Weekly Film Blog (#5)

Strictly Ballroom. Scott Hastings has his own ideas on self-expression on ballroom floor, however, it did not comply to the preexisting 'ballroom steps' that is expected within the ballroom Federation. The dancing community has always had a set of rules and steps to guide them and to deviate from that path would basically mean to taint the history and glory of ballroom dance. Despite that, there was a scene in the film that demonstrates the dancing community chanting excitedly for the rumoured 'NEW STEPS', only to be shot down by Barry Fife the President of the Federation. From this example, we observe the role of Barry as an authority figure of an authoritarian leadership quality. Barry dictates when certain policies should be enforced, decides by himself who should be disqualified from the competition (as seen at the last scene when Scott and Fran were forced to stop dancing by Barry's announcement), and does not include the followers opinions (ie. Scott's father, Doug, was dismissed). 

The psychological aspect to explain the whole dynamic of this movie is the aspect of conformity and compliance. The dancing community does not question the idea of dancing to the same steps that were passed down from the previous generation. For Scott, especially, the group pressure comes directly and forcibly from his own mother and those that surround and support her (ie. his coach). The people were apprehensive of Scott's own moves that did not fit the traditional dance steps, probably more especially with Fran who is perceived as coming from a beginner level (and maybe from a Spanish background that does not conform to the white dominant culture of ballroom dancing?). It is explained when Shirley, the mother, had complied to Barry's request to dance with Les instead of Doug, her own husband because Doug was dancing to non traditional steps and Barry was there to ensure that he would not participate in that competition. In the same way, Barry had urged Scott to dance with Liz in order to honor his father that was left 'a broken man' when his father started to dance to his own style and lost the competition. I believe the persuasion technique of reframing was used by Barry Fife to manipulate the decision making of both Shirley and Scott. A frame is  a schema of beliefs and values and we use that to make meaning, but when new information is added, changing the frame, hence reframing. Barry knew how to make sure that people would comply to his requests. Shirley only wanted to win the competition so Barry made sure to deceive her that the only way to win the competition was for her to dance with Liz, making her rethink of her decision to dance with her husband. At the same time, Barry used Scott's fathers circumstances to his advantage, twisting the story to induce cognitive dissonance within Scott and ultimately alter his decision of dancing with Fran. 

In the end, with Doug's explanation on his part, Scott made his own choice despite the societal pressure exerted on him and his previous compliance to Barry. In line with choice theory (Glasser, 1998), Scott was driven by his need for freedom, power, love and belonging and fun. For freedom, is clear that he wants the freedom of dancing to his own style despite not being accepted socially. Scott is taking over control of his own life with his own decisions and direction by going against Barry. For power, by dancing with Fran, he is showing competence, to be recognised for his achievements and skills. For love and belonging, is the need to be part of a relationship, to feel part of a group. This is Scott wanting to be a part of Fran's life, wanting a relationship with her and close with her family. By dancing the pasadoble, he has learned to be a part of a group that accepts him for his passion and desires. Lastly, because Scott enjoys the pasadoble, to be with Fran and enjoy what they have together fuels Scott's the need for fun.

To conclude, films provide a platform to convey values and messages for people to reflect on. It is a good film that has make me think of all the times that I have been a victim of conformity and compliance. 

Glasser, W. (1998). Choice Theory: A New Psychology of Personal Freedom, New York: Harper Collins.

Weekly Film Blog (#4)

Gandhi. A large scale civil disobedience was sparked by Mahatma Gandhi and this historical event illustrates how social psychology is a very powerful tool in influencing people. The persuasion techniques that Gandhi carried out throughout his times of leadership was able to provide millions of Indians the strength to change their attitudes and belief. A central route of persuasion, being persuaded by the arguments and contents of the message, was one of the main reasons why the people followed Gandhi. In the film, Gandhi asked the people to join his non-violence movement to protest against the new law that requires all Indians to be finger printed as if they are criminals. His argument that it is degrading and an inconvenience made people support his movement. However, people do not follow mainly because of this persuasion, it is also contributed by the peripheral route of persuasion. The peripheral route involves the attractiveness of the speaker as a contributing factor. The people put their trust on Gandhi because of the persuader credibility. Unlike Gandhi who had been given the opportunity of an education and a vast experience in the higher society and with foreign power, most Indians that follow Gandhi were illiterate and of the lower class. They do not possess the same level of political awareness and complex philosophy of life as Gandhi did. However, they believed in Gandhi in giving them a voice for them to stand up for their rights. Gandhi had extensive knowledge and trustworthiness and the people can see that he has no ulterior motives and have the best intentions of the Indians in his movements. Especially when Gandhi left his elite lifestyle to live with the people with simple means (wearing the dhoti, fasting), that people look at Gandhi with more respect as this aligns with the Law of Liking that governs the law how we are influenced and and how we influence with those who are similar to us. 

A theme that comes to mind during this film is social responsibility. We are responsible to the community even if its just trough something as simple as an opinion or charity. Gandhi much like Nelson Mandela, understood the importance of social responsibility that everyone is together as a team. They both understood that war is a complicated and vicious process and through peaceful protests and strong will they could gain what they want through this non violent movements. This balance of wanting to create a change and fight for the civil rights while maintaining a peaceful agenda is important to prevent the blood spill of hundreds and thousands of lives. 

To conclude, famous leaders such as Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela, Louis Riel and Mahatma Gandhi are a very important examples of how different leadership would result in different outcomes. It is also important to know how it continues to influence the people today, such that the recent Beyonce 's Super Bowl half time performance was influenced by the Black Panthers and Malcolm X with her political all black formation. In the end, people will want to follow those who strongly relate to them and it is important that today's leaders should exhibit a leadership that will benefit the society and the world. 



Siti Nur Asyiqin 

Weekly Film Blog (#3)

Running on Empty. The Popes make running away from the FBI a fun and exciting thing to do, especially with the name changing and different hairstyles every few months, disguising under a different background and traveling to wherever remote town they could land to. However, this sort of lifestyle has taken a toll on each member of the family both emotionally and physically. The father, Arthur, turns out to be a good leader of the pack with parental instincts that has helped them to survive the years in fugitive. It is interesting to observe that although the father has given the freedom for their two children to roam around the neighbourhood and attend school, there are also other matters that he keeps tight in reins in order to minimise their exposure. For example, Danny learns to know that class photos should be avoided. This instinct, as Danny puts it, 'he has this feeling, he just knows' is not just mere instincts. Years worth of experience has programmed Arthur's recognition heuristics to provide him with the information that he needs to assess their family's safety concerns. (He knew to avoid that shady guy, Gus, with his plans to rob a bank with guns, he knew that going to private events would only increase vulnerability to exposure). 

From there, the theme that is the foundation of this film is trust and care for each other to survive. Because the children and wife knows that every decision made by Arthur is done out of concern for their life, they trust their fathers judgement. Arthur, knowing Danny is dating with a local town girl, did not show any objection, despite the possibility of Danny exposing too much information because he trusts Danny to be able to keep their secret safe. (The only time where his father was wrong because Danny did eventually talk to Lorna about it).  Trust persists till the end of the film between Anna and her father, where they discussed the possibility of giving Danny his second chance at life. The father, despite not seeing his child for more than a decade, trusts that Anna is trying to make amends for her mistakes as much as Anna trusts her father enough to know that her father would not report her immediately when she came out from hiding. Although, the interdependency between them is lessen with Danny's decision to go to Julliard, Anna's decision to reach out to her father for help, and Arthurs decision to allow Danny to be in charge of his own life decisions. 

The mother, Anna, is a strong character in the film. She's tired of that kind of living and she's made plans to turn herself in but somehow, with that much of emotional fatigue she is still loyal to her family, wanting to stay with Arthur, Danny and the little boy, keeping their family together and safe. Especially in the scandalous scene with Gus, it is a wonder how her constant cognitive dissonance had not have completely exhausted her! 

Danny, an adolescent mature enough to understand the father's dependency on their family, eventually figured out his life goals and pursued it despite the father's objections. His coming of age story (from adolescence to young adulthood, according to Erikson's theory) is inspiring as he struggles to balance between his desire for romance, family and education. He was juggling both issues of Identity vs Role Confusion and Intimacy vs Isolation. Being constantly changing names and identity and growing up to live in a life that is not his was difficult because there was no foundation for him to built on. (Yes, he knows his own name, yes he knows what he likes but putting who he really is in the back burner while living as an outcast on the outside is not a healthy environment for an adolescent that requires a stable sense of self. He also struggles to be the kind of man that Arthur hopes him to be (that is loyal to the family no matter what) when he has life goals he wants to achieve. This brings to the next issue where he wants to build an intimate relationship with Lorna and keep the caring relationship he has with his family but he can't have both, as choosing one side will result in isolation in the other. But that's the risk you've got to take living in on the run, right? 

Siti Nur Asyiqin