelling, maybe evoking compassion. For me it was compassion, my heart ponded faster when I saw him, but not out of disgust, solely out of empathy. His nightmares were heartbreaking, and I just wanted to soothe him. What war can do. How can change. Still, he wanted to have a baby with Karoline, the alive spark remained within him, the father and love. He could not have come back to Karoline earlier...

Child of Karoline was a girl. I keep thinking why a girl. She could have then replaced her with Eren, and Eren also had to be a girl. The strangeness around breastfeeding and giving away babies was a completely female secret. It was all within a feminine energy.

I am wondering why Dagmar was telling mothers that they do the right thing. Was she really in her mind helping and that was a way of showing support? Did she believe it was right? Or was it just a sentence without much in it? I think she thought it was really the right thing. She knew they do not want to see the truth. She also knew, however, that they are unable to keep the baby and raise it. She did, however, just murdered them. She thrown them to the savages, burnt them, left in some bag in a city toilet. She had no consideration for the life. For the little human being there and the potential within. The beauty that could have emerged from its inner world.

Karoline is later determined to have a child but she is not allowed. Dagmar reminds her to keep emotions at bay, that is what she learnt to do. Her humane side was shown when she had to help herself sedate with ether, she basically drugged herself to soothe her feelings of guilt.

In a movie I was surprised that I do not see there men as predators and manipulators. They were victims and powerless. They were not aggressive. There were situations where I expected that a man working for Dagmar would abuse Karoline and then Dagmar herself, but that did not happen. It is just a quiet sense of danger, but not realised. At the end he is just told to go and not come back and he simply does that. I think making men this way was necessary. Their dark side could not overshadow the dark side of a mother, the dark mother, or Baba Yaga. The polarity for the sake of contrast was created.

All right, that is it, I loved the movie, it was creepy and strange, emotional but the opposite of fluff. Danish language is also so pretty, it was a delight to watch the movie.

[bad-thinking]

20 letters to a friend - Svetlana Alliluyeva, daughter of Josef Stalin (1967)

Svetlana Alliluyeva is a doughter of Josef Stalin. After accidentally stumbling upon the documentary devoted to her story, I just had to read her book, I was tremendously curious about her perspective. How was it to live in a world being a Stalin's daughter? How was her father towards her? Did he have any humane side?

This book is not about politics, luckily, it is about her observations and reflections. She was an extraordinarily perceptive and emotionally intelligent woman. She survived many loses, people less and more close to her. She was surrounded by uncertainty, instability, turmoil, her environment was filled with intertwined love and fear.

She relocated around 40 times (!), was married 4 times, had 3 children. What is interesting is that she does not talk about her marriages much in the book, also the book was published in 1967 only, her being 41 years old, before her 3rd marriage.

She starts the letters from describing the death of her father (1953), she does not go chronically. I think she wrote these letters in order to make peace with her past and death of her father was loading heavily on her probably, also it was a good reference point. She says number of times in a book that she lived under his shadow, but also the whole book was quite describing their relationship, or the majority, it was not possible to avoid it.

I will not be summarising the book, she describes very precisely different people involved in her life, or being around her father, service, nurses, family, politicians, people working for Stalin. This note aims rather at presenting my impression after reading those letters. Well, I definitely recommend them to anyone, that is for sure.

Throughout the book I was wondering how it was possible that she managed to endure and get out of all this alive. People around her were squashed by life brutally, it was only a matter of a method a life chose to finish them off. Svetlana, however, survived, even though she with no doubts was a sensitive human being. Her mother, Nadezhda, committed suicide, which she was not even aware of as she was lied to, she only found out reading foreign magazine, and was only able to understand it because she was learning English (which was not common that days, German was more popular). Her mother was a not black and white person. She was filled with shades of grey, and mixed with other colours... Very disciplined and driven to achieve excellence at school, an idealist, willing and hoping to affect the world in a good way. And... madly in love with her husband. She loved him dearly, however Josef Stalin was not particularly affectionate, to say the least. I feel like she was a romantic person, loving deeply and slowly, as Svetlana said, she was the kind of person who could love only once in life. And that was Josef Stalin. He did not care about her, he was not only busy with his another life, life of politics, but he also treated her with disrespect which was particularly devastating to her, it was happening also in front of 'the audience', and after one occurrence of rather little significance in general, at the party he would ask her: 'Hey, have a drink!' And she would reply: 'Don't you dare to Hey me!'. That short exchange that in itself did not carry much was just a tipping point and she took her own life, she shot herself. The shot was quiet, nobody heard it, the pistol was small, a gift. From all the characters described in the book, or real human beings once existing and walking on this planet, I feel most sad about mather of Svetlana. She seemed to have so much potential and good will. She was loving, hard working, directed, wanting to sacrifice comfort and pleasure for higher pursuits, to change the country, to be a positive addition to the world and Russia. She, however, was not that warmly and diligently predisposed towards her children, or at least Svetlana, her brother had more luck, he was only 7 years younger than her, as he came from another marriage of her husband.

What else... Her brothers. Let's start with Yakov Dzhugashvili.

Kind, quiet, sensitive and... that is why Stalin despised him. Yes. He mocked him, laughed at him mercilessly showing how little respect he has towards him. Did he have any actual reason? Not really, it was the perceived weakness of being introverted, gentle and apparently too kind. However, as it turned out with strong inner value system and core. She got caught by Germans and they wanted to use him to exchange for another prisoner caught by Russia. Stalin refused the proposal, saying this way he lets German shoot him, which happened as he was of no use then to them. Before, however, he went through brutal tortures, showing the spirit and loyalty. Stalin... preferred to wash his hands of him and let him die. Svetlana tries to see some light in her father, she writes that she thinks he might have changed his opinion about Yakov when realising how brave his son was, I am not sure. I think she maybe needed to see her father in a humane way, that did not have to be true. Same, regarding her mother. Stalin was only after her death doubting his behaviour towards her, he allegedly was devastated and torn apart. She had lots of compassion towards her father, she hardly even in the book expressed anger towards him. She never expressed hate, but I think that could be even understandable. She was very understanding and loving, in a quiet way.

I can imagine that I would need to scream everything out, that the death of her mother was his fault, the death of her brothers as well, and that she herself is forever broken and unable to find solace and consistent love. She has never in a book said anything similar to that. She seemed to resiliently accept the life that was given to her, realising she does not have much power to change it, or fight her father, probably that outburst would not make any difference, or maybe she was simply unable. She was several times mentioning she was trembling from her overwhelming emotions of grief or the feeling of loss, like being invaded and not quite processing them in a healthy way. I think those letters helped her come to terms with her turbulent past, that is why primarily she wrote them, I think, however she did not say that explicitly.

She had a nurse, whom she loved immensly and who was the only stable presence in her life, who was waking her up, telling her good night, putting her apples on a table when she was doing her homework. Her loss, she said, she felt the most profoundly, much more than death of her mother or father. She was not feeling parental care from them, rather pressure and expectations, she felt fear. I think if not that soft hearted nurse, Zinaida, her ability to go through those painful and difficult events would be swayed.

Her another borther, Vasily Dzhugaskvili, became an alcoholic and died because of that, being still young.

One brother shot, another drank himself to death, mother dead after suicide. She herself managed to be an observant, observing and accepting the circumstances apparently better than others.

I am curious what has happened within her marriages more precisely since she did not really shared much about them, they all ended rather quickly. Once she married also in an arranged way, cool headed.

In those letters there is no description of her life in US, that happened later, but I am curious how that was for her, being far away from her home land, Russia. From the documentary I know that she died poor and alone, but it was also told that she appeared happy in her elderly years, she allegedly said something like: 'That is how it is supposed to be! I was born rich and under oppression, now I am with no money and free!'. It looked like she was able to see a meaning in her situation and not to assign a standard or typical value to it. My first reaction was that she was abandoned and never has managed to find her own stable place and tranquility. She perpetually searched for freedom and room for herself, changing places. I really need to find another book, either of hers or another writers describing her later years away from Russia. I know that she also for a period of time lived in India, however it was not completely approved, the way she has done that, by her father.

There is a lot to write about her and her life. I just scratched the surface, I did not even talk much about her relation with father. Maybe I will make another part for it, today I do not want to write about it.

I think her sense of Self was a bit lost not knowing what freedom looks like and that is why she had to learn it, only as an adult, changing locations and verify the resonance. Or maybe she could not recognise the safe place, place for her soul, eternally tormented, forever thrown from one place to another. I think her second part of life was about understanding and digesting, and that is how she needed to do it. I think that if people do not have a need to travel and experience different things, then they do not feel the need to learn who they are. Maybe they do not, maybe they are formed already, maybe the process of creation of their personality and essence was not that complex. For others, though, the process is hard and path is steep. They are not able to exist in one place, as they are being eaten alive by the feeling of lost and confusion. The only way is to throw yourself again and slowly let your psyche comprehend all that happened to you.

I will end here. I really recommend this book, Svetlana's life was filled with oppression, fear, instability, loss but also art, culture, affection, emotions and understanding.

[bad-thinking]

House with a voice by Kristine Nrecaj and Birthe Templin (2024)

The story of sworn virgins, Burrneshas... No! That is not a story! That is a tradition lasting over centuries and still active in some parts of Albania, Kosovo and Montenegro. Women born as females take a vow of Chasity whereby they swear to identify and take a role of a man in a society profoundly patriarchal. This documentary movie I have watched at the Documentary festival held in Warsaw recently, HumanDOC.

This movie made a huge impression on me. Not in a positive way. Movie itself was good, but I had no idea this exists in the world and that moved me deeply. All that was so wrong, on the other hand I emphatise with those women. All right, so what was there that moved me so much?

Women there are treated so distinctly differently from men in terms of privileges and what they ought to do and not to do, the freedom they are deprived of, that they decide to sacrifice their femininity and dress all in a masculine role. They would literally dress as men, but also act like them, take their occupations, fight with men, speak like them, borrow their way of living, way of being with people.

Their explanations were very understandable to me, they craved independence, autonomy, 'to come and go whenever they wish'. To be respected. That was not possible when being a woman. In order to have this humane need fulfilled, they had to abandon their true nature, their inner beauty, the beauty of a female that is so needed in this world. They all presented themselves as very self aware and confident about the choice they made, seemingly not perceiving any negative side of it. They see themselves as stronger being a man. I loved to watch those women, but also felt deep compassion for they had to reject themselves. At times some scenes also seemd to me quite funny, as I could see through those clothes and manerisms a woman. So they would be women pretending to be men. It was almost as if playing scenes in a movie, at times that seemed so out of touch.

In Depth Psychology, or Analytical psychology that would be a female's animus that is brought to the surface. Or a woman posted by an animus. It is described in that psychology as something negative, as woman then starts to resemble some poorly played character. The feminine side is asleep, is buried somewhere within, and covered with layers of dust. The soul has her eyes closed. However, the masculine side, the animus was also not quite masculine in a genuine way.

The one woman, however, seemed authentic in that attempt. She talked about love. She said she does not want love, that love only causes problems and that life is simpler without it. Somehow the way she was describing her attitude towards it seemed authentic. On the other side, I cannot also say if that was a matter of masculine / feminine side. That belief does not seem to fall on either side of the fence. Maybe that is why it seemed genuine, because it was not taken from the masculine side. I found that women especially interesting. There were not many scenes in the movie devoted to her and there was her just talking, only her face, not even the whole of it. Probably she did not want it another way. In her, in those short moments when she would share her conviction about love, I did not see an anima, or artificial, half baked masculinity. I saw there an animus, that was not forced. She had also an interesting face.

The problem of the movie to me is not only about losing femininity. It is about losing yourself, it is about denying who you are. It is about shaping yourself the way you see as resectable, which means turning 180 degrees the other side. I do not know how women are treated in Albania exactly and I also have not been there. But from what a movie shown, I can understand why women might want to be treated as men. If that is the only known way for them to have autonomy and respect, then I understand. It is however disheartening that this is at the cost of their identity and femininity.

I love being a woman. In the country where I live I am able to be a woman and have feminine traits, however where I work it is also expected of me to use heavily my intellect, be efficient and in general reasonable and not too emotional. I work mostly with men and the fact that on average they are very poor communicators, they have on average much much lower emotional intelligence than women, they are less responsible, they care less, they see through the situation more poorly, they are less killed at using words, they read between the lines worse, all that creates lots of problems at work, in a project. Atmosphere is tense, they would not understand each other, they would blame, they would not do what should be done. The ability that female has, i.e. the ability to understand a person and to communicate, to read people and the atmosphere, to know why something does not work in a team is golden. People are always the issue at work, women are needed to solve those issues. Men cannot do it well. Men can DO things, can decide, can be efficient and solve well. But what they will solve? What they will do? For what?

Do not get me wrong, when I say 'men' I mean rather 1:1 men and masculine energy. That is of course true that men can have feminine qualities and vice versa. However, on average and in general men have mostly masculine qualities. And world needs women, their intuition, communication, intelligence, skills in handling people, understanding big picture and connections, dependencies.

Burrneshas are brave and resilient women for taking that path, I wish however they did not have to.

[bad-thinking]

My life - Anton Chekhov (1896)

Another story of Chekhov, that I enjoyed. The main character, Misail Poloznev, goes against the societal opinion regarding what is a valuable job. His father is an architect and he similarly expected from his son to work using his intellect, dressed well, sitting behind the desk, earn decent salary, be surrounded by the resectable people. He was rather rigid and highly disciplined, very focused on his profession. When his son at the age of 25 was still not working, he was utterly infuriated, attempting to force him, to not be the shameful aspect that others can associate with him. Misail had a different view, however, on what he deemed to be meaningful and valuable. He was certain he does not want to work in the office as that is a cage to him, stifling existence and does not shape a person in any good way. After received help, he found a job as a physical worker, at the railway station, then he worked as a painter, he painted roofs. Needless to say, that living in a small town made everybody aware of his occupation and so people made jokes of him, for example would throw a bucket of water at him. It was unbelievable that a son of an architect was walking in dirty clothes, hands in paint, sweating and physically tired. That was considered as something beneath his family's reference line, or status. Misail was a disappointment to his father, who was obviously very obliged to let him know about that. He slapped him in the face and offended not just once or twice. That has not changed throughout the whole story. Like other stories of Chekhov, he also here does not intend to colour the reality forcing a happy end. That is life, people often do not change their convictions, people often are left without reconciliation and to be able to keep walking through the life, their path part.

Mine character was a very wise person of a strong belief, he knew office would make him miserable, he did not want to chase the external layer of excellence as defined by society or his father. He followed his soul, which made him ridiculed and separated from his father, but he won his freedom.

The beautiful moment to me when reading this was a time when his sister, who before begged him to come back to father and get normal, reasonable job, according to her and her fathers liking, later acknowledged that she now can see he made a good decision.

Later becomes even better in the story. I will skip the 'how' but he married a woman. Like Chekhov likes to present his female characters, she was also a type of an idealist, culturally conscious and absorbed. She sang. She soon started to feel like the town is not enough for her, she wanted something more. She left Misail, and went to America with her father. He was who he was, and even though it was aligned with his inner world and knowing, that did not grant him a happy long lasting love. He wanted to be a simple man. but some people might have different directions in life, and that was the case of him and his wife.

She left and his life continued. Not much happened afterwards, which again, shows how life is possible even if no positive twist happens that would turn the life of the main character for the better. This is merely a life, a life without added sparkles that would make it more digestible for a reader to read. What is worse, the story ends with what I already actually described above a bit. He goes to his father and tries to find some final understanding there. I have to admit, I thought he will find it, why otherwise Chekhov would write a paragraph about it? Oh, I was wrong! He gets from his father what really usually happens in life, people differ, parents and their children differ, fathers and sons too. That severe disgrace made it impossible for the father to forgive, ba... not to forgive, I do not think there is anything to forgive. Father did not make an attempt to see the other side, see that another way is also 'a way'. That every human being has an intrinsic right to follow his soul whispering. Or pardon, not just right, but duty!

Who is he to judge what is valuable and worthy and what is not?

I think nowadays, coming back to XXI century, humans suffer for this reason. We walk around and compare ourselves, office work, or work in IT is ridiculously highly paid, everybody crawls there on their knees, to get all the benefits, status. It is also prestige. It is disgusting! All the crap that is now sold to us, making us believe we need all those fancy devices or supplements to achieve our goals, that this or another book will heal and change us. Bullshit! People make money of people's weaknesses and needs, and feeling of being lost. Everyone tries to catch up, be healthy. So we work our asses off for companies that not only do not mean much, but even harm, we get sick there, as surrounded by technology, stressing over meaningless shit, becoming burnt out, depressed, but hey! Salary is good! Then how you spend it? You go and try to heal by spending your salary on books and shitty spiritual events that should treat your wounded and tired soul, tired by the same exact job you are having!

Coming back to Chekhov... Main character an over a century ago has that dilemma. He chooses, however, wisely. He goes against the current. He is abandoned by his wife, but I still believe his choice was right. He was surrounded by simple people, people simple at heart, honest and straightforward. He did not have to get involved in manipulations and games of the office world. He continued working using his hands, painting roofs. I think he might have thought that physical work and working specifically with hands sharpens and forms character. It teaches to be humble. To get by having little. To find the meaning from within. To see beyond the clothes and finances. To see a human as simple as he is in reality. Also, without the intellectual outcomes, works or knowledge. If having scrapped all those external layers of not only looks, but also knowledge and skills, who are you? Is it really important if you are an architect or a painter? What tells if you are a good person? And is that even the right question to ask? What question should people ask themselves? I believe it is: Am I living according to what my soul calls for?

That can be whatever, painter, gardener, server, waitress or architect, doctor, scientist. All are equal. What matters is that 'you do you'. You go against the current if needed, you go with your soul. You listen to her tender, whisper, or loud shouts at times.

You arm yourself with bravery and despite the external expectations and perceived disgrace it can cause, you choose your path and your way. Always.

I really enjoyed this story, that was a long one. 'My life'. How simple his titles are. Compared to Dostoyevsky he does not exaggerate at all and that is why I prefer his works in general.

[bad-thinking]

The Woman's Kingdom (1894) - Anton Chekhov

Why do I like this story? I like it for the realness and that it is not talked about, what is described there.

The main character, Anna Akimovna, now becomes an owner of a large factory and has to run it. She is 26 years old, does not have family or partner. She, against her any will, is thrown into a great responsibility of managing something she does not care about, does not have competency to do and crashes her slowly with its weight. She is rich, tries random acts of 'kindness' trying to give away people to the workers only to realise they all use and manipulate her. She realised the reality of their nature and 'help' does not seem reasonable to her anymore.

She is basically made to throw her life away for the sake of something that is miles away from her real core. Not to mention, she does not even now exactly what that is. She wants what is simple, she cannot have it.

It is how the arrangements make people slaves or camels wandering alone across the dessert thirsty for a drop of life.

[Some sentences that I write below are from my imagination, it is not exactly part of the story]

She is 26 year old and is already like an old, terribly and disgustingly reasonable and responsible person in a mens suit that is too large for her. She is at the desk, pretending she can read, she can barely hold a pen and makes signatures with simple crosses. She wears too high hills and too large shoes and almost falls. She is deprived of possibility to have normal life. She does not know how to escape it. She is alone and cannot even openly admit it as she needs to keep the face. She is now 26 years old, but it is pretty easy to imagine her in 10, 20, 30 years, how gradually she becomes more and more bitter and resentful. When her initial blindness will be fading away revealing other layers of her unlived life. How she lives not her life. How the trajectory has somehow shifted. It has never been her choice. Life made her. The fate took over, caught her in a snare. She takes it on her shoulders, and we watch her and her potential go to waste.

Being a women I resonate with this story. I feel lots of empathy towards Anna Akimovna. How women are placed in chairs not made for them. How expectations ruin them. How the weight is so enormous that they barely can carry it.

[bad-thinking]

The man in a case (1898) - Anton Chekhov

As usual, I will write what impression the story made on me, it is not any kind of a summary, description of a plot, or any attempt to objectively evaluate the quality of the creation.

I grabbed the book at the time when I was doubting myself and my choices, not knowing which direction I should undertake, how to calculate which one yields possibly better outcomes. Stack in this state, state of freeze. And here is the story, that strangely corresponded with my experience.

The story, like probably all Czekhov stories, is sad. Chekhov does not show how to solve the problem, what would be the remedy for the formation of this character structure - locked in the walls of 'shoulds', rules, safety and what is known and predictable.

The main character, Belikov, is the teacher and lover of Greek. He terrorises people with his obsession regarding rules and regulations, demands others to follow them same way as he does. He clings to what is framed within meticulously drawn lines, as this is something that saves him from having to know his own wants and needs. His own desires. Those lines are safe, he cannot do anything wrong, unclean there. He cannot be 'bad'. I don't know if the underlying motivation for him was the need to be morally good or rather to avoid the messiness of feelings, relationships and attachments. Probably to some extent both. Everybody around him feels rather uncomfortable, stifled by his watching eye. He is not married, but one day the city visits a beautiful, cheerful woman, who is even interested in him, Varenka. He does not know how to act around her. Everyone gossips in this annoying, intrusive way, hoping he will get married. I think he was overwhelmed, was so used to the fact that he did not have responsibilities towards anybody, therefore he also could not fail anyone, he could not do anything wrong. Everything was perfectly predictable and under control. Now, this lady appears, and she dares to enjoy such frivulous activity like riding a bike! Oh, my - such a sinful thing to do! Absolutely unacceptable! He goes and complains to her brother, he does not care, kicks him out the door, he falls down the stairs, where Varenka sees him and laughs at the scene. That, and seeing his caricature drawn by some local person, caricature of him with galoshes, finally broke him. He got sick and soon after passed away.

People at the funeral felt a sense of relief that this prosecutor is no longer with them, I think hoping for a better life since now on. Obviously, life does not change after his death much.

I find this story very sad. Main character is shown almost as a caricature, whom everyone finds uncomfortable to be around, they use him as a source of cheap sensation when Varenka arrives, plotting their marriage and talking about him. He, like most Chekhov's characters, is a prisoner of his own mind. He is not able to take the step that would lead to a possibly better life, marriage, family, to the new chapter, where all the chaos and messiness would emerge, the challenges along with their beauty. All the responsibilities and commitments he sees as burden? I do not think it was just a burden, I think he seriously doubted his own ability, anxiety was eating him alive. Fear of breaking down in the face of unpredictability, need to learn and grow, to grow another organ, currently almost not existent. In order to do that, he had to take a leap of faith, that he will go through the discomfort, through failures, through the risk of losing some part of himself. Definitely that would happen, a part of him would need to be sacrificed. But is that really that bad? Sacrifice?

We try to save our lives losing them at the end. I do not want to make some evaluations of his behaviour. Obviously, if that was that easy, he would just propose and get married, apparently it was not simple at all, and the insects of fear were carving tiny holes in his body, leaving their eggs inside and breeding new larvas.

I like how Chekhov shown the public, the people making a gossip out of this. People are larvas too. Adding to his anxiety, cornering him, creating vision for his future life. They knew sooner before him, what future could be good for him. I understand the conflict between Belikov and them, the fundamental perception of how to go about life was different. It is easy to see Belikov as that strange man, wearing winter coat in the summer obsessing over regulations and rules, whose death brought just relief to others. But I can't see it this way.

That was a poor man, completely alone. And he did not even realise how much. Out of obligation he would join others, sit quietly making everyone uncomfortable and then leave, believing he fulfilled his social duty. What life did he have? What genuine connection he had that would be filled with juice and honey? His heart was with Greek, but Greek was not juice. When the juice and honey appeared at the horizon, he, being inprisoned in his way of being, acted out of fear of crossing rules and giving wrong example, ashamed, revealed, laughed at, he has a difficulty finding a soft place within himself, that would laugh and play too. He lost his spark, or I should rather say, the spark was locked, somewhere deep, and from time to time would make a sound, jiggle around attempting to remind him of its existence. Which tools he should use now? How to accept, take care of the spark?

It is a tragedy of a man whose spark got locked and whose existence started to become a trouble, instead of a life force.

Chekhovs stories do this thing, that they surprisingly do not make me want to analyze the situation in order to find a possible solution. I do not try to save a character. I do not judge Belikov, I do not see him as a coward or a cold, detached person, incapable of love or selfish. He, like all of us, equipped himself with what made it possible for him to survive. We do not know his past disappointments, his struggles and reasons that led to creation of the prison made of fine lines of rules and 'shoulds'. Superego at its finest.

Neurotic? Paranoic? Schizoidal? He was neurotic and away from his core.

It is as if life gave him that last chance, 'Here, take the test, let's see how you will do. Maybe if you will do well enough, I will let you live and you even will get a prize'.

Everyones decisions and behaviours are partly predetermined and conditioned by circumstances, environment and all that crap that is independent on us. There is however a piece where this is us contributing to the outcome. Regardless of all that led us to the current state. Therefore, when trying to understand this character, having loads of compassion towards him, I must remember that he was not deprived of choice.

It hurts me imaging him seeing the caricature. How to read it? Someone got out of fine lines, just went all over it, crossing every possible clean line showing him as what he does not want to be. Funny, almost ridiculous anxieties, that were completely unjustifiable. Winter coat in the summer? Pair of galoshes? He protects himself, has this 'just in case'. Just because it is for sure not warm and safe enough without a coat. And he dies when he would need to leave them. Drop the external clothes and armour. Laugh at his naked body and imperfections. Get cold. Take a risk and live.

Oh, I love the story to pieces.

On YouTube you can listen the whole in 30 min:

I want to keep digging, as I feel I still do not offer this story its due admiration.

The inprisonment, the gossip, the larvas carving holes in Belikov, the last chance given by life, the inability to pass the test, the crossing of his fine lines and the tearing apart his clothes and destroying his tight gorset. Life was maybe too much with this test. But I can imagine it got impatient, and apparently other smaller tests were just unattended, or failed. The Life, as merciful and patient as it can be, at some point throws at you the towel, challenges you stronger. And then, it is exactly life or death.

Sad and beautiful, as always.

[bad-thinking]

Zvezda (Russia, 2014)

This movie, directed by Anna Melikyan and released in 2014 I watched rather at random, totally did not get this as any sort of recommendation, instead recently am drawn to russian creations, and found this platform https://sovietmoviesonline.com that shared a great number of russian tv shows and movies. Browsing through that list, I found Zvenda, i.e. Star, drama comedy. Why not?

It is a rather peculiar movie. Totally not obvious.

It starts with a 15 years old girl, giving a performance, auditing for a role, in a place that looks kind of like school. She has a strange, to me, appearance, she is very skinny, which is also her complex, pale skin, colorful make up, light blue eyes. She dreams of being an actress. She does not sing well, no, it is not one of the stories, talent young girl, diamond lost in a crowd, that now just needs to be found and shown to the public. She does not have talent really. She appears also as selfish, very self absorbed, not noticing how others feel, focusing solely on her dreams. Her name is Masha. She lives in an apartment with dirty walls, rather not very pleasant conditions. We don't know where her parents are. She works as a sort of care taker of an elderly men, she walks his dog, buys groceries.

Throughout the whole movie she is mistreated, abused even, in a way. She allows all that for the sake of her dreams. I don't know where to start with that, there were so many scenes that puzzled me.

Even one of first scenes. She is on the stage and perform in front of that disgusting, obese man. She kid of dances, wants to prove she is flexible and she obviously made herself look all beautiful, nice dress, hair and make up. All in place. Man evaluates her, just sees her as a flesh. She says she can sing. He replies: Then undress and sing. And she literally takes her clothes off standing on that stage in a club and starts singing, embarrassed. He measures her and eventually says: Okay, you are in. And with that, she is happy. That was so inhumane, and objectifying. She works in that club as a kind of mermaid, swims in some weird pool of water, is a decoration, has that strange, cheap wig of a blue color. It turns she cannot even swim, almost drowns in that pool.

She is occupied with her appearance and as a kid undergoes several operations. She fixes her ears, boobs, lips and legs. She thinks she will not achieve her dreams looking the way she did. She objectified herself following the standards of beauty, she let herself be beaten as an actress, to just have a role. She did not seem to have a sense of worth on her own. She was a tragic character, at the same time she annoyed me immensely. There was that guy who was, for some reason, not known to me, in love with her. He was there for her whenever she needed, helped her with money for those operations, yet she kept rejecting him. We later know why, nevertheless my heart was aching watching that happening, and anger in me kept only growing towards her.

The whole idea of path of two so distinctive, and yet similar, characters intertwining was entertaining. Masha meets Rita. Rita is a whole another story. She is older, soon will marry a rich man, is surrounded by luxury, dressed in clothes of all the dreamy, according to Masha, clothes. She is vein. She can be loud, also takes a role, plays a performance in her life, pretends, she must be a perfect, beautifully looking woman. Also, she must appear as philanthropic or artistic.

She finds out she is sicks and she will die soon, there is no known cure for that disease. She breaks down in a club where Masha plays that ridiculous mermaid, jumps to her stupid pool, and then wakes up in the morning in Masha's apartment. They start to live together, after all, Rita does not have money on her own and apparently was completely relying on her to be husband, which is just terribly idiotic, I cannot comprehend that, she seems to be not that stupid, but see, what a surprise. He blocks her payment cards, he does not let her in to his house. She turns out to have nothing apart from her ridiculously expensive purse, dolce cabana shoes and fur / coat. Why did he do that though? That would be probably worth mentioning. He dumbs her when she says, while he was fucking her, that she has always felt nothing else than hate towards him. Well, I guess she had not much to loose, she is going to die soon. Why not a tiny dose of honesty, for a change. She does not seem to be good at predicting consequences though, couldn't she first figure out where she is going to take her money from before that honest moment? Whatever.

It is drama, but it was at the same time so damn hilarious. Maybe the plot was not that original. However the ambiguity of main character, Masha, her relation to others and overall humorous tone of the movie was truly engaging. I will not spoil it, describing what is happening later. Although I have almost typed it.

Masha has that vision board in her apartment. She places there all her dreams, what she wants or needs. Among others she has there a list of what she needs to change or improve in herself in terms of her appearance. With every new operation performed she crosses one line. With her new boobs she looks rather ridiculous, as she herself is very skinny and they seem to be just too big, and not to mention, fake. She makes her lips, they get swollen, she cries, that is funny, I laughed, although you can also see as a tragedy.

My overall impression after that movie was that she was superficial, vain and self centered, egoistic, not appreciating other people, using them for her own gain. She had a stupid dream, to be an actress and continue playing some role, basically not being herself. Why that annoys me so much? After all, in her song that she sings, so badly by the way, there are those words:

Sometimes I feel insecure,

From all the pain,

I feel ashamed.

She really wants to fulfill her dream. But is it really a dream? Or some sort of compensation? She wants to be a star, to shine, to be somebody, to achieve, perhaps? Actually, she does not explain much why she so much wants to become an actress. When I try to reach my empathy better, I see that goal not as a dream, but compensation. She lets herself being mistreated and abused, she treats herself as an object with all the alterations that she makes to her body. On the other hand she does not engage in any weird relations with other men. Although there is just that one scene when she makes out with someone in her dressing room, that by the way, sees a guy that likes and cares about her deeply. He wants to commit suicide after that, he failed, and tells her, and she seems to not even hear him, absorbed again in one of her dramas, that time it was I think swollen lips.

I would like to hear someone who has some affection towards her, because I continue seeing her as selfish. Maybe that is what I need a bit more for myself?

[bad-thinking]

The Good Death

I was recently thinking that after my death I would like to not be buried but that I am thrown away with a wind. Therefore I would continue moving and travelling. It also means however that I don't leave anything after me. There is an idea of eco funeral, where a dead body feeds the soil and so something new can be born, for example a tree. Isn't it beautiful? Yet, I would still prefer to be a partner to the wind.

[bad-thinking]

Eden, by Stanisław Lem (1958) [scifi book]

Another astonishing masterpiece by Stanisłam Lem. The story where I hoped for a happy end, and was certain the contact with strangers from another planet, planet Eden, will be established. I was just waiting for how, and what good will come out of it. How they will be saved by the crew from Earth. How better future is going to be possible for the citizens of Eden.

The unethical and also even unsuccessful experiments aiming at reconstructing species of Eden, enhancing their structure using bioengineering, causing mutations, many deaths and suffering, attempt to cover its effects, ubiquitous and deliberate misinformation, anonymous government. Countless of Edenians disabled, mentally impaired, cementaries of species of lower quality, exterminated. Isolated groups from the society, forced to cooperate, not being able to get away from the imposed structure.

The tragic story of chaos, technical advancements going wrong, even the very idea for tune Edenians with the usage of bioengineering, manipulating with their biology feels very.. not right. Then "deleting" the cases where experiment failed, as if they were nothing more than an object meant to simply serve, or fulfil the role, completely deprived of any individuality, or even its potential. They did not accept the offer of help from Earthmen, their guests. The points of reference are too different, it would not be possible to come to the shared agreement and direction.

Communication, the one that was conducted with one individual from the planet Eden was one of best fragments I have ever read. The calculator with programmed translated terms from both languages was the bridge between the two species. Earthmen were able to formulate questions in a way that it was possible to translate them into aliens form. Alien was able then to comprehend it and reply. So exciting! I have a bit hard time imagining the shape of the alien, the form. In my head it looks quite funny, not sure if that was an intention of Lem to construct such image or I misinterpret it. On the other hand they are mutated, impaired, it is possible that the appearance is also funny? Or am I being cruel in my head?

The language, the form of alien communication is interesting too. They use electricity for creating and presenting message. Electronic charges, their patterns, were defining the meaning of the message. How original that is! I really liked that.

I think that lack of a happy end is even a better ending as it surprises more.

The Doctor from the crew was my favourite character, right after alien, of course. Sensitivity, the mission to rescue and heal, the disagreements, the drive to help, to take care. The great empathy and openness.

This book I can recommend with the whole heart - was brilliant.

[bad-thinking]

There is still tomorrow (Italy, 2023)

Such an amazing movie! Absolutely astonishing! Drama made in a way that I haven't seen before, wrapped in a comedy, brutality and fear intertwined with a dance. Well done!

I came for that movie slightly late, and my first impression was: what the hell is it... Naive comedy? How wrong I was! Post war Italy and patriarchal society give you those so desirable goosebumps.

Few points to make, few observations to share.

Why Italians spend so much time outside surrounded by other people, in groups chatting? I lived in Italy for a year and noticed that, and it was pretty new for me to observe. Normally people where I am from, in Poland, walk alone or with usually one person, occasionally they gather in larger groups outside, adults, I mean, for kids it is different. I thought how extroverted they are and friendly, but I think there might be a reason for that. It is clear form the movie that women need to, for their own sanity, talk to other women to share and be able to move forward. To have a chat, cigarette, laughter. To escape from their husbands. 'He is just nervous, he was on the war'. And men, they also gather together to form a separate, masculine camp, where women, being of lower value have no access.

The main character, wife being abused, beaten by husband, humiliated, deprived of her worth, treated like she was lesser than a floor cloth does all she can to keep family together and protect children from her husbands anger. She takes all that on herself. She is covered with bruises, yet she keeps serving a tea and cookies with a smile on her face. How terrible. Her daughter detests her for that. No wonder, what example her mother gives. She is not seen as a human. She is not appreciated, not recognized for her efforts, not seen as a wife, not loved, not supported.

There are plenty of entertaining dialogues, for example during a dinner with parents of daughter's to be fiance. But I won't go there.

Wife decides to take her chance and escape, leave her husband and the family in general, children including, run away. She is touched by the angry words of her daughter reminding her of her lack of self worth, hoping for better life. The unfortunate circumstances made it however impossible, even though the plan was ready and she was decided. That was heart breaking. I rooted for her so much. That would be it, an example when it is possible to get away from the adversity and pain. Where it was proven that it is possible. Yet, that didn't happen. Watching the movie you don't know whether it is going to work out or not, you are kept in suspense, just hoping for the better future for her. And it looks like that better future was not meant to come! So, what does the movie show us? Is it the end? No. It is ot the end. There is still tomorrow. What is tomorrow?

Tomorrow she has a voice. Tomorrow she speaks up. Why? It is 1945 and first election in Italy where women have the right to vote. Around 50% of all votes came from women in that election. That whole crowd, business and anticipation, to have your own voice matter. You own individual voice, the right to speak up. To right to share a piece of you, to contribute, be a valuable part of a system, equal as men. How beautiful. I cried like an idiot, I so much feel ashamed of crying in the cinema, especially when I am surprised by the reason, but here it happened again. Liberty to use own voice. Her daughter supporting her, it brought tears to my eyes, which then slowly rolled down my cheek.

I don't consider myself as a feminist and I rather don't participate in events that would be devoted to supporting women in general. I am not sure if I am touched by the difference between genders at that time, or the very ability to make your voice existent. Probably that election and domestic violence are just very suitable triggers in my psyche to move that part of me that is sensitive about ability to scream, "have a say" and be heard, have that vote count.

I am touched immersly by that movie. By the form and message. First you hope she will escape and will have a chance for a better life, then you are proud of her courage and fight. She was forced to stay, but wasn't that in her story better? If she just ran away, she wouldn't 'have a say' against her husband who so much wanted to stop her. She made her voice be heard and count. She fought against adversities. And she won. At the end, the way events led her to this action can be seen as pushing her towards greater bravery and strength. And that solidarity between her and her daughter. That was an example that her daughter needed, far better example than if she managed to run away.

I didn't expect to enjoy it that much, good message and original form. Entertaining and funny too.

[bad-thinking]

Amy Winehouse Back to Black (UK, USA, 2024)

First, I do not know the story of Amy enough to talk about the singer herself, rather want to refer to the movie mentioned in a title.

Second, it is again something very personal and subjective, I mean, I do not intend to give an objective perspective or evaluate whether movie is worth watching.

I myself did not quite enjoy it. I did not feel much empathy towards Amy, I was utterly frustrated with her lack of thinking and being blindly led by her emotions, not questioning herself even a bit. This shows confidence, right, not questioning yourself, I think there should be though a dose of self doubt. In the movie she totally saw everything only from her perspective, taking a boyfriend that was in a relationship already, then crying over him leaving her. Wasn't that her who in the first place stole him? Is it in the name of love? I do not buy it. You just don't destroy another relationship, from selfish reasons... She had a crush.. so what. How often that happens we are attracted to someone but it turns out person is already involved in a relationship with another person. Here the opinions can differ, again, maybe for some we should follow the feeling and fight for a person, but Amy rather had no concerns about taking others boyfriends.

About addiction, well, I read quite a bit on internet how people feel compassion towards her because of her battle with addiction. But come on, our decisions are not fully predetermined by the disorders or predispositions we have. Also, we should not let past to define us. Her fans justify her stupidity and irresponsibility by referring to her addiction, I see it as enablement and indirectly hurting a person, since they start to believe they cannot change it anyway.

Amy, in the movie, also from the interviews I saw, was clear that she does not want to give up alcohol. After a tour, you need to get some drinks because your energy just drops so much, and what you are going to do, you have to get ready for the next performance, be energized. Also, the big one, she knew should not be able to create without alcohol, I actually agree with her. Her songs got created because of her pain, emotional instability, surrounding chaos, intoxication, depression and emotional highs. She knew what she was doing. People claim how intelligent she was, she got herself bulimic and did not seek help even (movie, but to my knowledge (that is however limited) she did not seek therapeutic help). Really, she didn't freaking read, listen about the consequences? And what mixing it with alcohol can do to her? That's how intelligent she was? I don't know really, either she knew and she consciously destroyed herself, which I think is possible, or she didn't and that happened out of her control. She was told by doctors, fans were screaming to her to get help. But she refused, because without that, she also wouldn't have highs, and she knew it. It is what mania does. You need low lows to have high highs. Enormous success and being on top, being that known, being beyond other humans, you are only on one side now, the other side is equally enormous destruction.

She created and became famous like she dreamed of. She went all in and then she killed herself. She was a star that shines brightly and therefore dies fast.

I cannot resonate with her at all. For me, even taking into account her possible bipolar disorder, she was just not thinking, not questioning herself at all. Selfish and spoilt. I don't also get the notion of her being traumatised. Her parents divorced, I think many children go through it, it is not rare occurrence really, unfortunately, there are more severe traumas.

She had a lively family, they were close. You can argue about emotional neglect, but for me then it sounds like something that can be assigned everywhere. No. She had parents, had family, they were doing things together, enjoyed spending time together. That does not sound like a trauma to me. Singing together, dancing.

Now, another aspect of her life that annoys me to pieces. Her ex husband, Blake. Don't we have right to leave the relationship? He was a fucking kid, irresponsible, had fun with her, loved her, but realized she is destructive, he knew he is dragged into it, that it is a propelled vicious circle, where they both fuel each others intoxication and tendency to escape reality. Didn't she beat him, scratch him, didn't she have problems with aggression? Wasn't that slightly too fast to marry that soon and make a stupid tattoo on the heart? I am rather in defence of Blake. I can't listen to her fans throwing all the accusations on him, how he destroyed her life. No. It is such a common story, really. Who hasn't fallen in love and then got dumped? COME ON. It is just stupidity that at the age of 20tish you assume person that you love now is forever, you don't really know. People also fall out of love. It is good while it lasts.

Her father, he does sound like a bit.. off to me. Taking care of appearances, smooth talker, knowing what to do to win. I can't say much about him, it is just the feeling, that it can be true that he used his daughter for fame and money. From the interviews I saw with him.

I am writing this realizing how this can appear as me dismissing her pain. Maybe I dismiss it. I know I am sometimes dismissive of others inner states. I am myself on the very opposite side because have tendency to just dissociate from my emotions, have some symptoms of aleksytymia and also asperger syndrom, I totally don't trust my emotions and definitely wouldn't write a song about them. Maybe I partly envy people who just selfishly go after them, following their feelings, not caring about others. I always think of consequences and how I affect others. I don't want to be selfish and don't want to use people. I dismiss my own emotions / feelings, because they usually lead into trouble, making it impossible to defend myself, making others abuse my expression and vulnerability. I am closed off. But when I am open, something bad happens.

[bad-thinking]

Fallen Leaves (Finland, 2023) - love in the mundane

Oh, this one I loved! Dark, dry humour and omnipresent awkwardness - yummy! I wonder how come I am bored with all the disturbing and sad movies, not touched anymore by them but now find what is ordinary and turning out beautiful, filled with intimacy and connection between two people beautiful! And this one, this one is just masterpiece.

I was a bit resistant to go see that movie. It is placed in a very plain, grey scenery, simple, ordinary life. That just sounds to me freaking scary, that is what I tirelessly attempt to escape from, at all cost. Gosh, please let me avoid what regular people do, let me be outside of all that. Let me touch what is beautiful, what is higher, better, what is more. Please don't tell me that is all I can have. How I can find love in this grey world? How I can find romance and real, pure feeling? This just is not possible. I have to reach the place that is somehow better, more colourful, more interesting, just different, more valuable, of course, because only in such place love is possible. Love, fullfillment and beauty. It has to be filled with interesting ideas, novelty, options, potential. There needs to be vastness and creative change, movement, flow. Do you know what that movie did? Do you know? It placed love, the beautiful, real love, in a simple, and even depressing scenery! In the grey, dreadful, deprived of fascinating, new options world, it placed real feeling, connection and warmth. In my heart, where I had so little place for the simple spaces like that, I got more room now. And you know what? The love in the movie was that beautiful specifically because it was possible to find it in between grey blocks, boredom, mundane daily activities and simple people! Love can be found everywhere! Yes, go for shiny diamonds like landscapes, rich with polished surfaces, no wonder you will find there a romance too, the landscape makes you, it is rather difficult to do otherwise. But come on! Find love working in the supermarket, or as a physical worker, living in a ugly, dirty worker room, drinking during breaks and being fired for that. being dragged by a friend for a stupid karaoke, taking your only good shoes, making your hair look reasonably good. Then being at the bar, seeing her, and not even saying a word. You feel already, that you could connect, but you lack the confidence, you don't dare to make that step, to say something. What a chance. Moving through days, depressed, helping yourself with alcohol, then seeing her, awaken from the lethargy, from a long dream. You know she is as alone and as different as you are. She of course does not speak either. Ah, beautiful!

Then, searching for her, because it is after all stronger than you, the feeling that was born when you saw her. You go near that bar every evening hoping you will see her. You keep missing each other but one evening you meet her, she came hoping to see you too. That is one awkward occurrence. Another reason why I love this movie.

How he shakes her hand, instead of kissing her goodbye. How he looses her number. How she buys plates and makes that salad for him, and how they eat in awkward silence at the small table at her place. How they don't even touch each other when they sit at the sofa. How they are unsure of themselves. How they don't know how to reach to another, how they wait. How they barely express anything, but when they do, it means something. How nothing is overdone. And how that makes me now want to cry, because I know it is so imperfect, so uncomfortable and so plain, yet at the same time so pure and real that I am not sure I will ever have a chance to experience anything similar.

They loose each other and they find each other.

Love prevails.

Love despite of the mundane.

Writing reveals to me again, how hopelessly romantic I am. And how, even though I try, I am not able to open my heart. How I could open it only to something pure. How I protect it from the polluted love. Sexual desire and superficiality.

[bad-thinking]

Mouchette (France, 1967) - sad not so sad

So sad, sad story. And... Am I loosing my empathy and compassion? It was meant to make me cry... That is a story of a girl with a harsh past, disrespecting father alcoholic, neglecting her, dying mother. Poor living conditions, living in a province. Raped. Mistaking it for love.

What I see in comments or reviews of others: tragic portrait, sad story, loneliness, neglect.

It honestly does not seem that sad? It feels to me that nowadays half of the people have fathers alcoholics or at least neglecting their children, daughters especially, It is a luxury to have a father that is actually a good enough father. Why this concept is non existent in psychology? It is widely spoken about the good enough mother, but where is the father?

Main character was not at least abused at school, yes, she did not, say, bond... But she was not there bullied. Her father drank, but she did not seem to have to collect him from the floor or have to worry where he disappears, she did not seem to falsely rely on him, naively hoping he will do something for her. Guess who is projecting here what. Oh, I love that. She had home, where she was fairly safe. No intruders. She did not seem to feel much shame. Her mother suffered from illness but her death was rather clean.

Am I already a cold, not feeling creature? What your own suffering does to you... It makes it more difficult to empathise, because you did not receive a compassion on time and support yourself. Because you know know you had it more difficult and you survived and you do not make a movie about it. Is it a virtue to suffer in silence?

[bad-thinking]

Perfect days (Japan, 2023) - breaking through the pseudo peace

So, I heard about that movie that is good, that it reveals something important that is not that apparent at the first glance. That did sound like worth watching, especially the fact that it did not contain much of the action, but rather series of scenes and slow dialogues not pushing the audience to focus from one shiny - effect loaded image to another. That sounded encouraging. Additionally, my friend, whose opinion I value, told me how amazed he was. Therefore, I could not say: 'no' to that movie.

The purpose of this post is not to summarize the movie for you, if you want to read about it, go to imdb. I write it from selfish reasons purely, I simply want to express my reflections upon having it watched. i find myself drawning in questions and observations after watching a movie or reading a book and I hope that writing it down will clear my head a bit. With that being said, let's get to the nitty gritty.

I am disappointed with the movie. For the most part of it I was just bored. I am not surprised with anything, I haven't gotten any new insight. That is true that at first I assumed the movie to be just naively positive, but movie slowly revealing its true message didn't surprise me either. I must admit, I haven't guessed at first what director aimed to convey. Main character goes through the life in a very simple way. He cleans toilets, lives in poor conditions, he barely speaks, he is very diligent and cares about his work, even though his job is perceived as disrespectful. It does not seem to bother him. He cleans the toilets every day very precisely, he even overdoes it, coming up with his own tools and ways to make it better. How to read it? "Oh, well, it does not truly matters what you do, what matters is your attitude". Is this really true? The main character carries that slight smile on his face, and you can interpret it as a sense of inner peace. "He is absolutely at peace with his ordinary life, not having any desires, not needing anything from life, transcending ego, seeing and valueing what is more important than ego based materialistic goods or statuses". Isn't that what all the spiritual gurus feed us with? " Abandon what is material, status, it is not your real nature. Learn to be in the 'here and now', learn to see through your desires, look at the freaking sky, watch clouds and resist participation in the rats race, endless competition and comparision, striving towards oblivion (whatever that could mean to you)." Pretty much.

Can you be happy cleaning toilets as the cherry on your cake representing life? As a cherry being a representation of your life achievement? Can you? And what role does the routine play for you? Ah, you read about how habits make you a better person? How you can improve yourself? How routine is healthy? How to fucking read this... Really. I believe routine is needed, I certainly need it, because otherwise I will think unnecesarily too long about what I want to do or what i don't want to do and why. It is a freaking nightmare. Therefore, I decide to skip the process of analysis / overthinking and just go with the routine, then at least I know I will progress in some direction. I don't trust my wants and likes in the moment because I think humans are lazy beings by nature, and our minds are bastards trying to soothe us with brain ice cream, making us stay comfortable and stupid. Why the hell have I mentioned routines? Well, I tell you why. Main character fills his days with routines. In the movie it is shown how every day he makes the "bed", has a meal, a can of coffee, washes himself, cleans the toilet being careful about the details, using a mirror checking if he did not miss anything, any dirt. He is smiling. He is patient. He does not talk. Is this peace? Why is he similing when I feel something disturbing? When I feel sad watching him? Is this my projection? Am I just placing in him my unmet ambitions? Why is he cleaning the toilet after other people smiling? No, no, no. He crushes. At some point he crushes. I will not describe how that happens. But the bubble of artifical peace breaks. The structure built of small daily activities falls apart. He knows he failed at life, he knows he colors his loneliness and void with dilligence and service. He cries. You can see tears in his earlier smiling eyes. And that moment is beautiful. Why? Why is it beautiful if he cries? It is beautiful because finally he is honest with himself. He lets himself see the truth. He knows he is a prisoner of this day and the days to follow. He knows he cannot escape it. And in this prison he is all alone. I wonder how his life looked like before. He is that schizoidal? We don't even hear his thoughts. He seems empty. I think he covered up his sadness and separation. Is he sad because of the job he has, not being fullfilled, or rather loneliness? It depends on what I would project onto him. And, honestly, I rather feel sad because of him not even knowing his potential, not even giving himself a chance to explore it. I am not that sad when I think about his loneliness. Or separation. At the end, people wanted to be for him, to some extent, they seemed to care. He however was very encapsulated in his own world, world that also seemed however deprived of anything colorful. What was there really? I think deep down disappointment and despair. But again, this is my projection.

So the question is: are we able to accept reality, even if not fullfilling our need for exploring own potential and expansion? Are we able to just sit on the bench, look at the sky, see clouds passing and be happy that the sun shines at my face? That I have food to eat and roof above me at night? That I am fairly healthy? I know I cannot. I know I need to feel I walk the right direction in my life. That I am aligned with my potential. That I listen to my call. Then, I don't have to eat well, I can barely sleep, I can be under stress. It is worth all of this, I can be separated too, I am already anyway, I can be in an unstable environment, not knowing what will happen. All that is bearable because I know, I am aligned with my inner self, and I hear and let myself be guided my my inner call. The voice screaming to me. We need the ability to follow it. A dose of independence and great deal of bravery. Be sentivive, be genuine and be brave. Be smart too. Don't be naive. Don't pretend you are okay to yourself, to others you can. To yourself, you cannot. At least, not for the most of the time. You need escapism from cruelty or difficulty? Sure, laugh it off, smile, pretend you are fine for a while, but don't let yourself stay in it, treat it as a break. We all need a break from harsh reality and that is fine. As far as I recall, a psychoanalyst, Winnicot, was advocating for this too. I quite like him. Who is able to stay in this reality all the time, you have to give yourself a break and lie to yourself a bit, saying how all right everything is. But don't get lost in it.

Having written this, I must say, it did help me to clear my head, it does feel lighter definitelly. To my non existent audience reading this post - I am thinking now that probably what I stated at the begining of this post about not being surprised and disappointment was a bit of a exageration. It was not overall that terribly bad. Writing down questions and reflections helps to appreciate more the creation.