Recently I watched Inception with a couple friends. I was somewhat intimidated from the start; I had heard that the movie often left viewers confused and somewhat troubled. Sure enough, the rumors proved to be true. My mind was reeling by the time the credits began to play and I wasn’t sure if my overall impression was more one of pleasure or befuddlement. Needless to say, Inception stretches the mind and plays with our ideas of reality and the very essence of existence. Is all of life a dream? Is our sense of reality merely a façade hiding the truth of an uncertain and unpredictable world?

Christopher Nolan raises these questions in his thought-provoking movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Ellen Page. Since its release in 2010 audiences have flocked to theatres, inviting the questions and challenges that Inception raises. Like most controversial and disconcerting stories, this drama draws viewers to the edge of their seats and leaves them pondering the hidden ideas that are imbedded in the troubling plot.

Dom Cobb (DiCaprio) is in essence a spy and a thief, though his methods of espionage are somewhat alternative. With the use of cutting edge science and technology Cobb and his comrades enter into the minds of their victims through their dreams. Once there, they search for a hidden and protected safe containing the secrets and deepest thoughts of the dreamer. These they remove, extracting any ideas that might be useful for their own purposes. Although this practice of extraction is complicated and seemingly impossible, there is one thing that is even more difficult: inception. This involves implanting an idea in the mind rather than extracting one, and it is only out of desperation to be reunited with his family that Cobb agrees to attempt to achieve it.

As the plot unfolds and Cobb strives to plant an idea in the dreaming mind of Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), a strange and somewhat twisted motif becomes evident in Nolan’s plot. As the movie progresses we find ourselves questioning everything and wondering what is real and what is dream. The idea that what we consider to be sure could in actuality be a mere illusion, and that nothing can be relied upon or counted as certain reflects the postmodern worldview. The human mind is no longer respected but is accessible to all, to be plundered and robbed; life itself has lost its value, its purpose and even its reality. The closing scene of the movie indicates an existentialist perspective as Cobb places his spinning top (an indicator of whether he is dreaming or not) on the table and walks away without waiting to find out whether or not he dwells in reality. It doesn’t seem to matter or be relevant to him in what state he exists, he gives up the struggle to escape from his dreams and simply makes a choice concerning his own reality, regardless of whether it is dream or truth.

—Tamara

Country Strong is a drama that is centered on the fallen career of music star Kelly Canter (Gweneth Paltrow) compared of the rising country-music songwriter Beau Hutton. Beau and Kelly's career show what was and what is about to come. The audience follows Kelly Canter in her destructive path with her alcoholism and Beau's futile efforts to try and save her.  The movie starts out hopeful, Kelly is released from rehab a month early to begin her comeback tour. Before her first performance she ends up in her dressing room closet drunk and wallowing. A few months prior she has fallen off the music stage drunk, she was five months pregnant and she ended up killing the baby. The guilt of her addiction and the effect it has had on her husband and their unborn child leaves Kelly incapable of getting over her addiction. At the end of the movie before Kelly's last and only successful performance on stage Beau tells her that she can't live with both love and fame, she has to choose. Kelly makes her choice and gives the best performance of her life, and at the end commits suicide in her dressing room. Kelly chose fame, and in her suicide note to Beau told him to choose love. Beau makes this choice of love and moves to California giving up his fame to work on a farm. The movie ends with Beau and the love of his life, rising country-music star Chiles Stanton, in love and singing music in a bar. Their concept of happiness was to be together, doing what they love, away from fame.

            Fame in Country Strong is depicted as the worse type of demon, the kind that causes you to ruin yourself. Kelly couldn't handle the pressures of fame, her career and herself became her love. She made the sacrifice of her life because she couldn't handle who she had become, and in hopes that Beau wouldn't make the same mistake. By committing suicide she almost forces Beau to make the choice of love. It is a story about following you heart, not your ambitions. It is a simple but postmodern story of choices, it is either or. The concept of being yourself and being famous isn't even an option. Either you choose to follow your heart or to follow others. A postmodern allusion to Christ in sacrifice and choice, only this time his image is depicted in the broken heart of a drunken country-music star.

—Heather

©2005-

Since its introduction in 2005, NBC’s The Office has soared to public and critical popularity and altered America’s expectations of primetime TV and the comedic genre. On a deeper level it has struck a chord with the postmodern, even post-postmodern, bent of today’s society, especially its young professional demographic. In this review, I will overview the show, discussing its introduction and premise and conclude with my perspective on its impact upon modern culture and thought.

The Office falls into a production style commonly referred to as a “mockumentary” meaning it poses as a real-life documentary but in actuality is entirely scripted and acted. This style is not unprecedented – movies such as This Is Spinal Tap used the style to great success several decades ago – but has never been used in a primetime sitcom.

From a philosophical/cultural point of view it is, perhaps, most interesting to look at the show as the successor of the reality TV phase (craze). In the last ten years primetime TV has experienced a significant shift from sitcoms – such as Friends and Seinfeld to reality shows such as Who Wants To Be a Millionaire? and Survivor. The public was fascinated by reality shows, suddenly able to relate to the characters on the screen as fellow “normal” people. But it has become apparent that simply placing regular people in situations – however extraordinary – doesn’t consistently provide great plotlines and hilarious interactions. Real life people just weren’t capable of the humor and wittiness we demand every night from 7 pm to 10 pm prime time.

Enter The Office onto the scene. Although inspired by the BBC show of the same name, NBC’s version is sufficiently original in its characters and scripting to be considered its own show; free of any accusations of imitation. The Office succeeds where a real documentary never could. The characters on the show are so perfectly created and cast and the humor so wholly driven by personalities that even within the most mundane of contexts – a paper supply company – it provides a consistently fresh, engaging product. In fact The Office’s success is most apparent in the fact that its target audience is also the most jaded and cynical one – America’s young professionals.

An example of the show’s remarkable brand of humor is the running use of personal interviews. Every episode features the taped insights of various characters, which typically amount to monologues rehashing the day’s events. These interviews are free of any scripted jokes, gags, or punch lines; they are simply the “candid” observations of “normal” people. But the result, due to the familiarity of the characters and the potency and uniqueness of their personalities, is, in my opinion, some of the most hilarious moments ever offered by a TV sitcom.

In terms of evaluating its world-story, viewers are left after episode wondering, “now what was that about?” It’s stories offer no “message,” no social commentary, no subtext point, much like the earlier sitcom Seinfeld. It feels like there is ever any real point to what happens. And in fact, that’s the point. The point is that there is no point—no point to the episode, no point to the series. In fact, it’s just like the way all of our ordinary lives are lived out: there is no overarching point. Activity and characters and stuff that randomly happens is not only the makeup of the show itself, but reflects the writers’ view of how life is. As such, it would be best described as simply postmodern. Belief in God is neither encouraged nor discouraged—each individual gets to choose whatever, none is better, none is worse, and it’s entirely up to each individual to cope with the randomness of life and lack of direction.

In conclusion, the most fascinating element of The Office is not its plotlines, characters, or values; it is it place in the progression/evolution of America’s primetime sitcoms. America demands humor; and we demand new, funnier humor every television season. When America wanted reality – it got reality TV. America wanted funnier reality – it got The Office. What’s next I wonder? A fake mockumentary?

—Zac

©2009 New Line Cinema

Most people wonder at some time in their lives what their purpose for living is. Why were they brought onto this earth? For Anna Fitzgerald, the lead character of My Sister’s Keeper (2009), the purpose of her life was simple and clear – to keep her sister Kate alive.

Anna was conceived by her parents through in vitro fertilization in order to be a genetic match for Kate, who was suffering from leukemia. Although her parents do love Anna, she was basically created to be spare body parts to keep her sister alive. After undergoing years of surgeries, Anna has finally had enough of forced medical procedures and sues her parents for medical emancipation, or the right to decide what is done to her own body. The movie follows this legal process as well as how Kate’s illness has affected each member of this loving family.

As would be expected from a plot dealing with such ethically complex issues, My Sister’s Keeper raises many worldview questions about the nature of human life. It uses a very complex situation within a family to challenge the foundational beliefs of some major worldviews. Viewers are inevitably brought to a place of examining for themselves what they would do in such a situation.

This movie asks some major questions about humanity’s capacity to create and control life. Speaking of Anna’s in vitro fertilization, her dad says, “We went against nature,” and sees Anna’s legal action as the inevitable consequence for he and his wife trying to take control where it was not theirs to take. The movie definitely suggests that creating Anna for the purpose of keeping her sister alive was not ethically right, although it never appeals to God for this moral standard, but to the ways of nature and to Anna’s well-being.

Regarding the origin of life, Anna describes babies “souls flying around looking for bodies to live in” who get put into bodies when people have sex. Anna calls this a coincidence or accident. Even though Anna does refer to souls, the rest of her explanation and the entirety of the movie does not place a high emphasis on one’s soul as being a part of life, and definitely does not attribute the creation of these souls to a God.

And even though the purpose of life is so closely examined in the movie, a conclusion is never really reached. It is strongly suggested that being created just to keep someone else alive is not right. This leaves Anna’s purpose in life as unknown as the rest of humanity’s. Kate’s life is also regarded as having no purpose, or at least no known purpose.

In the end, it seems that My Sister’s Keeper is challenging two major worldviews with postmodern skepticism. It challenges the theistic worldview that says that we have all been created by an all-powerful God for a good purpose. To that, the movie contends that there is absolutely no way to be certain of this, largely due to life’s many difficulties.

My Sister’s Keeper also challenges the naturalistic worldview, which says that humans are machines who must fight to survive. To that, the movie brings up the personal and relational side of humans – the side that knows that creating a human for the sole purpose of keeping another human alive is not right. There is more to life than just surviving, and humans will experience consequences if they try to take too much control over the creation and purpose of life.

Therefore, the heavy plot and hard-hitting ethical issues of My Sister’s Keeper show the weaknesses in two major modern worldviews – theism and naturalism. Typical of postmodernism, though, the movie does not offer any definitive answers to the questions it so plainly asks.

—Sarah J

BBC ©2005-2010

The longest-running science-fiction television series in history, BBC’s Doctor Who has become a major cultural icon in the United Kingdom and is gaining popularity in America. Originally running from 1963 to 1989, an updated Doctor Who started in 2005. The fifth series aired in 2010 with a new head writer (Steven Moffat) and a new lead actor (Matt Smith).

Armed only with his wits and a sonic screwdriver, the Doctor travels through space and time fighting monsters and saving planets. Often the Doctor will bring a human companion with him to experience the wonders of the universe. The Doctor travels in the TARDIS, a blue police phone box that is bigger on the inside than the outside.

Doctor Who contains postmodern elements. Absurdity is the Doctor’s constant companion. He responds to danger and death with wacky and random humor. Characters often face absurd situations. Doctor Who also reflects a postmodern distrust of metanarratives. Any serious question about truth and the supernatural has no answers. When the Doctor discovers a beast that claims to be the Devil, the Doctor admits he doesn’t believe in it, but also that he hasn’t seen everything. He keeps traveling “to be proved wrong.”

Change is central to Doctor Who. Truth is relative, and so is time. The Doctor says time is actually “a great big ball of wibbley-wobbly, timey-wimey….stuff.” Thus, time can be rewritten and reality is in flux. Even the main character of the show changes. When the Doctor is near death, he can regenerate every cell in his body, changing his appearance, personality, and even his ethics. At first, this process smacks of reincarnation, but differs greatly: unlike reincarnation, regeneration is a natural process, not a spiritual journey, and the Doctor retains his memories and whatever makes him him. The current Doctor (played by Matt Smith) is the eleventh regeneration of the Doctor.

Like time and truth, Doctor Who’s worldview is also wibbley-wobbly. The show flits between elements of destiny and the hopelessness of a chaotic universe. The Doctor acts as a savior-figure, and the TARDIS and time are almost characters themselves. However, the Doctor can’t stop people from dying purposelessly, and he always ends up alone. Although Doctor Who alludes to Laws of Time and the possibility of destiny, the show stays atheistic. The Doctor, the last of a race called the Time Lords, comes the closest to a god-like figure. But the Doctor and the Time Lords are flawed and limited. Gaining true godhood is considered the ultimate danger. Death is final with no hope of a supernatural afterlife. Even so, psychic abilities, whether human or the Doctor’s, sometimes play important roles. One character helps save reality through the power of memory. Doctor Who does have a sense of hope: the Doctor almost always saves the day, and most episodes end happy or bittersweet. But hope seems based in chaos, not in a God or overriding purpose. “The universe is huge and ridiculous,” The Doctor says. “And sometimes miracles happen.”

The show’s worldview is hard to pin down because it changes with different writers. Still, Doctor Who worldview wobbles closest toward western spiritualism, and postmodernism clearly colors Doctor Who with its absurdity and reluctance toward metanarratives.

—Alaina

©2009 Focus Features

Coraline is an animated movie based on the book by Neil Gaiman. Distributed by Focus Features, it was directed by Henry Selick, and the starring role of Coraline was voice acted by Dakota Fanning. It was ranked third at the box office on opening weekend, released on Feburary 6, 2009, making 16.85 million.

Coraline is a young girl who recently moves to a new apartment. She does not like her parents or the other people in the apartment. Her parents never let her do what she wants, and her food is terrible, and the other people who live in the apartment are very strange. She eventually finds a door that leads to another world that looks almost exactly like her own. In this world she has her other mother and her other father, who are just like her real parents, only they give her everything she wanted that she did not get from her real parents. In that world even her neighbors that she does not like are far more majestic than in the real world. Coraline is captivated by this world, and is ecstatic when this other mother and father invite her to come and stay forever. The only catch is that she has to let them sow buttons on her eyes, becoming like them with their own button eyes.

She tries to escape but is eventually locked up behind a mirror where she meets the ghosts of three children who had been trapped by the “other mother”. They had given into the “better world” and let her sew buttons on their eyes. After Coraline escapes and returns to her world she finds that her real mother and father have been captured, so she returns to the other world and challenges the “other mother” to a game. In the game Coraline has to find the missing eyes of the three children, and her parents, and then she can go. As Coraline finds each of the children’s eyes, the portion of the world that she finds them fades gray and disappears. She finally finds all of them and her parents and escapes. She ends up throwing the key to the other world down a deep well. At the end her parents are outside gardening with her along with all of the other people from the apartment.

This movie is heavily postmodern. It presents the only important things in life as the real world. Beliefs in another, seemingly ideal world are dangerous and should be avoided, even when there is some semblance of reality. Being seduced by alternative realities is a web designed to entrap the gullible. What really matters is the really real. No matter how bad your life is, you should not try to escape from what is real by going to something that is not real. Also, those that have been captured by a belief in a false world should be saved from their eye-less-ness. Only when they can see properly again can they be set free, returning back to real world, as unpleasant as it might be.

— Luke

On NBC’s new TV show “Community”, we meet Jeff, a cocky lawyer who has to go to community college to get a degree he had previously fabricated. Jeff is used to getting anything and everything he wants by weaseling and charisma. However, at community college, he finds himself in an odd collection of strangers similar to The Breakfast Club. Among them is Britta, a sarcastic and ‘political’ woman that Jeff is instantly captivated by. In order to spend more time with Britta, Jeff pretends to be a Spanish tutor (he actually doesn’t know much useful Spanish) and ends up inadvertently starting a study group of mismatched people with all sorts of issues. Jeff feels like the group is a hindrance, but a necessary obstacle to overcome if it means he can win Britta’s heart.

While it seems like he is going to a lot of work to get to Britta, the viewers know that Jeff is not interested in hard work. In fact, we see in the first episode that his hopes are to find the loopholes and easy answers and skate through college. He has no problem with cheating and talking his way into getting what he wants. However, he finds out quickly that his modus operandi isn’t going to be successful here. He is actually going to have to apply himself and get through community college without someone providing him with all the answers to every test.

While Jeff doesn’t have the answers, the rest of the characters on the show are no better off. None of the group of misfits seems to have the answers for life either. Community has presented itself as an atheistic show. There are no answers; God is a punchline, and truth is relative. At one point, Jeff even says, “I discovered at a very early age that if I talked long enough I can make anything right or wrong, so either I'm God or truth is relative -- and in either case, boo-ya!” LA Times reviewer, Robert Lloyd, even says, “It may be the mode of modern life to trust no one and mock everything.” All of Jeff’s best moments, when he is being a good person, he is lying.

Since God is nothing more than a joke or a hot topic for debate (Jeff, when told to get away from small talk, asks Britta if God is still dead), all religion and ‘answers’ of any kind are mocked. In episode 3, when Jeff is caught up in a class where the teacher believes he is Robin Williams in Dead Poets’ Society, he finds that he can’t even “seize the day” without lying and that his lying isn’t actually seizing the day. That paradox, in a sense, describes the entire awkward plot of the show: lying or not, no solutions are right or come easy.

So while truth is no better than a lie, neither God nor any other higher source come into the picture on either side. The key to life is seemingly finding community with others, but even that, on this show, is all a production and a lie. Community for the rest of the misfits in the study group is their greatest desire, but to Jeff, it is just another means for him to get what he wants: Britta. While the lack of truth and good intentions makes for some decent humor at times, it is a sad portrait of the lack of purpose that comes with a lack of truth. The absurdity, situationalism, and general absence of truth or morals seem to reflect postmodern perspectives. Its atheism is neither as optimistic as naturalism, nor as dark and angst-ridden as nihilism/existentialism, and so postmodern atheism seems the most apt label for it.

Community is in its first season on NBC, with only three episodes having aired at this date. Community is praised for its cast lineup, including Joel McHale (The Soup) as Jeff, Chevy Chase as Pierce, Gillian Jacobs as Britta, Alison Brie as Annie, and Danny Pudi (Greek) as Abed. It was created by Dan Harmon.

[written by] Sarah M

Directed by Zach Snyder, the movie Watchmen came out on March 6, 2009. The movie starts out with flashbacks to 1940, when a group of superheroes called the Minutemen were helping fight justice and save lives. It shows the progression of them being praised for their work, to them being killed and ultimately failing.

The rest of the movie is set in an alternate 1985 America where President Richard Nixon has just been elected for his second term and the “Doomsday Clock,” a clock that portrays the tension of nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. The glory days of masked superhero group called the Watchmen, have been put to an end by the government because they were doing more harm than good. However, when a former Watchmen member, The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), is brutally murdered, Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), the only member of the group that never took off his mask, is determined to reunite the group and find out who would want to kill him off. As Rorschach, Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman), Mr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), and Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson) bring out their old superhero outfits and start unraveling the plot, they find a startling culprit behind the murder, and also the impending murder of millions of American lives.

One of their old teammates, Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) took it upon himself save billions of lives, by killing millions of people. He came to the conclusion that with the impending nuclear war, would bring a nuclear holocaust and the human race would be obsolete. Ozymandias used Dr. Manhattan’s power to destroy New York City and blame it on him. The Watchmen were furious, until they see that when the United States and the Soviet Union found that Dr. Manhattan was their common enemy, they put the impending nuclear war behind them, made peace, and vowed to preserve the human race. The Watchmen saw what good came out of killing millions of innocent lives and justified it. However, when Rorschach, the only one that couldn’t justify killing innocent people, threatened to expose Ozymandias to the world, he was killed by Dr. Manhattan, which ends the movie.

This movie has a very postmodern message in it. The old superheroes, the Minutemen, who everyone thought would be able to save the world by bringing justice to it, failed. The second generation of superheroes, the Watchmen, failed because the government thought they were not doing any good. The postmodern mindset is that the old way of thinking is outdated and not useful, and this is the way that Ozymandias views the Watchmen’s old way of doing things. His solution was to blur the line between good and evil, to save billions by killing millions. The only true seeker of justice, Rorschach, was killed because his exposure of Ozymandias’ plot would have undone all that the mass killing accomplished.

This movie leaves the audience with a lot of questions about what is good and what is evil. It makes it seem that what is good and evil is relative to the situation.

[written by] Ali

To most people, lying is completely wrong with no questions asked and often it is difficult to discern if someone is being truthful or not. Lie to Me, Fox’s newest tv drama, flip-flops this concept. The primetime tv show centers on Calvin Lightman– an abrasive and rude, yet incredibly gifted and intelligent man– who is considered to be a ‘human lie-detector.’ He has mastered the art of reading other people’s micro-expressions: split-second “tells” as to a person’s true feelings. This allows Lightman to determine within a matter of seconds if a person is lying or telling the truth. He runs an independent consulting company called The Lightman Group, staffed only by those he has trained to read people the same manner that he can. Lightman maintains that lying is very common, stating, “the average person tells three lies per every ten minutes’ conversation,” and that “everyone is hiding something.”

Lie to Me* is saturated in postmodern ideals, coming forth not only in the screenplay, but also in the core ethos of every scene. Whenever Lightman demonstrates the history behind a certain micro-expression, photographs of past and present world leaders, pop culture icons, and infamous personalities are shown. These pictures trick the viewing audience to unconsciously form opinions about the persons presented.

Atheism is also a prominent worldview, and Cal Lightman would probably be a nihilist, if it weren’t for his work. Therefore, I would classify him personally as an existentialist. However, as a whole the tv show is postmodern. Lie to Me* is still rising in the ratings. It started slow, and has been picking up viewers with each new episode. Fitting into the popular mold of crime-based drama, the show has great potential.

Lie to Me is complex in another respect. Actors are acting out characters that are playing false versions of themselves that they are attempting to present as truthful, but the real version of each of the character is unintentionally showing itself. Confused yet? Essentially, there are numerous screens placed over each person until the viewer can’t tell who is right and who is wrong. Also, with the confusion over characters, comes confusion over ethics. Lie to Me* erases any previously drawn lines over moral issues and lets the viewer pencil them in wherever they see fit. Lightman has taken these assumed moral guidelines out of his own life, and therefore as the example to follow, he challenges his audience to rethink their own personal standards. They come to think that lying is not wrong, and even if they are caught in a lie that does not mean that they will be judged for it.

The greatest effect of postmodernism upon this show is the crisis of the absolute versus that which is not. Telling if someone is lying is the only unquestionable absolute portrayed, determining if the lie is wrong or not is a matter of personal opinion in the views of The Lightman Group. In all of the episodes that I have viewed, the person (or persons) caught in lies was never completely wrong. There was always some sort of justifiable reason or motive for their behavior. Also, those who did tell the truth were often portrayed as the bad guys. The word ‘sin’ is quickly disappearing from pop culture, and Lie to Me* is moving the process along all the more speedily. Lightman himself is a compulsive liar, and uses lies in many situations to force someone to the truth. His companions claim that “[Lightman] is a better liar that all of us.” The underlying message comes to this: you can determine an action, but you can never tell if that action is completely right or completely wrong. There are two reasons for this loss of absolutes. First, placing judgment on anyone at anytime is considered to be the greatest wrong a human can do in postmodern culture. Second, no one can truly know truth, so therefore no one can determine definite right or definite wrong. To put it in the words of Cal Lightman, “you can believe whatever you want… it’s what everyone else does.”

[written by] Ellen

Second Hand Lions begins with a mother named Mae (Kyra Sedgwick)) and son Walter (Haley Joel Osment) driving to the home of her long lost uncles, who just happen to be wealthy. The mom tells Walter that he can’t come with her; when she leaves, but must stay with her two uncles (Michael Caine, Robert Duvall). Arriving at their destination, she tells Walter goodbye, and pretends that she cares, but in reality she is happy to get rid of him. She tells him to smile for her, and that people would like him more if he would smile, “Work on it while I’m gone.”

Walter is left alone with two men who complete strangers to him, and they have a bit of a rough beginning. Some extended family members come out to visit, hoping to get their name in the will of the two rich old men. In the midst of this Walter has discovered that his mother is not where she said she would be—she lied to him. He decides to run away, but his uncles find him and tell him that they want him to come back to help them get rid of the gold-bricking relatives. Finally, Walter and the uncles warm up to each other. Walter suggests that they actually spend their money, and one of the items they purchase is an old lion, who later turns out to be a very helpful friend.

One of Walter’s uncles has a habit of sleepwalking, and when Walter asks the other uncle about why he acts like he is fighting when he is asleep, he launches into the story of the time he spent as a fighter overseas. Sometime later, Walter follows the first uncle out as he is sleepwalking and wakes him up. There he is given a long talk about life and what to believe. “If you want to believe something, then believe it. Just because something ain’t true don’t mean you can’t believe in it. “

Soon Mae shows up at the house with a new boyfriend, who takes Walter aside in order to pry out of him where the uncles have hidden their money. He tells Walter that the money was stolen. Walter disbelieves him, so the boyfriend begins to beat Walter. Jasmine, the lion, comes to Walter’s rescue, sacrificing of her own life in the process. Mae proceeds to take Walter with her and her now bandaged fiancé. Walter is shocked that she would still be interested in him after he had beaten a child. “He’s hit you too, hasn’t he?” Walter says to his mom. Walter happily returns to live with his uncles.

The best description of this movie’s worldview is Postmodern. The comment the uncle makes about beliefs being whatever you want is a very good example—nothing is absolute, and furthermore whether or not something is true is irrelevant. All that matters is that you believe in something that will work for you. On an equally disturbing note, the calloused carelessness of Mae further indicates the tragic, all-too-common breakdown of family structures and values so prevalent in contemporary western society.

[written by] Rachael