Opinions

On 14 year-old YOG athlete Clarence Chew

Arts & Culture

Baybeats 2010: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Arts & Culture

Sandcastle: a refreshing effort by Boo Junfeng

Arts & Culture

Baybeats 2010

Written on October 16, 2009 by The Kent Ridge Common

Email Story Printable version

Print Story

Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei

Adrian Pang has put in a strong performance in Glen Goei's highly entertaining movie, The Blue Mansion.

(photo credits:PHOTO BY: THE BLUE MANSION WEBSITE)

Our team was at the Gala Premiere of The Blue Mansion, in which AWARE was selected as the charity. We caught a glimpse of a few notable faces such as celebrities Hossan Leong and Najip Ali, in addition to Constance Singam from AWARE.

Glen mentioned in our previous interview about the patriarchal and Confucianist nature of our Asian culture that was a recurring theme in The Blue Mansion. He was spot on.

Wee Bak Chuan, otherwise known as the pineapple king and billionaire owner of a family enterprise is the epitome of patriachism and Confucianism. In his business empire, it is he and his wife, Wee Siok Lin (Louisa Chong) who have the final say, although it was discussed among the Wee siblings and other characters during the course of the movie that it was in fact Siok Lin who was the one running the show. In a certain sense, Siok Lin is some sort of an ‘empress dowager’ of the Wee business empire.

As with most Asian dynasties be it in the business world or in a monarchy, when the father eventually retires, he usually transfers his dynasty to his eldest son, and the heir apparent is Wee Teck Liang, the eldest son of course. Wee senior has three children, Liang, Teck Meng (played by Adrian Pang) and Pei Shan (played by Neo Swee Lin). The compelling story begins in fact with the life stories of the three siblings, which was uncovered before Bak Chuan’s very eyes (Bak Chuan had returned as a ghost after his death).

Pei Shan was Bak Chuan’s only daughter. Despite her age, she remained unmarried, and she candidly related to her mum in one scene that she was still a virgin. However, she has an unhappy past that remained locked within her which contributed to her alcoholism. She previously had an indian lover but because of her parents’ resistance to an interracial relationship, she was denied of her own happiness. Thus, in a sense, Pei Shan’s plight resonates with those of interracial couples who encountered resistance from their families against their relationships. Hence, it is likely that Pei Shan’s character has a function of highlighting the thorny issues that interracial couples face from their families.

Teck Meng was a Chief Financial Officer in his father’s business empire. Meng had initially hoped to take over his father’s business but discovered later on to his chagrin that his father handed over the mantle to his elder brother, Liang. Meng felt that he deserved more based on his previous contributions but was left frustrated by his father’s final decision. In a certain sense, Meng’s frustrations resonates amongst those who are mired in some kind of sibling rivalry, especially those whom are not the number one and no matter what they do, they will never displace the number one in terms of priority accorded by their parents. Furthermore, Meng was trapped in an unhappy marriage with his wife, Veronica (played by Tan Kheng Hua). He stopped having sex with Veronica for a long time. However, he has an illicit affair with a mistress from China, who was again revealed before Bak Chuan’s very eyes.

Liang, the eldest son, can be said to be the most tragic character. Originally interested in a music career, Liang was supposed to take up a music scholarship, but ended up studying engineering instead. This in a sense reflects the pragmatic approach adopted by some parents who prefer their children to study for a professional degree such as an engineering degree, instead of indulging in the arts. Liang had a secret past though; he was a gay and there were references to his gay partner, who appeared later on in the movie, visiting him when he used to live at The Blue Mansion. However, Liang married his first wife, Mei Yi, who bore him a daughter and son with special needs. His son with special needs was sent away to a special needs school in what turned out to be a double dose of tragedy. If that was not all, he lost Mei Yi, and re-married a second wife, whilst remaining a closet gay. Bak Chuan continually forced Liang to take over his business, but Liang is hesitant and is determined to live out his own free will.

The Blue Mansion as a chamber of secrets
In a certain sense, The Blue Mansion can be said to be a ‘chamber of secrets’, which contained vestiges of the three Wee siblings’ secret lives. This was suitably portrayed by a police investigator uncovering bottles of alcohol in Pei Shan’s room and finding sexual paraphernalia in Meng’s room (Meng was assumed to indulge in them because of his unhappy marriage). The investigator went on to discover men-related magazines typically read by gay men in Liang’s place which confirmed Liang as a closet gay who has to suffer in silence due to the conservative nature of his family.

To sum up, the three siblings’ lives were in a sense led by their parents. Those who had to lead their lives fulfilling their parents’ aspirations instead of their own would be able to empathize with the siblings. To a certain extent, The Blue Mansion can be considered a personification of a person with unfulfilled dreams and desires buried deep beneath. But the twist came during Bak Chuan’s funeral when he witnesses his three children releasing their internal secrets; Pei Shan catching up with her indian lover, Meng with his China mistress and Liang with his gay partner. At this stage, The Blue Mansion adopts the persona of a character who lets free what has been bottling up inside it all over the years.

The Blue Mansion represents the house of unfulfilled hopes, dreams and desires within us, as exemplified by the three Wee siblings. In a certain sense, there is a Blue Mansion in every one of us. Yet, there is hope that these buried feelings will find their release, which the three siblings experienced during Bak Chuan’s funeral wake…

Movie tip: Pay close attention to the conversations, they are crucial to understanding the storyline

Movie accolades: The Blue Mansion has debuted at the Pusan International Film Festival, and it will be featured at the Tokyo International Film Festival. Catch it at a cinema near you from 22nd October onwards.

Visit The Blue Mansion’s Official Site today to view trailers and read about the movie.

Disclaimer: This review was done on our own accord, and at no point of time did we receive any gifts or incentives from anyone for its writing.

547453 Comments2009-10-15+18%3A59%3A18The+Kent+Ridge+Common on "Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei"

BlueBlueBlue on Thu, 15th Oct 2009 9:16 pm

This is a marvelous piece of review! Well done! Please write more of such articles! Love it! =)
*The coffin is quite scary though!!!*

The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 16 Oct 2009 on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 11:31 am

[...] Eyes: Human Greed & The People Exploiting It [Thanks Kenneth] – The Kent Ridge Common: Of Asian values and patriachism: A review of The Blue Mansion by Glen Goei – Cooler Insights: The Purrfect World of Hello Kitty – The Asia File: New Asian citizen journalism [...]

What’s the point? :: The Blue Mansion Family :: October :: 2009 on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 12:23 pm

[...] this review of the Blue Mansion which reveals a lot of the character [...]

The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 42 on Sat, 17th Oct 2009 1:15 pm

Solo Bear on Sun, 18th Oct 2009 10:21 am

I hold a very different view.
http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2009/10/bl...

NUS'ian on Sun, 18th Oct 2009 11:43 am

hi solo bear,

i totally agree with you that the mass media has been used as a powerful tool for people (who has the power, money and access to it) to share their own thoughts and some of them with the hidden agenda to manipulate the audiences' thoughts without themselves even realizing it.

however, i have 2nd thought about your repeated use of
"to promote gay themes and deconstruction of the family unit." when you were referring to the blue mansion.

IMHO, by using the words "promote" and "deconstruction", you are in a certain way alr judging the director of this film.

NUS'ian on Sun, 18th Oct 2009 11:44 am

however, as a heterosexual female in singapore who happens to many gay and lesbian friends, i personally believe what director Glen Goei has been doing is simply expressing and sharing his own thought about homosexuality through his latest production—the blue mansion.

i believe he does respect every audience no matter whether they buy his idea or not after watching the film.

moreover, having taken some sociology module in NUS, i think instead of saying "destruction of the family unit", we should REALLY think about what is actual a family unit??? what are the pre-conditions that have to be met before a grp of human beings living together could be called " A FAMILY" ???

just some random thoughts from a NUS undergraduate,

sincerely yours,
a NUS'ian

Kelvin Teo on Sun, 18th Oct 2009 2:16 pm

Dear Solo Bear:

I personally hope to be proven wrong, but I have my doubts that you really watched the movie. Of course, I love to be proven wrong in this case.

Watch it when it opens in cinemas before passing judgements.

If you watched the trailers of The Blue Mansion, you will know that homosexuality part isn't a major theme.

Sincerely yours

Solo Bear on Mon, 19th Oct 2009 8:40 am

NUS'ian
>>
moreover, having taken some sociology module in NUS, i think instead of saying "destruction of the family unit", we should REALLY think about what is actual a family unit??? what are the pre-conditions that have to be met before a grp of human beings living together could be called " A FAMILY" ???
>>

A (basic) family unit makes up of husband, wife (wives for polygamous societies) and children sired from the husband and wife (or wives for polygamous societies). Isn't this definition universal?

The fact that you, an NUS undergrad, can ask what constitutes "family", reinforces my statement that "deconstruction" of the family has taken place already, hasn't it?

Twenty years ago, if you asked that question, a five year old kid would laugh his pants off. Today, "family" is no longer a foregone conclusion that everyone must have. You can be sired from other means than from a wedded dad and mom.

Ironic that there are those who challenge me about my claim of deconstruction of family!

Kelvin_Teo on Mon, 19th Oct 2009 4:11 pm

Dear Solo Bear:

The topic of the so-called deconstruction of the family isn't as simple as it sounds, although it looks simple superficially. It's not only about being "sired" about other means.

If you referred to this article
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw04/040623a2.htm

It was highlighted that the divorce rates are at all time high. And nowadays, couples are marrying late, which reduces their fertility rate. So it's inevitable that their child will be sired from other means. So what are responsible for high divorce rates and low fertility rates?

It is a sociological problem and the causes cannot be merely pinpointed to one source, and as I said, a multi-faced issue.

Sincerely yours

Solo Bear on Tue, 20th Oct 2009 12:36 am

Kelvin
>>
The topic of the so-called deconstruction of the family isn't as simple as it sounds, although it looks simple superficially. It's not only about being "sired" about other means.
If you referred to this article
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw04/040623a2.htm
It was highlighted that the divorce rates are at all time high. And nowadays, couples are marrying late, which reduces their fertility rate. So it's inevitable that their child will be sired from other means. So what are responsible for high divorce rates and low fertility rates?
It is a sociological problem and the causes cannot be merely pinpointed to one source, and as I said, a multi-faced issue.
>>

Me:
Divorce is part of marriage law. Divorce has been in existence for thousands of years. Divorce does NOTHING to deconstruct marriage. Divorce is an avenue to end marriage when marriage is no longer tenable for the couple. Divorce serves as a means to preserve the institution of marriage, because when marriage for any couple does not work, divorce is the exit route. Hence, divorce complements marriage laws.

Gay sex, single motherhood, cohabitation, even the belief that traditional family is oppressive because it is patriarchal, deconstructs marriage and family. It goes against the grain of what a family should be.

If there is a problem with divorce rates, then let us address that problem. Deconstructing marriages and family won't take away the social ills, would they? Are you trying to say juvenile delinquency will disappear because we stop the traditional family unit from existing?

Kelvin_Teo on Tue, 20th Oct 2009 2:53 am

I do not understand what you mean by divorcing not leading to the deconstruction of marriage because it is a clear case of a family breaking up. It is a family dissolving, with consequences to both spouses and the children. Thus, your point about divorcing preserving the institution of marriage is disingenious.

Having read your blog, I sort of knew you would bring up "gay sex, single motherhood, cohabitation". But unfortunately, I don't think that is a major contributing factor to the problem. LGBT people have always been the minority and they have also existed for a long, long time.

I would rather look at real hard data of phenomenon rather than to pinpoint blindly.

I refer to the findings of Assistant Professor Alexius Perreira from the Sociology Department of NUS.
http://utahgetaways.com/esid/psis/population/jour...

The purpose of his research study: "This study will therefore focus on
examining Singapore’s family values at the turn of the millennium. More
specifically, it intends to analyse and explain whether Singaporeans actually value
the family (as an institution), marriage, parenthood, motherhood, childbearing, and other issues regarding the family. It posits that if Singaporeans hold pro-family
views, it can be concluded that Singapore’s family values are strong, and vice
versa. Towards this end, this study therefore intends to identify and account for
Singapore’s family values at the beginning of the new millennium. Since the
Government of Singapore assumes that “younger” Singaporeans appear to be
facing a greater risk of value erosion (as a consequence of modernization,
industrialization or globalization), it is also worth examining whether there is a
difference in value system between “younger” and “older” Singaporeans.

His conclusions: At an aggregate level, the data from the WVS-Singapore 2002 suggest that
most Singaporeans strongly value the family and marriage as an institution, as well
as family life as being “very important”. Most Singaporeans identified positively
with the nuclear family structure and “standard” family roles. Also, Singaporeans
are generally pro-children. In this context, it is difficult to support those views that
argue that Singaporeans have (already) become highly individualistic and
hedonistic. For example, Singaporeans have not given any indication that they
favour a lifestyle of single-parenthood or unmarried cohabitation. There is also no
indication that Singaporeans solely think of themselves, their work or friends,
ahead of family members.

The gay sex part is a non-issue because as mentioned earlier, LGBT people are a minority.

Solo Bear on Tue, 20th Oct 2009 5:00 am

Kelvin
>>
I do not understand what you mean by divorcing not leading to the deconstruction of marriage because it is a clear case of a family breaking up.
>>

Me:
Divorce is not the same is deconstructing the Family Unit. Divorce recognises the institution of marriage. Divorce is ending the contract of marriage. Divorce does not challenge the validity of the institution of marriage.

Deconstruction, on the other hand, questions the need for the institution of marriage. There lies the difference. Gay theme, single motherhood, purports that there are alternative living styles, as opposed to the notion one has to function as a member of a family.

In a family, there is a dad, mom and children. Pick any individual, and he or she has to be somewhere in that family structure. In a gay environment or single mother concept, you don't have to have the traditional dad-mom-children structure.

Gay theme and single motherhood are hence, agents for the deconstruction of marriage and family. Divorce, if you recall, still recognizes the basic family unit as the societal norm.

Putting in a nutshell, divorce reaffirms the institution of marriage exists in society, while gay theme and single motherhood challenge the need to have a family structure.

Your link is broken. Can't comment on what you pasted

>>
The gay sex part is a non-issue because as mentioned earlier, LGBT people are a minority.
>>

Me:
Minority is not the point. The point is that The Blue Mansion carries a message that calls for the deconstruction of the family unit – namely gay theme, and the "oppressive nature" of the family which is dubbed as "patriarchal" by feminists.

My point is that the Blue Mansion carries a subtle message for gays and feminists to spread their word, the way many other movies carry their own subtle message. That has always been the way movies work.

PS – of course we all know that the other message is about the Lee Dynasty, but that is not our topic of discussion.

Kelvin_Teo on Tue, 20th Oct 2009 5:21 am

Dear Solo Bear:

The point remains that sociological research has proven that the so-called alternative lifestyles are not the reasons in your so-called deconstruction of the family unit. In fact, what has been shown so far is that the young of today still strongly believe in the family unit.

As for The Blue Mansion, arguements can go both ways. There wasn't really any breakdown of family unit as you alleged. Yes, the eldest son was a gay, but that is only a minor part of the plot. The fact remains that the grand dame of the family is trying to bring the family together. The daughter desparately wants to be together with her indian lover so that they can possibly settle down and be happy. And towards the end, two of the siblings united and made and reminisced about the memories of their mother. There is familyhood throughout the movie.

It is apparent you didn't even watch the movie IMHO. A number of movie goers we spoke to agreed that gayism is just a minor part of the plot. And mind you, these movie goers were straight.

Sincerely yours

Kelvin_Teo on Tue, 20th Oct 2009 5:25 am

The eldest son, although he was a gay may have caught up with his former partner for drinks, he may have pent up feelings waiting to be released, just like one has to confide in a friend, but nowhere in the plot did he divorce his first wife and be his gay partner.

And the oppressive nature of the family goes beyond oppressing sexuality. It is also oppressing interracial marriages, oppressing children's ambitions to be musicians and have their career.

Haiz..go watch the movie lar

Sincerely yours

Kelvin_Teo on Tue, 20th Oct 2009 5:28 am

And BTW, mind you, the father was involved in ending the first son's marriage with his first wife, in a sense he played a part in the death of the gay's son first wife. The oppression goes even to the level of choosing one's spouse. The father didn't like the gay's son first wife

So not assume.

Kelvin_Teo on Tue, 20th Oct 2009 5:37 am

The link is

utahgetaways.com/esid/psis/population/journal/Articles/2006/V21N1A3.pdf

Kelvin_Teo on Tue, 20th Oct 2009 8:20 am

Dear Solo Bear:

I have reasons to believe that you are being selective with your reading of the family unit by I repeat again disingeniously claiming that divorce is part of the institution of marriage. It is more like the end and breakdown of marriage, and if you like, the breaking apart of a family, if the divorced couple has children.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/henry_cather...

Since when has divorce been considered a part of marriage. May I quote you parts from major belief systems.

"However, the beliefs within the Catholic Church were clear and simple. Only the Pope could annul a marriage and as the Church believed in the sanctity of marriage and family, this was a reasonably rare occurrence. In many senses, royal families in Western Europe were expected to set the standards that others should follow. Therefore, Henry’s belief that he should have a divorce simply because as king of England and Wales he wanted one was not shared by the Papacy."

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Hinduismand_D...

Hinduism and divorce: But the religion as such does not approve divorce. According to Hinduism marriage is a sacred relationship, a divine covenant and a sacrament. Therefore it cannot be dissolved on some personal grounds. In ancient times, women in Hindu society had limited freedom. There was nothing like the modern concept of divorce in Hindu society. Once a woman left her parent's home she was completely at the mercy of her husband and if her husband found her incompatible or unattractive and abandoned her, there was little that she could do. She had no right to divorce and no right to remarry and no right to leave the house and approach any one without her husband's permission.

http://muslim.families.com/blog/divorce-in-islam

And even though divorce is allowed in islam, the religions still frowns on it.

Allah, in His infinite, wisdom, recognized that some people would be ill-suited for one another. Rather than force them to live together in a farce of a marriage, divorce is allowed. However, divorce is not something to be taken lightly; it is to be used as a last resort. In fact, getting a divorce without a valid reason is considered a sin. In a hadith reported by Abu Dawud, Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) said, "Among lawful things, divorce is most hated by Allah."

Solo Bear on Tue, 20th Oct 2009 9:45 am

>>
The point remains that sociological research has proven that the so-called alternative lifestyles are not the reasons in your so-called deconstruction of the family unit. In fact, what has been shown so far is that the young of today still strongly believe in the family unit.
>>

Me:
You are confused with what breaks up a family vs what causes the idea of the institution of family to be eroded. I am not talking about family breakups. I am talking about society's belief that we can do away with the family unit as an alternative living society.

Gay lifestyle, cohabitation, single motherhood etc have themes that we can do away with the family unit. Whether the cause of family breakups is due to other forces, is not the point here.

Putting in a nutshell, alternative lifestyle to the family unit requires you to believe that you can do without the family. That is the deconstruction I am talking about.

As for my claim that The Blue Mansion has gay and feminist theme, here are my reasons. In the interview with Glen and the review by Kent Ridge Common, it is clearly stated that it is about the patriarchal nature of family. The patriarchal argument is the trademark argument feminists use. Which other groups use that argument?

As for the gay theme, note that the eldest son is the closet gay. If it had been the second son or daughter, the message sent would be lessen. But the eldest, the one that is to take over the business, the heir to the throne, the symbol of power – is gay.

I am not talking about the sub-plots of individuals. I am talking about the main message in the story.

PS – Divorce is in the Old Testament of the Bible. The Jews have been practising that even before Moses' time.

Divorce recognises the institution of marriage and family. Gay sex, cohabitation lifestyle etc, portray that you don't have to be married or have a family at all.

That is the deconstruction of family I am talking about.

Kelvin_Teo on Tue, 20th Oct 2009 10:34 am

"Putting in a nutshell, alternative lifestyle to the family unit requires you to believe that you can do without the family. That is the deconstruction I am talking about. " – Solo Bear

That theory about alternative lifeseyle was poohed poohed by Assistant Professor Alexius. His study showed that our youths still believed in the alternative unit of the family.

utahgetaways.com/esid/psis/population/journal/Articles/2006/V21N1A3.pdf

You also said:"Mansion has gay and feminist theme, here are my reasons. In the interview with Glen and the review by Kent Ridge Common, it is clearly stated that it is about the patriarchal nature of family. The patriarchal argument is the trademark argument feminists use. Which other groups use that argument? As for the gay theme, note that the eldest son is the closet gay. If it had been the second son or daughter, the message sent would be lessen. But the eldest, the one that is to take over the business, the heir to the throne, the symbol of power – is gay."

I don't think you really have a strong case, which is really clutching at straws here. Patriachism has always been part and parcel of many Asian societies, and I am not surprised that if it is a recurring theme in Asian movies/films/arts and culture. So the question is does every movie with a patriachist theme a necessarily feminist one? NO. The Blue Mansion has no inking of feminism. You are actually digressing far and far from what the movie is actually about which makes us wonder whether you actually watch the movie. And the message about the eldest son taking over the business being gay is not as strong you mentioned. Yes, he was a gay, but he set up a family with a first wife who bore him 2 kids, and after the death of the first wife, he re-married another woman. At no point of time did he ever leave his wife to be with his gay partner. The reason why he didn't want to take over was more of his other aspirations. He was considering other careers. In a certain sense, yes he has unfulfilled desires and feelings which he let out in a later meeting with his gay partner, but at no point of time did he ever left his family behind.

Kelvin_Teo on Tue, 20th Oct 2009 10:39 am

My bad, a typo it should be Prof Alexius research still showed that youths believed in the traditional unit of the family.

Sincerely yours

H.O.P on Tue, 20th Oct 2009 10:59 am

shall we start a KELVIN TEO vs SOLO BEAR session??!!! ^ ^ haha, anyway, as the head of publicity, i sincerely think both of you are AWESOME !!!! ^_^

Solo Bear on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 2:58 am

Kelvin:
>>
That theory about alternative lifeseyle was poohed poohed by Assistant Professor Alexius. His study showed that our youths still believed in the alternative unit of the family.
>>

Me:
Who is talking about the effect of alternative lifestyle in Singapore? I am talking specifically about The Blue Mansion, where it has a gay message in it.

>>
Patriachism has always been part and parcel of many Asian societies, and I am not surprised that if it is a recurring theme in Asian movies/films/arts and culture.
>>

Patriarchal families has never been an issue within Asian societies, be it Chinese, Indian, Malay, or any other Asian society. In fact, it has never been a case where western culture seeks to clash with either. Western ideology appears to have a bigger clash with communism last century, and in this century, clash with Islamization.

The only party that clashes with the concept of patriarchal families are feminists. It has become a buzz word in feminist talk

How can you then disassociate the idea that "patriarchal families are oppressive" from feminism, when it is only feminists who seem to be at odds with the patriarchal family?

>>
You are actually digressing far and far from what the movie is actually about which makes us wonder whether you actually watch the movie.
>>

Me:
I have said that I did not watch the movie. You have followed me in my blog, haven't you? In any case, there is a review by someone who has seen the movie and it appears that there is an element of gay theme in it.

Taken from "Goei's Gamble", Lifestyle, Straits Times, dated 20 Oct 2009.
====
"Kwek, 30, a former Straits Times journalist, says the movie can be read as an allegory of contemporary Singapore: 'Think of The Blue Mansion as Singapore and all its goings-on as part of the life of this country.'

Without giving too much away, the movie touches on racial prejudice and homophobia."
====

I am not too far off the mark, for someone who has not seen the movie, am I?

Kelvin Teo on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 3:36 am

Professor ALexius research wasn't about alternative lifestyle in Singapore. It was about the belief system of the today's youth, who believe in a traditional unit of family.

The movie is allegorical, but it is far off the mark to think it is about homophobia and racial prejudice. People have already mentioned political undertones. So this is your biggest hint. You are far off the mark to link with homophobia and interracial prejudice.

And I do not believe it is only feminist who are at odds with patriachism. But the point is that the Blue Mansion is not about feminism. The liberation belief that one should pursue one's own destiny will really clash with patriachism, and feminism is just a small subset of this wave.

Solo Bear on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 9:23 am

Kelvin:
>>
Professor ALexius research wasn't about alternative lifestyle in Singapore. It was about the belief system of the today's youth, who believe in a traditional unit of family.
>>

Me:
And what has that to do with my point that The Blue Mansion has a gay theme?

>>
The movie is allegorical, but it is far off the mark to think it is about homophobia and racial prejudice.
>>

Me:
I did not use the term homophobia. It was used by the author of the article I quoted. I used the term "gay theme". As for racial prejudice, I did not even mention it once.

>>
People have already mentioned political undertones. So this is your biggest hint.
>>

Me:
Of course we all know that it is about the Lee Dynasty. It is so obvious one has to be blind like Wee Bak Cheong aka The Old Man, not to know that many don't like him and see him as a monster.

Hey, while we're at it, didn't anyone from NUS challenge him about his statement he is not seeking a legacy?

>>
You are far off the mark to link with homophobia and interracial prejudice.
>>

Me:
I didn't see the show and I used the term "gay theme". Someone else did see the show and used the term "homophobia". Although I cannot say anything about homophobia, the fact that the first son was portrayed to be a closet gay, does lend the movie a gay theme.

>>
And I do not believe it is only feminist who are at odds with patriachism.
>>

Me:
Then name me another party, other than feminists, who are at odds with patriarchism.

>>
But the point is that the Blue Mansion is not about feminism. The liberation belief that one should pursue one's own destiny will really clash with patriachism, and feminism is just a small subset of this wave.
>>

Me:
Liberation and pursue own destiny clashing with patriachism? That IS feminist talk, isn't it? Which other group talks like that?

Kelvin_Teo on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 10:37 am

The reason why I showed you Prof Alexius research is because you were alluding to cohabitation, gay sex and other alternative life style that lead to the deconstruction of the family unit. His research disproves that theory of yours because it shows the belief system in the traditional family unit among the youths are intact. You are being disingenious in saying that I am attempting it to The Blue Mansion, no I am no, I am addressing your allegations on alternative lifestyle.

And I would advise against equating the long standing fight against patriachism to feminism. Allow me an academic source, the Korea Journal. You should read it as it discusses Asian values at length. There is this description of liberal Calvinist who are at odds with patriachal authoritarianism which led to the spark of capitalism.

http://www.ekoreajournal.net/upload/html/HTML4241...

"Weber links early Calvinism and capitalist development in a causal relationship ? he terms this an "elective affinity," not an inevitable connection. There's much research that shows that early orthodox Calvinism and Puritanism hindered capitalist development, much less helped it.[2] Bound by patriarchal authority, early Calvinists opposed free profit-seeking activities. Liberal Calvinists or liberal Puritans emerged from the struggle with orthodox Calvinism in the Netherlands and England in the 17th century. They rejected authoritarian patriarchism and the existing kinship order to build modern affectionate family units, and become actors of capitalistic profit-making and entrepreneurial activities. The early orthodox Calvinism which caught Weber's attention only served to impede capitalistic development. It was after the defeat of early orthodox Calvinism by liberal Puritans that full-scale capitalism developed (Cox 1959)."

Anyway, just a personal question for you, what do you have against feminism?

Please do not rely on secondary sources, like that someone who mentioned homophobia. Fact is the film is NOT selling any gay message whatsoever. You have been given enough hints. You should be taking secondary sources which includes us with a pinch of salt and skepticism. You should gather your own conclusion by watching the movie yourself.

And now that you have admitted that you have not watched the movie, whatever you post down here about the movie is not going to sound very credible. Common sense right, who will take a 'movie reviewer's'" words for real, especially one who has not watched the movie. No one is going to take you seriously, believe me. Go watch the movie and then review it based on the new info you gathered.

Kelvin_Teo on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 10:37 am

http://www.ekoreajournal.net/upload/html/HTML4241...

Anyway, just a personal question for you, what do you have against feminism?

Kelvin_Teo on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 10:37 am

http://www.ekoreajournal.net/upload/html/HTML4241...

Anyway, just a personal question for you, what do you have against feminism?

Kelvin_Teo on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 10:37 am

http://www.ekoreajournal.net/upload/html/HTML4241...

Anyway, just a personal question for you, what do you have against feminism?

Kelvin_Teo on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 10:37 am

http://www.ekoreajournal.net/upload/html/HTML4241...

Anyway, just a personal question for you, what do you have against feminism?

Kelvin_Teo on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 10:37 am

http://www.ekoreajournal.net/upload/html/HTML4241...

Anyway, just a personal question for you, what do you have against feminism?

Kelvin_Teo on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 10:37 am

Sorry the Korea journal link is

” target=”_blank”>http://www.ekoreajournal.net/upload/html/HTML42411.html

Solo Bear on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 1:04 pm

>>
The reason why I showed you Prof Alexius research is because you were alluding to cohabitation, gay sex and other alternative life style that lead to the deconstruction of the family unit.
>>

Me:
No, I did not quite say that it can lead to deconstruction of family. I said that gay sex, cohabitation etc IS deconstruction of family unit. As to what causes family breakdown, that is a different story.

Deconstruction of family is challenging the traditional family structure of father, mother, children. Gay sex, single motherhood, cohabitation challenges that traditional family structure. That is the deconstruction I am talking about.

>>
And I would advise against equating the long standing fight against patriachism to feminism. Allow me an academic source, the Korea Journal. You should read it as it discusses Asian values at length. There is this description of liberal Calvinist who are at odds with patriachal authoritarianism which led to the spark of capitalism.
http://www.ekoreajournal.net/upload/html/HTML4241...
>>

Me:
Both your links (the amended one too) are broken. But no matter.

Calvinism? 17th Century? Why quote outdated issues? Which 21st Century group makes the patriarchal family an issue, such that we reminded consistently we must address it? Only feminists, isn't it?

>>
Anyway, just a personal question for you, what do you have against feminism?
>>

Me:
What has that got to do with what the discussion is about? Your review points out the movie is about the oppressive patriarchal family. I merely point out that the argument you use is a feminist argument. How did you conclude I have something against feminism from that?

If you mean my parallel discussion I have in my blog, there's nothing to stop you to discuss that point over there. But as far as this thread is concerned, what I think about feminism is a non-issue.

The issue here is that if you disagree with me that the oppressive patriarchal family is not just a feminist issue, you have to show me another group (in today's context) that is also concerned about that issue.

>>
Please do not rely on secondary sources, like that someone who mentioned homophobia. Fact is the film is NOT selling any gay message whatsoever.
>>

Me:
Messages in movies are open to interpretation. Just like any other texts. Isn't that what literary approach to texts is about? I see gay theme and I supported it with my arguments. If you say it is not gay theme, please explain the existence of gay portion played out by first son.

Of course it is also about alcoholism, about extra marital affairs, about patriarchism, about Lee Dynasty…

My argument is that Glen Goei had the first son played out the gay portion deliberately. The first son was to take over the power and authority. That to me speaks volumes, in terms of subtle message.

>>
You have been given enough hints. You should be taking secondary sources which includes us with a pinch of salt and skepticism. You should gather your own conclusion by watching the movie yourself.
>>

Me:
If you expect me to take you, who have seen movie. with pinch of salt and skeptism, shouldn't you take me with a higher dose of salt, since I have not seen it? Why the intense debate with me then?

>>
And now that you have admitted that you have not watched the movie, whatever you post down here about the movie is not going to sound very credible. Common sense right, who will take a 'movie reviewer's'" words for real, especially one who has not watched the movie.
>>

Me:
Then you admit that the ST review that implies it is about homopbobia sounds very credible?

>>
No one is going to take you seriously, believe me.
>>

Me:
Really? Then why bother to counter what I say at all? Note that comments has hit 2nd page – and more than 50% of posts are between both of us!

Kelvin Teo on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 3:53 pm

No one is running away from the fact that cohabitation may lead to the deconstruction of the family unit but our society still believes in the traditional unit of the family, which was largely proven, but I was trying to point to you that in Singapore's context, such concerns about alternative lifestyle is now moot and really, not much that one should concern himself about.

However, I will be cautious to put gay sex into the list of cause that decontructs the family (which you have done for the past few posts). The question that I will throw back to you is what difference does a gay have with a straight boy or girl who wants to remain single/a bachelor/bachelorette all his life? Both do not intend to set up a family. Both do not want to marry and set up a family for different reasons. Then, do singlehood lead to the deconstruction of the family? Remember that a straight girl who wants to remain a single and a gay who want to remain single have the same aim, remain single, but with different reasons.

Kelvin Teo on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 11:57 pm

Then I can then argue that gays and straights may fit into this domain known as singlehood. Then, is singlehood to you a deconstruction of the family unit? So let me ask you, if one day, a monkism/Catholic priesthood fad breaks out in a country in which all youths suddenly find it cool to enter monkhood/priesthood (and hence a celibate life), is that a deconstruction of family? And if you are talking about deconstruction of family at a societal level, you are sadly missing the point. One is that gay sex is not an infectious thing like what some paranoid souls out there think and it doesn’t spread like the SARS virus. Lastly, as Prof Alexius will tell you, the traditional family value system is still intact.

Lastly, the reason why I bother to engage you is because a debate between 2 schools of thought played out in the presence of audience will be of an educational value, and one or two people came up to me and told me they learnt new things from our exchange.

Kelvin Teo on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 4:05 pm

Then I can then argue that gays and straights may fit into this domain known as singlehood. Then, is singlehood to you a deconstruction of the family unit? So let me ask you, if one day, a monkism/Catholic priesthood fad breaks out in a country in which all youths suddenly find it cool to enter monkhood/priesthood (and hence a celibate life), is that a deconstruction of family? And if you are talking about deconstruction of family at a societal level, you are sadly missing the point. One is that gay sex is not an infectious thing like what some paranoid souls out there think and it doesn't spread like the SARS virus. Lastly, as Prof Alexius will tell you, the traditional family value system is still intact.____

Kelvin Teo on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 4:05 pm

As for taking sources with pinch of salt, that is being taught in Critical Writing and Thinking 101. Does it surprise you when teachers use KRC materials, or any other web source materials for that matter, they teach their students to critically evaluate it and not take it as gospel truth? That's why I say, don't take our materials for gospel. There is this Buddhist phrase:"Ehi Passiko!" ("Come and see for yourself!") ____Lastly, the reason why I bother to engage you is because a debate between 2 schools of thought played out in the presence of audience will be of an educational value, and one or two people came up to me and told me they learnt new things from our exchange.__

Kelvin_Teo on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 9:12 pm

You somehow have a narrow view that an exploration of patriachy theme is only limited to feminism. I can't help you with it. But the truth is that patriachy is intertwined with capitalism. I am not sure if you have heard of this term "patriachal capitalism". It was a theme highlighted in the film, but in no way did Glen ever attacked this concept. The daughter of Wee never craved the hotseat in her father's empire, but rather it was the second son.

You can argue that if there was a sign of antagonism towards this concept of "patriachal capitalism", then you may infer some form of feminist agenda. But nowhere did the female characters ever desired the hotseat. The female characters hoped that their husbands will take the hotseat, which in a sense is a celebration of "patriachal capitalism". There is no feminist agenda in the movie.

Glen Goei's exploration of "patriachal capitalism" doesn't mean it has feminism written all over it. It's the same as a professor who writes a treatise on patriachal capitalism, but does not advocate feminism. It is just calling it like it is.

Because the Blue Mansion has an allegorical nature. Maybe you can answer this question. Are you a believer of democratic process over patriachism in Singapore politics? What is your view of PM LHL in the current hot seat as PM?

This can get you started. And in Singapore's context, you can be dammmmmmmmmmn sure that feminists are not the one who have a problem with "patriachism" in our politics. It was never an issue and the feminists in general are cool over this. I can't say the same for the opposition though.

Kelvin_Teo on Wed, 21st Oct 2009 9:18 pm

To get you started, maybe you can always bear this question in mind when you watch the movie – Who are the usual detractors of Singapore's patriarch, Mr Lee Kuan Yew?
If your answer is feminists, I think I just rest my case lar

Kelvin_Teo on Thu, 22nd Oct 2009 5:09 am

The research about capitalism with patriachism can be found in many academic sources.

sp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jxp011v1

Or patriachal capitalism. The Wee business empire is a shining example of patriachal capitalism, but that is just calling it like it is. Don't ask to be spoonfed with examples if 1) You are extrapolating from the movie 2) You are alleging issues (feminism) that was never part of the movie. GO watch the movie.

By your logic, anyone that talks about patriachism is a feminist. Patriachism have appeared in our post many times, but does that make us feminist? Your pre-judgement of Glen's movie as feminist arises from the fact that he talks about patriachism. You and I were talking about patriachism all along, so we are pro-feminism based on your logic?

Patriachism itself although is a topic among feminist is also a subject of study among economists, go google patriachal capitalism + economists.

search.barnesandnoble.com/Patriarchy-and-Economic-Development/Valentine-M-Maghadam/e/9780198290230

I hope you do not get disingenious by reverting to the fact that patriachism is discussed among feminists, when your point of contention as you posted in your blog was that Glen's movie has feminist theme. The fallacy of your logic was that you are also a feminist, you highlighted and talked about patriachism just like Glen did.

Kelvin_Teo on Thu, 22nd Oct 2009 5:40 am

Solo Bear:

I am not in dreamland. I live in Singapore and I pretty well know who are the ones who have the most angst against our patriach. Now you said you are not interested in feminist issues…

So who are the ones who have fallen foul of our patriach..(Tang Liang Hong, Francis Seow, Dr Chee Soon Juan, Said Zahari, JBJ, and many more), are they feminists? Maybe you should get realistic. You admitted you don't know much of feminism yet you have reasons to believe that feminists are really at it with the government, or rather our patriach.

I have told you that the reaction against patriachism is not totally confined to feminism. Even those adhering to democratic values can be said to be at odds with patriachism.

http://www.archive.org/stream/waysspiritandot00hedggoog/...

"The civil and political life of na-

tions, so long as they preserve their independence,

assumes successively four different forms of gov-

ernment. The theocratic age produces domestio

monarchy (patriarchism). The heroic produces

aristocracy, or the government of the city, limit-

ing the abuse of power. Then comes democracy,

founded on the idea of natural equality."

In Singapore, the biggest fight against the patriach unfortunately comes from democratic quarters. What did Chee Soon Juan and JBJ lived for? Feminism? NO, it is democracy. Maybe you should ask yourself whether democracy ideals will in a way clash with patriachism…

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/49691/fareed-zaka...

This is Fared Zakaria's take on Singapore's patriach, note he used the term patriach.

"More than economics, more than politics, a nation's culture will determine its fate. So says the man who built Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew. Lee is not optimistic that other nations can replicate East Asia's staggering growth. He is critical of the social breakdown that he sees in America: "The expansion of the rights of the individual has come at the expense of orderly society." East Asia is changing in the face of rapid growth, but Lee doubts that American-style individualism will ever catch on there. While critical of American social order, Lee strongly supports America's role as a balancer in East Asia. If it withdraws, other powers, notably Japan, would go their own way. And that would unsettle the region's peace."

I actually don't see how singlehood is part of a traditional family, or whether it has anything to do with it. How does gay sex in any way deconstruct the traditional family? When I mentioned a single gay, I was referring to a gay who lives alone, doesn't co-habit. He has a sex partner yes, but he doesn't cohabit. He can be one of those that typically go home to his parents but occassionally have his sex with his partner but still goes home to his parents. It is the same as a single male or female who wants to remain single but have his occassional sex partner, but still goes home to his/her parents. What you are arguing in essence is that a ubiquitous gay partnership decontructs the family, I don't dismiss the merits to such an arguement, but to say that the sexual act deconstructs is a different kettle of fish. Gay sex is different from a ubiquitous gay couple. Hope you can differentiate the two.

You can wax lyrical all you like, but I am not backing down from my arguements. I always encourage in the spirit of critical thinking and writing not to take contents for the gospel truth. The reason why we wrote the review is really to encourage readers to think critically and really reflect. We don't believe in spoonfeeding, if you believe that Kent Ridge Common is a place to spoonfeed, I am sorry you are wrong.

No one is cutting off your view about the movie containing 'feminist' and 'gay' message. The truth is that no one is going to take you seriously because you said that you have not watched the movie.

Lastly, no one doubts your literary abilities, but even the field of literature itself as they say is in some ways similar to science in which the actual evidence is explored. However, you do not have actual evidential source on hand in the sense that you never watched the movie.

Kelvin_Teo on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 3:54 am

Dear Solo Bear:

Please again do not be disingenious by reverting back to the movie. You were earlier alluding to the fact that feminists in Singapore has a lot of beef with our very own patriach, and I brought up the democracy examples to show you the democratic ideals clash with patriachism.

So do not be disingenious by saying how does is that related to the movie. But I will take you up on that point. So you now ask, which other group is against patriachism? My answer to you, democratic idealist/democratic fighters. Since THe Blue Mansion is allegorical with its political undertones, the highlight of the constraints and costs to individuals refers to the clash with democratic ideals. Remember, besides being gay, the eldest son wants to pursue other goals, he is considering and thinking of reviving his musical career. The daughter wants to settle with her lover. So in a certain sense, there is a clash with democratic ideals. Since you do not deny the democratic ideology fight with patriachism, will you take it from us now that The Blue Mansion's highlight of patriachism is really to demonstrate the polemic fight between democratic ideology and patriachism?

And does it strike you that democratic fighters like JBJ and Dr Chee has fallen foul of our patriach. Which feminist has fallen foul to the same extent as JBJ and Chee? NONE. I am sorry, but your arguement about no one other than feminist who talks about patriachism is not built on firm grounds. Many media publications referred to LKY as Singapore's patriach and talk about the social costs, but the arguements are on democratic grounds. Yes, there is NO feminist theme in The Blue Mansion. You cannot offer instances/evidences of the theme because you haven't watch the movie and your stand is really a flimsy one.

About the institutionalization of gay ideology, I cannot see how that will deconstruct the family unit. You need to prove that gayism or widespread information access to gayism is contagious and influence everyone. If you cannot prove that, your arguements rest on flimsy grounds. And 377A repeal is about gay sex, so if you are perfectly fine with casual sex among gays, why are you waxing lyrical about 377A, a law that criminalizes the kinda sex that gays are involved in?

Kelvin_Teo on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 4:08 am

I have already addressed your point about "none other than feminists" who make an issue of patriachism. ANd you said you didn't disagree that democratic values are at odds with patriachism.

Do you really want to deny the fact that even the field of economics do not overlap with the likes of patriachal capitalism? Yes, it is even an economics issue.

You decide for yourself which side is the one The Blue Mansion is more focused on:Opposition to LKY's iron hand or opposition to the patriachal family.. I am choosing the former because of the movie's allegorical nature and the known fact that democratic idealists have always been at odds with our very own patriach with disastrous consequences (sued bankrupt, exiled). Besides, in no way did the female characters in the movies ever acted out feminist-related ideals. In fact, you are the only one who insisted on a feminist theme, when you have not watched the movie.

We say it wasn't about gay theme, the ST said it was, so it is up to you to critically examine the info and the first step is to go watch the movie. Period. BTW, I couldn't find that ST article, you can paste it here if you like.

Solo Bear on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 5:40 am

Kelvin:
>>
I was trying to put it across that the movie wasn't about feminism, but rather the polemic fight between democratic ideals and patriachism.
>>

Me:
You have shown that it is about democratic ideals, but that is what we agree. Thank you very much.

However you have NOT demolished my point it is a fact feminism has clashed with the patriarchal family. So how have you shown the movie has no feminist message?

That is the crux of the disagreement between us, isn't it?

And yes, about the gay theme part, you finally had to admit it. Why were you so blind? Just like you are now blind to the fact that feminism HAS CLASHED with the patriarchal family.

PS – If you want to carry on with your argument it is about clash with the "Asian values" (again, what the hell is Asian? Bangladeshis are Asians, but the Wee family surely don't look one bit Bangladeshi!) found in patriarchal family and that causes rebel, I can extrapolate that Blue Mansion is about hippie lifestyle in the 1960s and 1970s.

In the Woodstock Era of the 1960s and 1970s, Dad was the head of the family. But the youth rebelled such control, so they do the exact things Dad and Mom didn't want them to. They had free sex and mistresses (2nd son). They turned to drugs and drinking (daughter). They preferred to loaf and shirk responsibility when given work to do (1st son).

I find it ironic that although Uni undergrads talk so much about critical, lateral and out of box thinking, they are stuck with just one thought and that one thought only. In this case, it is about the political aspect of Singapore's scene.

Why not allude it to feminism vs patriarchal family? Why not allude to hippie lifestyle of the 60s and 70s? Isn't this all about critical thinking?

Kelvin_Teo on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 7:24 am

Dear Solo Bear:

I think you are being disingenious again.

I am saying that the movie portray a discourse or a competition between the one who epitomizes Asian values and patriachism and democratic ideals. I am not blind to the fact that feminism HAS clashed with patriachism because for the past few posts, I have been telling you that the democratists are also at odds with patriachism and it was what that was highlighted in the movie. You are in essence flogging that dead horse don't know how many times. No one has ever claimed that feminism are not at odds with patriachism. But, you have been presented arguements and evidences from the movie that show that feminism isn't the theme. You can't accept it, then tough. We can't help you.

Who says I finally admitted to the gay theme? To say a movie has gay theme is to allege that gayism is a major part of the movie's plot. No it isn't, and I will tell you that it is allegorical. You may want to check up on the lines behind the theme. Something about the eldest son and the contemporary life in Singapore. Just because I tell you earlier to find your own truth doesn't mean I am conceding the point.

"They turned to drugs and drinking (daughter). They preferred to loaf and shirk responsibility when given work to do (1st son). I find it ironic that although Uni undergrads talk so much about critical, lateral and out of box thinking, they are stuck with just one thought and that one thought only."

So tell me what you know about this Wee Bak Chuan character? If you are a parent and you want your kids to be a doctor when your kid wants to be an engineer, and your kid becomes an engineer, is that called shirking responsibility in reference to your kid? And if your daughter wants to marry someone from another race, will you oppose it?

Think as a father before you even come and argue your point about "shirking responsibility". Anyway, your extrapolations has become a parabola.

Funny how you wax lyrical about critical thinking abilities of undergrads when critical thinking is applied to evaluating your comments. Yes, don't find it surprising that you get other critical thinkers who highlight that your arguements are not tenable because 1) They are extrapolation of themes that are far away from the movie 2) They are not based on thorough character analysis.

Tell you what. Do a character analysis of Wee Bak Chuan and what he represents even in the allegorical sense, and then come back with what you have found out so far. Do the same for the three children.

You said you know a bit about literature right? OK, start off from the base of a character analysis first. To even allege gay and feminist themes without a thorough knowledge of the characters is like hitting in the dark.

Solo Bear on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 8:08 am

Kelvin:
>>
I am saying that the movie portray a discourse or a competition between the one who epitomizes Asian values and patriachism and democratic ideals. I am not blind to the fact that feminism HAS clashed with patriachism because for the past few posts, I have been telling you that the democratists are also at odds with patriachism and it was what that was highlighted in the movie.
>>

Me:
That is not our disagreement.

>>
You are in essence flogging that dead horse don't know how many times. No one has ever claimed that feminism are not at odds with patriachism.
>>

Me:
You are the one flogging dead horse. That is still not our disagreement.

>>
But, you have been presented arguements and evidences from the movie that show that feminism isn't the theme.
>>

Me:
That is our disagreement. Showing that it is about political oppression does nothing to demolish that it has feminist message in the movie as well.

>>
Who says I finally admitted to the gay theme? To say a movie has gay theme is to allege that gayism is a major part of the movie's plot. No it isn't, and I will tell you that it is allegorical.
>>

Me:
For all the talk that our undergrads are taught to think laterally, you appear to be boxed in that the movie can only be interpreted in one way and one way only. You insist it cannot be interpreted that it has gay or feminist theme.

>>
So tell me what you know about this Wee Bak Chuan character? If you are a parent and you want your kids to be a doctor when your kid wants to be an engineer, and your kid becomes an engineer, is that called shirking responsibility in reference to your kid?
>>

Me:
That's the part I made in my article I linked to my blog, that many Singaporeans can hardly empathize with this kind of family! You ASSUME that every dad has the financial capability to send children to university! Many families have financial problems to even afford tuition for primary and secondary, what more tuition fees for Unis!

That's my main point that Blue Mountain is way, way of target, depicting Singapore scene. The more fitting allusion would be Jack Neo's productions.

>>
OK, start off from the base of a character analysis first. To even allege gay and feminist themes without a thorough knowledge of the characters is like hitting in the dark.
>>

Me:
Again, you think that a commentary of the movie has to be on individual characters. What about the holistic movie theme itself? Why can't we discuss that and must be boxed in with individual characters only?

Here is another article I posted in my blog, illustrating that any particular movie can have more than just one theme.

http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2009/10/in...

Open up. Movies can be interpreted in more ways than one.

Kelvin_Teo on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 8:24 am

Look Solo Bear, I understand the arguements you presented and your interpretation about the movie, but interpretation is also based on evidences. Literature in case you realize has a dimension of evidential proof, and that comes through thorough analysis of the plot and characters. That is why I told you to do a character analysis of the major characters in the plot. I have argued against feminism, but just in case you haven't realized, you HAVE NOT SUBSTANTIATED your arguement about the presence of the feminist theme.

Don't wax lyrical about thinking laterally or out of the box. Just put the money where your mouth is and substantiate the themes. If you are unable to substantiate your arguements, then they remain as they are – strawmen. Do an analysis to substantiate your arguement, then we will talk.

"So tell me what you know about this Wee Bak Chuan character? If you are a parent and you want your kids to be a doctor when your kid wants to be an engineer, and your kid becomes an engineer, is that called shirking responsibility in reference to your kid? >> Me: That's the part I made in my article I linked to my blog, that many Singaporeans can hardly empathize with this kind of family! You ASSUME that every dad has the financial capability to send children to university! Many families have financial problems to even afford tuition for primary and secondary, what more tuition fees for Unis! That's my main point that Blue Mountain is way, way of target, depicting Singapore scene. The more fitting allusion would be Jack Neo's productions." ->Stop being disingenious. You were talking about shirking responsibility. I am doing you a favor to tell you that you are way off, which really justified my point that you are just guessing in the dark.

No, really, you are not in any position to make an intellectual disagreement. Start by backing up your arguements first, with instances from the movie. If you can substantiate your points fine, then let's agree to disagree. But you haven't made the baby steps yet.

Funny how you ask me to open up when you cannot even describe the source of your interpretation from the movie. I am sorry, I just find it absurd that one can interprete the movie without REFERENCES, which have really failed to provide.

Kelvin_Teo on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 8:28 am

And lastly, please don't give the arguement that you are interpreting based on our 2 articles. I have already told you that they are allegorical to a clash between democratic ideals of freedom versus the living epitome of Asian values and patriachism. In short, they don't support your allegations of feminist and gay themes.

Kelvin_Teo on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 8:47 am

So on the lighter side, what does your handle Solo Bear means?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_(gay_culture)

"Bear is LGBT slang for those in the bear communities, a subculture in the gay/bisexual male communities and an emerging subset of LGBT communities with events, codes and culture-specific identity. It also describes a physical type.

Bears tend to have hairy bodies and facial hair; some are heavy-set; some project an image of working-class masculinity in their grooming and appearance, though none of these are requirements or unique indicators. Some bears place importance on presenting a hyper-masculine image and may shun interaction with, and even disdain, men who exhibit effeminacy.[1] The bear concept can function as an identity, an affiliation, and an ideal to live up to, and there is ongoing debate in bear communities about what constitutes a bear, however a consensus exists that inclusion is an important part of the Bear Community [2] [3] . There is also, anecdotally, more acceptance of tattoos and body piercing in the bear community."

"Bears On The Run is a tour of four solo Bear musician artists featuring Elijah Black, Matthew Temple, Shannon Grady and Kendall, and hosted by comedian Bobaloo. The tour has travelled to twenty major US cities."

You nick has anything to do with the solo Bear musicians? Highly unlikely right, but the irony is just so uncanny.

BTW, treat this as a light-hearted question. No one is denying that there are more than one interpretations, but interpretations are based on references.

BTW please do not take offense to the Bear part of this comment. But I can't help highlighting the irony of it. Your nick also refers to the entity that you find yourself at odds with.

P.S. I am not alleging you are gay. Your nick could have another source of reference for interpretation for all I know.

Kelvin_Teo on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 8:47 am

So on the lighter side, what does your handle Solo Bear means?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_(gay_culture)

You nick has anything to do with the solo Bear musicians? Highly unlikely right, but the irony is just so uncanny.

BTW, treat this as a light-hearted question. No one is denying that there are more than one interpretations, but interpretations are based on references.

BTW please do not take offense to the Bear part of this comment. But I can't help highlighting the irony of it. Your nick also refers to the entity that you find yourself at odds with.

P.S. I am not alleging you are gay. Your nick could have another source of reference for interpretation for all I know.

I'm Amazed on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 12:06 pm

I'm amazed.

Why don't the two of you please go get a f**king life instead of spamming on this discussion board for issues of your own ego. It is clear none of the readers (or authors) even give a s h i t about what the two of you are arguing about. Solo bear you're a f**king homophob and I don't know why Kelvin even entertain all your dumb replies. If you have go so many questions about the f**king movie go ask Glen Goei yourself at Golden Village on Tuesday (He will be there to answer questions from those who are watching his movie, go to the GV site and check it out yourself). It is obvious that this discussion is no longer about the movie but about both of your egos. So why don't the both of you just go f**k yourselves.

GET A LIFE D**K YOU MUST PROBABLY BE A FAT UGLY LOSER IN REAL LIFE.

Kelvin_Teo on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 1:36 pm

You have a point, Amazed. I will probably disengage from discussing with him. After all, he needs to watch the movie to get to the right conclusions

Blink on Thu, 17th Jun 2010 12:56 am

Whoever thinks that movies are made without a theeme or theme within a them is a real D**b A**.

Media is a strong medium and isnt the Arts media always spouting the mantra that it spread messages, socially and otherwise?

So it seems being in Uni these days only make one more blindsided than ever.

Kelvin, you are a real pinh***

Other Reviews

Proper Reasons for Orchard Flood, please
Authorities have switched their official explanation for the cause of ...

Did he obstruct justice or did he not?
AN usual situation has developed between Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) ...

Should new citizens serve compulsory time at the grassroots level?
Much has been said about the integration of immigrants and ...

OTHER NEWS HEADLINE

Feature

Sandcastle: a refreshing effort by Boo Junfeng
by Melissa Koh