Let’s be Cops: Fake Cops, Real Trouble, no Consequence

No, let's NOT be cops

A disorganized version of 21 Jump Street, Let’s be Cops couldn’t be more poorly timed with the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri.  The film follows two 30 something men named Ryan and Justin as they pretend to be cops as a means to exert power and retain a warped vision of their rigid masculinity.  Though the film is not racially charged it is a clear presentation of pop culture maleness.  In deconstructing the social definitions of manhood presented in this film, it can reveal a small fraction of the toxicity of hegemonic masculine existence that can lead to a disproportion of man on man violence.   

First thing we learn about manhood is that either you are a jobless has been (Ryan) or completely diffident in the job you have (Justin).  Both scenarios expect men to be aggressive and assertive.  Dominating other men within the workforce determines your ascribed status of maleness.  When Justin, a game designer, is pitching his idea for a game his boss ignores him to show a pornographic image – “Check out this girl’s pussy.” – To an employee.  That is sexual harassment on top of being highly inappropriate, but what is determined is that men not only must take the lead (the boss later takes over the presentation and Justin is established as an inept character) but their sexual desires must have total disregard of female agency. “Real men” are established only through their predator-like ability to achieve many conquests.    

Not being a “real man” in a toxic patriarchal society means being potentially bullied by other men. Within the first 30 seconds of the film it’s very clear that Justin is a timid man who – like many of us – has difficulty speaking to someone he likes.  But by not being domineering or rapacious Ryan bullies him by calling him a “pussy.” Somehow the word pussy is associated with weakness, and in our society this is the worst thing to call a man.  It is not only a pejorative word to use, but completely sexist in nature.  Yet, this word is repeated on several occasions throughout the film by men who want to dismantle the masculinity of other men by associating them with a female anatomy. 

This level of emasculation is important to understand because it is constantly blamed on feminism or the “feminization” of men – where the logic is that giving space and agency to women creates a “softer” and less rugged type of man, which counters every definition men have created for themselves – but the reality is that feminism – and in turn, feminists – are giving society the chance to recognize how much sexism hurts men as much as it hurts women.  On the surface, telling men that their value is in domination, sexual promiscuity, and wealth appears to be favorable, but it is a privilege of power that leaves no room for young boys to grow into decent human beings.  The “boys will be boys” mentality keeps men forever puerile, incapable of seeing beyond their copy of playboy.  This is how our culture creates violence in men; violence is not an inherent or intrinsic behavior.  It is the product of social construction, and Let’s be Cops is a reflection of social norms. 

Ryan and Justin’s antics lead them, moreover, to impersonating police officers, and by putting on police uniforms the two protagonists transform from “losers” to buddy cop bro dudes that abuse the power that comes from being perceived as authority figures.  They are suddenly above the law, and able to manipulate unsuspecting civilians. By portraying the main characters as failures, and subsequently giving them privilege by wearing a uniform, one thing becomes very clear: Men in the position of power emasculate other men, and later threaten violence in order to maintain dominance. In this way the toxic patriarchal norm is also maintained, and violence becomes the essential ingredient to developing a strong backbone for men, particularly these two men.   

In what I call the most egregious violation of a human being, the character Pupa (Keegan-Michael Key) verbally assaults Josie (Nina Dobrev) in a sexual manner.  Josie is called upon to help the men transform Justin into Pupa with her artistic makeup skills so that he may go undercover. But rather that being that, her character becomes a vessel in which Pupa violates her.  He literally tells her to her face that he wants to “put his penis inside of her vagina.” To some people that would be funny, but the reality of it is not so funny. If a man I did not know said that to my face I would feel gross, but for some reason film writers continually write female characters that remain silent – almost oblivious – to the fact they are being violated by men (same scenario with April O’Neil on TMNT). 

Let’s be Cops perpetuates the same theme over and over again: the ability to get away with the worst behaviors possible. It may appear to be a bromance film, and in many ways it is, but it is a bromance film that condones bad behaviors with no real consequence.   The concern in watching the film goes beyond the childish comedic tone, and into its lack of accountability.  In the end the two men experience no severe consequences for their actions because officer Segers (Rob Riggle) simply vouches for them – Justin becomes a successful gamer and Ryan become a police officer; a very disturbing reality that many can resonate in Ferguson.  Ryan had the most unhinged characteristics and a desire to prove his manhood that it often leads him and Justin to go too far.  I found myself saying “thank god he’s not a real cop,” but of course the film ends with Ryan graduating from the police academy – how many Ferguson police officers are just like Ryan? In Justin’s case, he had lied to the woman he liked – Joise – but in the end, all he had to do was simply apologize for his insensitive behavior and he – the usually bashful and geeky man child – would win the hot girl of his dreams.  This film is what I call, the average Joe’s wet dream; getting away with the most ridiculous stunts in order to test their manhood with no real consequence and still getting what they want.   

If you are not a fan of Jake Johnson and Damon Wayans Jr. from their New Girl gig then this film might be best seen on DVD. There is nothing inspiring about a tired narrative of two bro dudes learning to love each other by being fake cops.  

TMNT: The New Reboot Review

Front: Michelangelo, Leonardo; Back: Raphael, Donatello in the best scene of the whole film.

Warning: Spoilers

On the heels of a sequel announcement the popularity of the reboot of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (TMNT) is no surprise.  After years of Marvel dominating the box office with their slew of superheroes, moviegoers have been craving something different.  Mutant turtles are very different; they are 65 million dollars domestically different. The Ninja turtles are remnants of childhood memories for many older generations, and a fresh reminder of the 90’s for the newly discovered.  I am one of those 90’s kids that grew up on the ninja turtles so for me this was like revisiting my childhood, and so I had high hopes, but not high expectations that it would fulfill the glory days of the old TMNT.  It wasn’t everything I wanted, but with that in mind I still enjoyed the distinct characterization of the four teenage mutant bro dudes; Leonardo (blue mask) the authoritative boss, Michelangelo (orange mask) the free spirited punster, Raphael (red mask) the sarcastic bad boy, and Donatello (purple mask) the tech savvy genius.   

But unlike the 90’s version where the turtles were live action skater punks that shouted cowabunga at everything, these CGI mutants were just that, mutant.  Their appearance is more like low riding souped up Cadillacs on steroids.  Taller than the originals, the new version of the beloved franchise makes the teenagers look like a quartet of hyper-masculine surfer dudes you’d see pumping iron in Venice beach.   The hardcore “brah-mance” is this generation’s re-imagined definition of adolescent machismo, but their incessant juvenile behavior is expected since they are teenagers, and like most teenage males they favor more brawn than brains – unless you’re Donatello, but even he is drawn up as a rough riding bouncer than the typical “nerd.”  Yet, the troupe is gleefully entertaining. 

In contrast to the callow virility, the chance to recreate April O’Neil as a badass heroine in her own right fell short to disappointing.   Despite being an integral part of the storyline – the turtles Hogosha (guardian) – April is consistently dismissed as she attempts to transform herself into a serious journalist.  Any attempts to speak on a subject matter that is beyond the superficial her coworkers make fun of her.  Her boss, Bernadette (Whoopi Goldberg) does the same, and in the course of proving herself, April frequently encounters characters that reduce her to a sexual pun. 

“I can feel my shell tightening,” says Michelangelo upon first meeting April, which is an obvious euphemism for someone’s dick getting hard.  Through the course of the film, Michelangelo constantly hits on April and calls “dibs” on her as if she were to be a prize between the four souped up turtle bros.  The construction of April’s character as a badass is made worse when Michelangelo says “my girlfriend is totes the hogosha.” She is immediately imprinted as the “girlfriend” and her roles as the guardian becomes nothing more than a cursory mention.  This causes her significance to dwindle as she remains silent on the matter.  The reason why this is worse is because later on when Vernon (Will Arnett) April’s cameraman joins in he makes several comments that keep reducing her further to nothing more than an empty plot device. 

First, he consistently makes comments about her beauty, “nothing like dropping off a pretty girl at a rich guy’s house,” in which April is simply seen as a shallow plastron, but when the truth is finally revealed that there are in fact mutant turtle vigilantes, he echoes, again, what everyone thought, “I still can’t believe you’re not crazy.  How crazy is that?”  It’s as if film writers are confessing to us that their vision of women in film is simply to write them as mere crazy sexbots that will satisfy horny teenage boys (seemingly the only target audience these days).  It feels unfathomable for male writers to accept that women in film can be constructed to have more agency as a character.  April’s word cannot be taken seriously unless it is validated by a male character – in this case Vernon the terribly misguided schmuck. 

He then further perpetuates this fedora wearing douchebag persona by implying she is a “complicated chick” when Michelangelo once again openly and discomfortingly hits on her.  What exactly is the implication?  That should there be competition between two male characters – one very much a nonhuman – something must be wrong with April?  Why does she never correct them or call them out; would this make her too much of a “strong character?” It’s as if the responsibility of being a grown ass adult male is shifted to the female protagonist where her silence is written to condone this unfledged behavior.   

Because the complexity of female characters is too much to understand for male writers they must reduce them to something more “manageable.”  This is exemplified perfectly in a gratuitous shot of April’s behind during a chase scene.  It’s not actually funny to anyone but immature writers that a man sexualizes a female coworker while they nearly avert death in a snowy mountain while being chased by a gang of villains.  Now, I understand that many of the jokes were supposed to be funny, but there were too many at the expense of April, which sadly ruins the joy of reliving TMNT.

But let’s talk main plot; unoriginal, the story is as old as human existence; money.  Everything is about money.  By taking Power and control via poisoning New York City it will allow for the commodification of an antidote.  However, to make the antidote Eric Sacks (William Fitchner) and the foot clan require the blood of the ninja turtles.  “We will be gods” Sacks says.  A translucent statement of what a patriarchal society looks like, of what men in this world are supposed to look like.  Coveting a place in the world, men colonize the environment around them.  It’s a very toxic behavior, but it is socialized as normal for men.   99% of films always have this theme, and I can’t say I am surprised, yet I will say, however glossy the work of cinematic art is, using this tired narrative tends to do a disservice for popular franchises. 

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles isn’t a film meant to comment on social issues in today’s world, but it is a film for the everyday filmgoer that is looking to turn off their brain for an hour or so and simply enjoy a fun ride.  I enjoyed it for what it was and so will you.

Lucy in the sky with her 10%

Lucy (Scarlett Johansson) is in the sky with no diamonds

I usually never read into the hype of any film before viewing it to avoid potential spoilers, however now that I have watched Lucy I feel I can sufficiently contribute my two cents.  Walking into the theater I kept in mind only enough chatter to keep me aware of its problematic racial connotations.  Though I am from the Asian continent I am not of Asian lineage, and cannot – with full confidence – speak on behalf of anyone that identifies as Asian.  So this review is not so much about the construction and deconstruction of racism within the film of Lucy, but rather my minute perspective on what was evoked by what I saw. 

To have female leads in popular films – films that get wide distributions – can be marred by the lack of true female representation.  Often times with popular films that have female leads the whiteness of the skin becomes embodied in the women who morph into vehicles – plot devices – for white male filmmakers.  It is done so – in my opinion, to solicit excitement, to be edgy without trying too hard.   Action films like these always carry pellucid images of villains and heroes, which can run the risk of creating a flat story that perpetuates stereotypes. 

The loss of humanity in Lucy makes her a one dimensional character with very little complexities.  The lack of emotions makes the film rather boring despite Scarlett Johansson doing the best with what she was given.  The only time the film tried to have a heart was during a phone call Lucy makes to her mother while she’s having surgery to remove the punctured bag containing the drugs.  Even that scene was emotionally empty.  I was unable to connect to the plight of Lucy if even her mother sounded disinterested.  The film tries to do too much at once; posing numerous existential questions that in the end never get answered.  By the films conclusion I left the theater wondering, “So what was the point?”  and how accurate is the science of Lucy? 

In my own minor research of other critiques of Lucy I found one consistent phrase: white feminism – a kind of feminism that excludes women of color to focus on issues that pertain to white women.  The controversy surrounding this phrase is valid, and those critiquing the film have the merit to point it out.  However, the problem with this notion is that despite the groups of white feminists applauding a film with a “strong female protagonist” while ignoring the films racist undertones, it was not white feminists that wrote and directed the film.  Luc Besson – the director and writer – is a white Parisian man in his 50’s.   It is his vision we are seeing on screen, and he writes what he knows, and what he knows to be a “strong female character” is not inclusive to any people of color.  White feminists who are excited over a female lead in Lucy have their elation marred by a skewed vision of themselves through the lens of male – often times white – writers.  I don’t consider the film Lucy to be a feminist film or a progressive film in the right direction. 

Besson and other white, male writers will never be able to accurately portray any minority groups, and while I definitely encourage fellow critics to continue the discussion on racism within films, I want to remind myself and you of a quote from Toni Morrison, “If there is a book you want to read, but hasn’t been written yet, then you must write it.”  In the case of filmmaking the same principle can be applied.  We cannot, as different groups of minorities and nationalities, expect to have our experiences be represented in film when the final products are written and created by the dominant group whose experiences are of the more privileged nature.  The best way to counter these xenophobic films is to use the same art form to make movies that represent you.  Write books, comic books, paint art that gives a voice to your experiences because unfortunately racism, sexism, homophobia and all other repressive structures will continue to exist no matter how hard you argue or point your fingers.  Lucy is only one example of many problematic things in pop culture.  You can still go see it and enjoy it as a film patron, but always remember that movies are not just pure entertainment; they are a reflection of society.  

On The (Galactic) Western Front: The Guardians of the Galaxy Review

Nebula (Karen Gillan) and Gamora (Zoe Saldana) needed more screen time

Warning: There are spoilers

Earth 1988 – not only the year of my birth, but the start of Peter Quill’s story according to Marvel’s highly anticipated new film Guardians of the Galaxy.  The film is a space western with Quill (Chris Pratt) as the main, jocose protagonist.   Along with his companions Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Rocket (Bradley Cooper), Groot (Vin Diesel) and Drax (Dave Batista) become reluctant heroes as they face off – or should I say – dance off with Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace).  Amidst the glossy and pulchritudinous cinematography the film exhibits some familiar and conventional themes.  Power, control, domination, greed, revenge are all the usual suspects.  Honorable death within the context of war – self-sacrifice for the better good – is also a major theme with superhero movies.  Guardians of the Galaxy was a fun film to watch, and I would like to give you some of my thoughts. Be aware that I am not basing my review on any knowledge of the comic books, but purely from what I already know and have seen on screen.  This is also not a negative review so do not fret Marvel fans.  I am simply pointing out what I noticed. 
               

First off, Peter.  He is the Flynn Rider of space; a whimsical guy with a penchant for tunes from the 70’s and an outlaw name – Star Lord – that everyone mispronounces (don’t call him star prince). It seems like they tried to paint him like an anti-hero ala Tony Stark – minus Stark’s bank funds – because in the opening sequence, once he was back on his ship, an unsuspecting Quill is surprised to see a one night stand – whose name he cannot recall; typical – pop up as he escapes.  I get that it’s supposed to be funny, and the audience I saw it with laughed, but it honestly seemed unnecessary to create a lothario persona with Quill because Chris Pratt’s performance apart from that would have been enough to carry the film without filmmakers resorting to a tired, sexist narrative.  The female aboard the ship remains a nameless plot device, and I didn’t like it.

                As the part of Quill’s charm he makes several pop culture references that audiences would be familiar with such as the mutant ninja turtles, John Stamos, footloose and Kevin Bacon.  He even references famous outlaws like Billy the kid and Bonnie and Clyde, which reinforces the American outlaw cowboy myth.  As part of his constructed masculinity, Peter is a romanticized ideal of individualistic freedom.  A lone ranger with questionable motives, which can glamorize his bad boy behavior while highlighting his humor.  He’s basically the sole representation of human beings within this galaxy, and true to male form he’s a dude that makes dick jokes.  I would say he’s the galactic western frontier version of Captain America, though Steve Rogers would never make dick jokes; it would be unpatriotic of him.

As part of this American outlaw masculine construction, a direct opposite of Quill is Yondu Udonta (Michael Rooker) whose ship kidnaps Peter at the start of the film.  For twenty odd years Peter has been working for Yondu and his crew, which presumably has led to one misadventure after another due to Peter’s rebellious nature.  Yondu is interestingly called out for being “too soft” in always keeping Peter alive.  The crew constantly tells Yondu to kill him or punish him severely, but Yondu does not though he portrays himself like a ruthless pirate of sorts.  Even in space – a world far from our own – compassion is an undesirable trait for male characters.  It’s a world where Yondu has to pretend to be as vicious has his reputation in order to maintain leadership, and that can tell us a lot on how society views men. 

Ronan the Accuser also has a reputation to hold.  He is a one dimensional character whose sole purpose is to seek revenge for the death of his father and grandfather. Violence is always an underlining feature in men, and though Ronan may be of an alien race called Kree, he is still a male bodied person who inhabits humanized masculine traits.  His desire for revenge comes from brewed hatred not unlike our own.  He is terribly wounded by his loss, but he is driven by his need to dominate and desolate everyone that stands in his way – this means he’s all about genocide.  He is not a sympathetic character, but a total villain, and ultimate power is what he wants. 

But perhaps the most sinister character of them all – the most vile and villainous – wasn’t a main character, but a side character.  When we first meet The Collector (Benicio Del Toro) at the end of Thor the Dark World not much is distinguished of what kind of person he is, but in Guardians of the Galaxy he is established further, and I was particularly troubled by his nefarious temperament.  He uses his position to enslave female servants as well as cage them shall they disappoint him.  The way he spoke to his nameless servant – how he demanded her to use her elbows – was quite reminiscent of abusive language, and for me, on a deeply personal level, that scene with the collector was agitating. It almost was no surprise when his servant sacrifices herself to end her pain.  

Regardless of what the scene made me feel it does serve a purpose to remind us that once again, despite the alternate universe in which more than just humans coexist, there is a polarization of the sexes. I mean, you would think that science fiction or fantasy stories do elaborate more on different perspectives of not only gender expressions but on homosexuality and race relations, but I truly do not expect big studio films such as these to make any commentary on any of these subjects within its timelines – not because I don’t think they can’t, but because we have become so absorbed in ourselves that we can hardly fathom more than what we have already created.    Though, it does become exhausting to watch the same story with different characters.  I thought it was particularly telling of the galaxy’s perception on gender when Rocket tells Groot to “learn “genders” as if male and female is a universal concept that would dominate all life forms outside of planet earth.  It’s something to think about when letting your mind consume different worlds. 

I was convinced that I would not like Rocket the anthropomorphic raccoon before watching the film, but he (along with Groot) became one of my favorite characters.  It wasn’t his one liners and comedic timing that gave Rocket a very human heart, but his confession while in drunken stupor.  “I didn’t ask to be made like this,” he says while arguing with Drax.  Being a laboratory experiment, I couldn’t help but imagine Rocket through the lens of Frankenstein’s monster.  An unwanted creation that now has to face adversity in a scrambled universe.  It becomes painfully clear how much Rocket uses his humor to mask the struggle he has endured, which is not different from many of us.  This is what film can do – it takes an animated creature that once existed solely in the imagination of a writer, and personified its humanness that now he is a part of our psyche. Though, I still wonder, how is a film studio like Marvel able to give a nonhuman character more depth than most of its female characters?   

I don’t know about you, but with all the hype I saw for Nebula and Gamora I was anticipating something more than what I got.  Their scenes together showed the vast difference in the sisters, but it wasn’t enough for me.  I wanted a more drawn out fight sequence.  I wanted their heart to heart talk that took place on intercom microphones to have taken place when they were in the middle of hand to hand combat.  I think that would have been more effective in showing their drastic polarization with more humanity and character.  I mean, if you can give a talking raccoon a scene where his agency is established then I think you can give me a scene with sisters that had more dimension.  I particularly loved the scene when Thanos calls Gamora his favorite daughter.  The stoic expression on Nebula’s face and sarcastic remark gave me, as an audience member, a more understanding of the rift between the two characters.  I wish this was explored more within the film.  I would exchange the dick jokes and nameless one night stand for more Nebula and Gamora. 

I read an article over at Bitch Flicks about Nicole Pearlman, the co-writer of Guardians of the Galaxy.  It is wonderful to know a woman had some level of say in writing the film, but I am also frustrated that it is commonly still complicated to write science fiction stories without a hint of sexism affecting the ability to truly enjoy Marvel movies.  But I feel like a lot of us have this problem – one we all have accepted because we still love all the characters.  I always have to remind people as well as myself that it is okay to like something problematic so long as you understand why it is. 
While there are no shortage of women writers there is a lack of confidence in making female lead comic book adaptations, and I believe that studios think that female lead movies will fail.  When they do they say women can’t sell films, but they never accept this same logic to other franchises lead by male actors.  How many times have they made a batman movie, or a superman movie? (I know both films are from DC comics, but still it’s the principle of it).  How many of you debate which of these the better version is?  Do you ever once say, “No, men can’t sell movies because this version of batman failed or this version of superman failed?”  And even if you don’t want any more versions of a certain franchise film you’ll still endure more sequels and prequels and side projects than you can stomach, but studios still are reluctant to make a superhero movie about wonder woman or black widow. 
In all honestly I won’t be satisfied until we have an Avengers style film where all the heroes are females.

However, despite all I’ve ranted I still enjoyed the film, and I do recommend to “come and get your love” for the Guardians of the Galaxy – the space western of the Marvel universe.  It will have you “hooked on a feeling” with its music and a baby Groot with so much swag it will groove with all your feels. 

Also, the post credit scene is highly disappointing.  I was hoping for a clip that eluded to the next marvel film, but instead they gave us Howard the Duck, and I don't know how many of you remember Howard the Duck, but that fool was ridiculous is the worst ways.  Stay or don't stay for the scene, but don't expect much.

I Origins: Of Life After Life through the Eyes

            The eyes, it has been said, are the windows to the soul.  We create a world based on our perception; what we see is what we think, or so we say.  Through film humans have the capability to explore different aspects our very existence.  Searching for the essence of our being through the eyes – more specifically the patterns of the iris – the film I Origins attempts to question, without naming it, the notion of reincarnation. 
                Ian Gray (Michael Pitt) is a scientist trying to disprove the concept of god by using science to recreate the eye.  My scientific understanding is limited, but the theory seems to be should man be able to construct sight for an organism (worms in the case of this film) that cannot see then evolution is more than just a theory. 
                The film neither accepts nor discredits the idea of evolution or creationism, but simply suggests that the spirit which makes a person unique – their soul – does not entirely die with the body but is born again in a different form.  When Ian meets Sofi (Astrid Berges-Frisbey) with a set of distinct iris’ he asks if he may take photos of them (a habit he has taken up for scientific research).  Soon the two make a connection and fall in love. Filmmaking is a particular form of voyeuristic art that looks behind the hidden door of everyday routine.   For this reason the way their romance was shot became endearing; given this sense of authenticity and realism, you fall in love with them too.
                But, however great their romance is – and it is – they both realize how different they are, too.  Ian has science based logic whereas Sofi maintains faith in a god she cannot see. On their would-be wedding day the two argue about faith and science, and Sofi says “it’s dangerous to play god.”  Light exists but the worms cannot see it, and manipulating their genetic makeup to give them the ability to see would turn their whole world upside down.  Similarly, Sofi explains, are humans.  Just because you cannot see god does not mean god does not exist. 
                Ian’s conviction in his science would be immediately tested on that would-be wedding day when their elevator would become stuck.  In this scene, Sofi suffers a horrific death.  It creates the film’s most impressive shot for its false sense of security and aesthetic noiseless void of Ian’s fading screams.  It will no doubt leave you without breath.  But despite how effective the shot was I consider it a toneless plot device that demands the death of a female before the male protagonist – Ian – can spring into life.
                Upon Sofi’s death, Ian’s lab partner, Karen (Brit Marling) becomes his crutch who then becomes his lover and later his pregnant wife. And though it has been seven years since Sofi has died the filmmakers of I origin attempt to remind the audience that Ian is still affected.  How?  In poor taste; Ian begins to masturbate to old videos of him and Sofi.  When Karen walks in she believes she stumbled upon her husband viewing regular porn.  The situation is worse because of Karen’s naiveté, but also it’s a painful reminder that Ian has always loved Sofi more.  Even when he tells Karen that the reason behind his action was because he never had closure it’s still just in poor taste. 
             Are we to feel sympathy for Ian because his would-be wife from seven years ago died rather than leave him?  Would this scene with his wife Karen be creepier if Sofi was still alive?  I had a lot of feels that were not good feels about the construction of Ian’s character at that moment.  He certainly did not help himself by saying he just never got closure.  So what, dude?  Lots of us don’t get closure with our ex’s who are no longer in our lives it doesn’t mean we masturbate to their videos.  I felt secondhand hurt for Karen, but she too did not help herself.
             The matter of reincarnation is not introduced until after Karen gives birth to their son, and long after that masturbation scene.  Retinal scanning has become the norm in society and everyone whose eyes are scanned is placed in a database.  When their son Tobias is scanned the computer recognizes his iris’ as black farmer from Idaho.  Of course, the nurse dismisses this as a simple glitch in the system. After some time passes Ian and Karen get a phone call from a Dr. Simmons (Cara Seymour) who claims she needs to run tests on Tobias on the suspicion of having autism.  Once the couple puts two and two together they conclude that Dr. Simmons’ theory might be plausible, but only after they run their own experiment with the help of their former lab partner and creator of the retinal scanning, Kenny (Steven Yeun).  It turns out that Sofi’s exact iris patters exist in an Indian girl named Salomina. 
                Karen incredulously insists Ian to pursue this matter further by going to India to meet with this young girl.  What I wondered is how much of Karen’s persistence was driven by scientific desire versus her desire of giving her husband the “closure” he said he never had.  I believe she was sending him off to get closure so that once and for all she could have her husband to herself and not half her husband still in love with Sofi. 
                Once in India it takes a few weeks before Ian finds Salomina, who is established as an orphan living on the streets.  When he does finally find her he takes her to his hotel room (already strange that no one questions this even though we know his motives are more innocent) and does a quick experiment with Karen on skype.  To test this theory of reincarnation Ian asks Salomina to pick between items on a photo.  The items include things that related to Sofi such as favorite food, animal, relatives, and finally a picture of Sofi herself.  The scene upset me because it was not an experiment in a controlled environment like Dr. Simmons had done to Tobias, but rather every time Salomina selected an item Ian would say out loud “correct” or “incorrect.” 
                It was very obvious that Salomina, a poor girl who probably hadn’t had a decent meal for some time, was straining to get the answers correct.  At the conclusion of the experiment when Salomina asks in her broken English, “I made bad test?”  It becomes clear that the theory of reincarnation is inconclusive. However, towards the end when Ian and Salomina prepare to leave rather take the stairs as they had done coming up, Ian decides to take the elevators.  It is at this moment that Salomina cries and screams in fear of it.  The filmmakers are trying to suggest that by the simple act of trepidation in Salomina of an elevator that Sofi’s spirit does reside inside the little girl. 
                Though I disliked the way Ian ran his experiment, I do like that the film did not try to give an answer to either side of the argument.  Rather, the film simply offers the chance for the audience to have faith like Ian in something unexplainable.  Is there such a thing like reincarnation? We will never know. There is no concrete answer, but faith for those who believe.  The film poses deep, existential questions to life, but it is still ascribes to the same kinds of narratives we have seen.  There was nothing that inspired me to recommend this film to others, but I do not discourage people from seeing it. 
                I will say that in post credits there was an alluring scene in which Dr. Simmons is running the retinal scans of most prominent people of history and finding potential matches.  I would like to see a film based off Dr. Simmons and her team finding these people.  Imagine what would you do if you believe in reincarnation and met someone with the exact iris patters of John F. Kennedy or Sylvia Plath?  What is the next step after finding these people?  How would you try to encourage remembering a past life? How do you even measure it?  Can you?  It’s a bushel full of question I would love to see in the next film I would like to call “The Secret I (eye) Spy sequel.”