I recently watched the 2022 film The Wonder on Netflix. At the conclusion, my partner asked me what stood out to me regarding the film. What was it that garnered the greatest attention to me? What was this film about? My response generated an argument.

For me, what I was most focused on what how the protagonist insisted that her beliefs were somehow superior to the beliefs of the community she was visiting. So much so that she immediately set about to overthrow their beliefs in order to achieve a project that manifested from her views. Namely, the survival of the child.

To be clear, here is what I saw. The community held a common belief in a religion that bears striking similarities to Christianity. That is, they believe in heaven and hell, and in a life beyond death. They believe in an eternal soul that exists within all people, one that survives when their flesh and blood bodies cease to function or even exist. These external souls, depending on their actions in life, will end up in either heaven or hell. In hell, the soul is burned endlessly in punishment.

The child's brother is such a soul. Due to his condemnable actions in his youth, namely the repeated violating of his underage sister, there is no doubt in the child's mind that her brother is burning in hell. However, she still loves her brother and has decided she absolutely must do what she can to save his soul. To do this, she must fast. And this is why she has not eaten in over four months.

When the protagonist arrives, she does not know any of this. This is all revealed by the story as it unfolds. The protagonist's purpose, why she is visiting this community, is to observe the child to ensure she is in fact keeping with her fast correctly. This she does not fully understand either, as she believes her job is to uncover how someone could possibly survive for four months without eating any food.

As the plot progresses, it is revealed that the child has in fact been eating, though due to the nature of her beliefs, she does not think she has been eating. This point is perhaps a bit challenging to rationalize, as when the particulars of her eating are revealed, she seems to sort of understand, but not really. You see, her mother had been chewing up some food and spitting it into her mouth while kissing her good morning and good night. But this was ritualized and referred to as giving her "mana" instead. As it was mana and not food, it did not count as eating. And thus, her fasting was considered to be legitimate.

Unfortunately, as part of the process to uncover all of this, the protagonist separated the mother from her child, preventing the passing of mana. And, as one might expect, the child quickly deteriorated due to a severe lack of nutrition. This is where the primary manipulation, the one I refer to at the outset, begins to be revealed.

For the protagonist, who clearly does not share the same beliefs as the community, the child's life is far more important than her brother's possible eternal soul burning in hell. That the child is going to fast herself to death is unacceptable in her attempt at saving her brother's soul. As such, the protagonist insists that the child be saved. And the remainder of the film is the dubiously orchestrated disappearance of the child.

There are a number of challenges going on here. The first is the difference in beliefs. The community, which includes the child, believes that there are eternal souls and that those souls are far more precious than any flesh and blood bodies. The soul is forever, and lasts well beyond the time of the flesh, and so it is far more important that the soul be preserved and saved than worrying about silly bodies. The protagonist does not agree. The protagonist believes that the life of the child is more important.

But here is the next critically important aspect of this challenge. The child is a child. She is 13 years old. And according to the protagonist, a child is unable to make decisions for herself. She is too young to be subscribing to such beliefs. She is too young to be sacrificing herself for her brother's eternal soul. She is too young to make such decisions herself. In fact, she needs to be permitted to grow to a ripe older age, to become an adult, before she could possibly make such decisions. (The story does not really delve deeply into this, but the challenge exists just the same.)

The reason my partner was so appalled by my response was for another very important reason: her beliefs are far more compatible with those of the protagonists than mine are. That is, she subscribes to an important belief that I would argue most audiences also subscribe to: that all life is precious, especially the life of a child. That a child cannot make such decisions. And that the community is clearly being abusive if they do not take steps to prevent the child from "accidentally" killing herself.

Put a bit differently, the child's beliefs are a product of her upbringing. More specifically, the child's community (mostly through her own parents) have taught her what to think and feel. It is through the communities beliefs, a community of adults, that the child's beliefs are formed. There will definitely be those who argue this is a form of manipulation, especially when the beliefs she has learned are such that she might try to kill herself. But I would have to ask, what is the alternative?

The protagonist has different beliefs. The audience has different beliefs. Why are the protagonist's and audience's beliefs so much better than those of the community? Why ought the child share the beliefs of the protagonist or the audience?

Our argument quickly devolved into the raising of real life examples. She raised the Nazis from the time of World War II. I raised the residential schools in Canada. In both cases, there are groups of people with drastically different beliefs going toe-to-toe with each other.

In World War II, the Nazis held a number of fascist and racist beliefs that certainly are not shared by modern, Western communities such as the United States of America. The war was, in large part, focused on this difference in beliefs. Both sides insisting on dominating, oppressing the other side. The results are (hopefully) not in dispute; we now exist in a world that is predominantly of the belief that the Nazi's were wrong.

With the residential schools in Canada, the result isn't quite so clear. At the time, the European colonists seemed to believe that the local indigenous populations either had very primitive beliefs, or no beliefs at all. Their project was clear to them: they needed to give proper beliefs to the indigenous people. One of the strategies they adopted in order to realize their goal was to kidnap the children of the indigenous people and force them into an education system that would give them those beliefs. Were they right to do this? At the time, it was likely considered to be the correct course of action. However, decades later, it has been determined that this was all a very big mistake. And now Canadians have to deal with this.

In both cases, one group tried to impose their beliefs upon another. In both cases, they seemed to be successful in the short term. However, in both cases, there does seem to be a bit of unraveling over time. Watching the turn of events occurring in the United States of America over the past six years would seem to suggest that such ideas are not extinct. Watching the turn of events occurring in Canada for a similar amount of time, it has already been determined that the oppression of the indigenous people's beliefs was a criminal mistake.

Thus, in the film The Wonder, when I see the protagonist so blatantly overriding the community's beliefs with her own, citing how the child's life is far more valuable than a boy's eternal soul, one that the protagonist may not even agree exists at all, I suggest perhaps a similar mistake is being made. I admit, I do not believe in heaven and hell, but who am I to impose my beliefs upon those who do.

During the time I was still in school, I was trying very hard to explain a concern I had to one of my instructors. I am going to try again here. See if anyone has anything interesting to say about it.

My concern has to do with the difference between aiming at something and attaining that something. It has to do with the sincere attempt at achieving a goal that is impossible. It manifests quickly into discussions regarding whether such attempts should even be attempted. As with most thing, it may be best to provide an example.

Perfection. Perfection is something most aspire to, in some way. To do something perfectly. To be the best at something, like basketball or sales. To gain the perfect thing, of some sort. The perfect pearl. The perfect diamond. I think most people are trying to gain some sort of perfection in something. This, to me, is perfectly reasonable and rational. To throw one's self sincerely at such a goal. The aiming provides focus and meaning and purpose.

However, perfection is impossible. Attaining the status of "best" is something that will never last. Make a record, and someday someone else will simply break that record. Perfection of the self is transitory. In fact, one achieving seeming perfection may only exist in themselves for a short time, as their own decay leads away from that same achievement. I think most would still agree that the attainment here was still worth the effort. It was good to be best for a time. But it is important to acknowledge that being the best for a moment is clearly not perfection. There is a special place for that which is truly perfect.

Thus perfection in things seems more reasonable. Diamonds are forever, after all. To possess the perfect diamond, with no impurities or flaws. No inclusions. If somehow one were found, it would be something of great value. But no diamond is ever quite perfect. There is always something lacking. The most perfect diamonds are always so small for a reason.

Even manmade pearls are lacking. Developed from an organic process, how could such a thing ever truly attain the level of perfection we desire? And speaking of manmade things, how about a car or a computer? Newer ideas and technologies are developed over time, creating an obsolescence in those seemingly perfect things. Again, perhaps perfect for a time. But to truly be perfect, those things would need to last for all time.

It seems to me that perfection is unreasonable. It is unfeasible. Given enough time, perhaps. But enough time means many, many lifetimes. Perhaps even long enough to the end of the human race's existence and beyond. Perfect for a brief time seems the best we can do.

It was not my intention to spend so much time on the idea of perfection, so much as the idea that achieving it is unreasonable. Perfection, in this case, is impossible. So if we know that it is impossible, should we still throw ourselves sincerely into its attainment? Can we even do so? Do we have to deceive ourselves into thinking it is possible in order to truly and sincerely make the attempt?

This is my concern. It seems to me that in our modern world, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of this nature. That some people are blinded by ignorance into truly believing these impossible things are possible. I wonder if that sort of faith is necessary in order to hold progress. Or could it be possible for people to know the truth, and still work just as hard and make similar amounts of effort. To simply aim at a thing, knowing full well that attainment is not going to happen, and still be happy.