The usually funny Mr Bean is not so funny this time. I dunno what really makes the film not that funny, and the feedbacks from other viewers also agrees that it is a not-so-satisfactory piece. Perhaps one thing that bothers me much is because Mr Bean is really unfortunate at the movie (losing his bag at the train, his passport at the public telephone), which makes the plot seems serious, it invites pity from the audience more than laughter. Well, some of the scenes are also repeated and became not so surprising anymore, and as you know, surprise is an important component in a comedy which usually makes people laugh. Hm..other than that, I think some scenes are just too ridiculous, exaggerated and annoying rather than seems funny..

So what makes up a good comedy? What makes people laugh? According to Rowan Atkinsons' lecture series 'Laughing matters' (available on YouTube), I think almost all of the techniques of comedy has been used, which are : 

1) A comedian that's lacks consideration of other people -> pouring the oysters into the lady's bag inside the restaurant

2) Imitation (it was said that imitation makes people laugh, but not this time!) -> With the missing child at the station

3) An indestructible comedian -> When Mr Bean got stuck in a public toilet, and was hit by the truck (I personally dont find anything funny with it =s)

4) A comedian who is an expert in manipulating his limbs / body parts -> the dancing scene, many more! I think this is the part which makes the film much better because Rowan Atkinson is good in this part =p Haha

Well there are some more which perhaps I overlooked.. but still, with all of these, why didnt I find the movie to be that funny? Perhaps since I was less surprised of the tricks, and maybe because I've been exposed to the lecture series and was busy thinking what tricks he's gonna perform to entertain the audiences =s

Perhaps we've often heard of the saying 'Be yourself!' I would now wonder what does that mean? The problem is, it is often difficult even for that someone to know what his/her true self is. Not always, but sometimes when pressures came, we tend to hide our true 'self'. In our desperation, we wanted suppress it, or sometimes we might even go to the other extreme in our frustration, even though it really makes things worse off. For example, well this might not be a good example, but when someone really wanted to give a present, but rejected over and over, he might smash that present to the floor, in front of the person to whom he wishes to give that present to. (But that is not his real intention! He did it out of desperation!) Or maybe a woman who wanted to fed her baby, she starts diligently, but gets frustrated and soon she splashes everything on the floor which makes the baby cried. (That is not her intention!)

What I wanted to discuss about is something like those examples above, but not exactly so, for you might argue that the woman is being herself as she was temperamental. Well, another case I would like to take from comics. I believe that since comics are made by humans, we can probe into them as they might depict ideal cases, or at least contain philosophies that really correlates towards real life. Now, take the case of Soujiro (I made this post way long ago, still available in this blog). In short, the boy was frustrated that his household was mistreating him. He finally met a wicked samurai who teaches him the philosophy 'the weak shall perish, but the strong victors'. And so he trained himself till later he went back to kill all his family members who once abused him. He pretends to look strong, he even smiles, but was in tears when he stands there, holding his bloody sword in his hand. He soon left off with the samurai, and since then he started a new life as the wicked swordsman's bodyguard, living his new philosophy while burying something deep within: 'He actually loves his family!'

There are many cases like these... found one in One Piece too, when Nami joined Arlong.. In short, cases like these might happen in real lives! The question is, are we trapped within this misleading philosophy? Are we able to be conscious that we are really being ourselves? Or maybe we have been denying it all the time, suppressing it till we can't hear our own cries anymore? When it gets so painful till we became numb? Or even became an ascetic? Or maybe denies our own existence?

Even in comics, adopting this way to solve problems is deemed wrong. As stories in general depicts the ideal, even the author of many comics or movies denies this! These story plots indicated that all of these are wrong philosophies! It is simply a wrong way to live! But this might seem attractive to us since we are prone to it in some way that is really mysterious... Last time I was browsing friendster profiles of many peoples around the world. I found out that there are some people whose profiles really depicted their frustrations in life, to the extent that they wrote that they belonged to hell. Surely, any sane person wouldn't choose to go to hell instead of heaven! Nobody really wants suffering! Unless frustration brings him to an ascetic view or supresses his mindset , but that's really not human in nature.

Now, I've just finished reading 'The Lotus and The Cross', a book that compares Christianity with Buddha, and this makes a lot of sense to me. For anyone out there, I would recommend this book (It is a thin book that can be finished within 2 hours). I'm not trying to promote Christianity despite that I'm a Christian, but I'm just posting my view on this matter. I'm a truth-seeker myself, not a Christian fanatic, and so I'm not negative about any other belief systems. Anyway, let's get back to the topic.

Without giving too much details, the Spirit of Buddhism as I've learned is really related to the above. "The sense of being in control and fully insulated from the world of care. If you break off all attachments, you cease to worry. If you have no loves, you will never have a broken heart. If you cease to love, you cease to suffer. If you do not desire, you can never lose." That is in a nutshell.

Indeed this is an interesting and attractive philosophy to adopt when we suffer. In fact, I really adopted this philosophy myself, long before I learned anything about Buddhism or Christianity, back then when I was still in highschool. I really found it hard to socialize. I actually got some friends that labeled me 'robot', since I was expressionless, well they got it all wrong actually. At some point in time I was hurt. I was like living in a world of my own, where no one would step their foot into. I liked to hid everything, giving a smile in return. That time perhaps I was affected much by Soujiro, (that was the time where I read Samurai X comics) which became my immediate idol. I knew this was wrong, and that time, I actually do hope that someday there would be someone like Kenshin who came and defeat me, broke all of these philosophies. (which really happened in the comic). Still.. I waited for that moment, while I decided to cling to the false philosophy of 'denying' myself.

I waited.. but no one came to defeat me. Till one day I realised that the scenario was different from the original story. In my story, I was defeated, but not by a strong samurai who fought against me and give me a new philosophy, but rather, by someone who is Almighty, but decided to let Himself die to stop me for keeping doing all these things. He did not just died, but reborned. Not just reborned, but He gives me back the true way of living! Not one that hids me away from my true self, but rather, one that regains myself back. I felt freedom! Well..this is what Christianity offers. And if in one point in time I should cry in pain, or maybe cried in desperation, though silently, now I would cry in amazement, in viewing all these loveliness, that somebody would have received me despite all these.. I was joyful because I broke free from all those 'escapisms'! I've found myself again!

(Well, the comics depicts this very well too.. the protagonists usually have those strong characters, full of joy and spirit, sometimes too innocent and straightforward, and really 'being himself') ^_^

Mathew 11:28 : "Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden. and I will give you rest."

Today I had a Bible study with 2 persons from Presbyterian Church. It was interesting as I learnt the 'Presbyterian' view of Predestination, that was rather different from the my concept so far. Well, I've no time to think about this issue further at the moment, since it was exams time, but I'm gonna save it for the holidays.

In my church, it was taught that God pre-elects people, meaning, those who will be saved. This does not mean that God also pre-elects people that will not be saved! We, by ourselves, are going to perish, and God is under no obligation to save anyone! It is by His grace that He chose to pick some 'samples' to be saved! The question "Well I was not saved, so why bother" is irrelevant because, we don't know whether we are chosen or not! Thus, the sentence 'You always have choice to turn' does not contradict with this concept. The thing is, why did you choose what you choose?

The new concept that I learnt was a rather complete shift in worldview. God does not pre-elect people. God loves everyone (in my church, this is accepted too, and that is why God elects whom He will elect). But the interpretation of Romans 9:14 is also different. 

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 

In my interpretation, it sounds like 'God has the right to choose / elect whom he want to choose / elect', but in their interpretation, it sounds 'God can forgive anyone if He pleases to.'

Well, here's their theology in short :

God is all loving. He loves everyone, that's what was said in John 3:16.  God does not want Jesus Christ to be crucified, to die for our sins. It is not His will!! God sent Jesus Christ to the world in hope that people would accept Him, but people did not! They crucified Him! But how could this happen if God is all knowing? Well, God is all knowing, and all powerful. Can He deny to know? Or not to look at the possibility of what human beings will choose? (I think I never thought of that) Well..let's continue. God is all-loving. He did not discriminate on anyone, He wanted to save the whole world! Unbelievers, as well as believers. Well, how about His justice? If someone dont believe surely his/her sins dont get washed over by the blood of Jesus Christ! God is love but God is also just! Well, in James it was taught that love triumphs over judgement. But how to explain John 14:6? Well, they said that Jesus Christ is necessary, He's the revelation of God's love. This world is loveless without God. We keeps on sinning, and lives in emptiness. God love is already 'there', it is just that we dont have the power to accept it. We ourselves walk our paths away from the love of God, we feel that we don't deserve such a love. In that sense, believing is necessary. But not 'believe' as in believe that Jesus has died for our sins. Remember that their concept was that God did not expect Jesus to be crucified so we receive salvation not because Jesus had died for our sins. It is not 'that belief'. Rather, Jesus came to the world to show that God cared for us, that He will accept us no matter what. And in that sense, Jesus acts as the 'bridge', He's the way, the truth and the life. Ok.. Then how about hell? Well, they said that hell does not mean a place of torture that God would take people into and let them suffer 'His justice', but rather, a condition of lovelessness, a life without a purpose, of existing in eternity without any means. Then what about the punishments in the Old Testament? The Sodom and Gomorah for example. They said that all of them are not meant to be taken literally. Afterall, the Bible is not a scientific or historical book. It contains metaphors that is inserted to help us understand the faith. Indeed, it is a faith book. In 2 Corinthians 3:6, it is written 'but the letter kills' which is against literal interpretation of the Bible. (But the NIV commentary denies this, it does not mean that the external, literal sense of the Scripture is deadly but  'the letter' is synonymous witht the law as an external standard before which all people, because they are lawbreakers, stand guilty and condemned to death.)