the five obstructions.

in rosecrans baldwin's "you lost me there", sara, wife of the lead character victor, believed the short film "the perfect human" was the perfect movie. of course after reading this praise, i had to see it. i googled "the perfect human" and discovered it is a real film and the library had a copy of it, so i checked it out. actually, i checked out "the five obstruction" which is a documentary about jørgen leth that made the film "the perfect human". "the perfect human" was one of the special features on the DVD.

when i was done watching "the perfect human", i felt like baldwin's character, victor. it was too abstract or high brow for me and i didn't get it.

at first i thought it was discussion on how the perfect human is an oxymoron. a human can not be perfect because in order to be human one is innately flawed. thanks to eve and adam (she gets first billing here cos she is one that first bit the forbidden fruit) all humans bear the burden of the original sin, so perfection is unattainable. we see in the film that the perfect human is not perfect nor is he special. in fact, the perfect human is normal and does ordinary things. i then started to observe the film as if i was from another planet and observing human life as an outsider. i thought of how when we humans observe animals we label and characterize the mundane things they do. furthermore, we tend to label things extraordinary when they are not. and that is how i came to view the perfect human, he was not special on his own but special because we were observing him.

one scene i found interesting was when the perfect human in a room with no boundaries and with nothing, just danced. i enjoyed his dancing and dancing does make me happy, but still not sure what the complete point of that segment was.

the film closed with the perfect human saying "today, too, i experienced something i shall hope to understand in a few days' time". and perhaps this is what made him the perfect human, the fact that he understand that life is at times incomprehension and what may be confusing in the present will make sense in our future.

even after that all those thoughts, i still agreed with victor that "the perfect human" was silly. i decided to reread the section from "you lost me there" about the film. i no longer had the library copy but thanks to google books found the excerpt i needed. sara described the film as being anti-pretentious and that "the director was putting everything on the line . . .[and] he's saying there is no one you can pin down. even the perfect one's we can not know."

watching it a second time with sara's observation in mind, it did make sense. we see the perfect human doing things and things about him are explained but we still do not really know him.

oddly enough, this was also the conclusion of the documentary. or at least what i think the point of it was. it was bit over my head too.

the documentary involved the director, lars von trier challenging the director, jørgen leth to remake his short film "the perfect human" but with restrictions. i didn't realize it but von trier directed "dancer in the dark", the only film of his i have seen it. this film had the same graininess as that film but that could just be his thing.

von trier gave leth directions for his remakes like limiting scenes to 12 frames, setting it in cuba, setting it in the most miserable place in the world (both leth and i thought india), complete freedom and a cartoon. von trier wanted them to be crap but in fact he loved all of them. he also idolized leth so he was a bit biased. i for one did not care for any of the remakes. i will admit that i do not complete get the original so i may not be the best judge. but the remakes did not have the same spirit as the original. there is a simplicity to it that was lost in the obstructions. the only one i enjoyed was the cartoon one, which surprised both leth and von trier because they hate cartoons.

the fifth obstruction is directed by von trier and everything comes to light. in the end, it is discovered that von trier's goal in making this documentary was to help save leth. once he admitted this, i recalled how von trier always mentioned how happy leth looked or his depression (but unsure what was implied by that). but in the end, von trier discovered that he was projecting on leth and substituted leth as the perfect human. von trier thought he knew leth more than leth himself but turns out he did not know him at all. kinda like how sara viewed "the perfect human" in the novel.

in the end, i was just as confused as the beginning but i think that goes back to my not getting "the perfect human" in the first place. i did google to find out more but came up with no real analysis. i did come across talk about von trier doing another documentary with scorsese and de niro and remaking "taxi driver". this would be interesting and i look forward to that since i am actually familiar with the original.

you lost me there. rosecrans baldwin. (72)

after reading and loving "paris, i love you but your bringing me down", i decided to read baldwin's debut novel. though i did not find it as delightful a read as "paris" (this subject manner was heavier), "you lost me there" was still a good book.

"you lost me there" is the story of a neuroscientist, whose research focus is alzheimer's, and his struggle to remember the details of his now-deceased wife and their marriage. it's ironic because as much as victor studied memory and the brain, he misconstrued the past and created false memories of his wife. his misconstruction also leads the reader to wonder if he has fallen victim to the very disease he is trying to cure/prevent.  the book moved randomly through victor's inner thoughts to present life to memories, which also make a reader weary of his mental health.  and of course, his meltdown episode on the rockerfeller's boat was a red flag  (his dead wife did speak to him from beyond the grave).

random digression while we are discussing memory loss/mental health. but one night victor's goddaughter cornelia brought up a case study H.M. that she studied in school. H.M. was a gentlemen who suffered from epilepsy as a child.  in an attempt to cure him, scientist removed parts of his brain.  though his epileptic seizures did stop, he lost his short term memory.  he could not not remember the present. his memory was restricted to twenty seconds.  something would be taught to him but twenty seconds later it would be gone, his mind unable to create new memories.  a extreme version of "50 first dates".  i was familiar with this case study because i saw a wonderful video installation of this case study at the whitney in nyc.  the piece was by kerry tribe.  tribe created a film, which she ran simultaneously side by side as a duplicate, but with a twenty second delay (the time frame of H.M.'s short term memory).  at inital watching, i did not understand the delay, but once i discovered the biography behind the man feature in it the film, it was quite profound.  it was sad how quickly he lost what had just occured to him, and how he was unable to create new memories.  luckily, his long term memory was not effected so he still had those memories and was not completely alone in his mind.  it makes one realize how much we take our memories for granted because life without it would be sad, lonely, and scary.  (to read more info on H.M. click here.  to learn more about the video installation click here.)

back to the novel.  i think why i lacked a connection to this work (and an indication of baldwin's great writing skill) was because victor was cold and distant.  he was a very difficult character to sympathize with because he was cut off from everyone.  all of his relationships seemed superficial (even his marriage) because he never was 100 percent there for the other person.  i often became frustrated with him because he never seemed completely focused when interacting with others (this could also be a sign of his alhezimer's).  he would balantly ignore others that were having conversations with him.  it was rude and i could not imagine how his wife survived this or why regina put up with it.  and sadly he was often forgiven for it because of his brilliance.

i will add that this book does hold a valuable lesson.  it demonstrates that regardless of how brilliant a mind can be, our minds create biased or flawed memories.  incidents in one's history may not have been accurately recorded by one's mind.  victor thought he knew his wife but in fact he did not know her at all.  and that is because at times we take bits and pieces of stories that better fit the perspective we want. when i think of all the arguments i have ever had, i can always restructure it so that i am the victim, even though i am the one at fault.  every memory we have, which we may want to call capital t truth, is in fact something that has been framed by our perspective.

it's interesting because victor shares how he had an epiphany one day of how he and his best friend may have different perspectives of the world.  this inspires him to study neuroscience, yet he is unable to apply it in his actual life.  he can't understand how his actions effect others or understand others may have a different point of view from him.  and as one becomes frustrated with victor's narrow-mindness, the reader discovers that they should strive to be more open-minded.  

before i close, i will say that as i read this, i casted the movie version in my head (every book is turned into movies now).  as i read about victor, i pictured colin firth especially scenes where he was in his lab.  regina would be played by olivia munn (she kinda played regina in "magic mike").  and his wife would be rachel weisz.

as a special treat for reading this, i included a came victor played with his wife.  they would describe a movie with just three sentence.  i got the first two but can anyone help me with the last?

southern lawyer has a way with kids. can't get an innocent off the hook. boo.

vito shouldn't buy fruit. michael won't talk business. diane keaton?

men embark on spaceship. spaceship disembarks men. sorry, dave.