Dinner With Friends

Within the playing area of psychology there are branches that explore different types of mankind behaviour. Some of those branches turn their attention to mysterious aspects of the human nature, like for example research into our linguistic faculties, other deal with modeling of various situations to cleanse investigate our individual or concourse modes of action.But perhaps one of the fields of psychology that deals with the realm of human life which is most familiar to us in our e preciseday goings-on is the branch investigating inter psycheal communication. social communication can be most generally go underd as our communication with another mortal or deep down a group of persons. However, this overall description hides the true complexity and variety of the forms that social communication can take.Indeed, to this aspect of our social life we can attribute such fundamental elements of go forth interaction with people as ability to initiate and maintain conversations o r arguments, to listen, to speak privately and publicly, to rejoin and interpret patterns of nonverbal communication, manifest our unconscious modes of communication, and any other skills that actually enable us to be active members of society. At this point, considering the proximity of the phenomenon of interpersonal communication to our everyday life, we may wonder what are the comely ways of study of forms of interpersonal communication?Of course, psychology as a strict science has its have standards and methods of investigation. But at the same time I think that we can become a mass of examples of interpersonal communication happening on a regular basis right before our eyes. To regain this we may turn to the dash Dinner With Friends (2001) directed by Norman Jewison, which provides a toilet of elicit aspects relevant to the theory of interpersonal communication. Let us take a tight-fittingr look and contend such aspects.The painting Dinner With Friends tells a stor y of twain married couples Gabe and Karen, and Beth and tomcat that have been close friends for 12 years, and were go throughing their time over dinners discussing their traffichips, their children, and other matters and interests that friends can share. However, when unexpectedly for Gabe and Karen Beth declares that she and Tom had decided to separate, this number inflicts a levelheaded switch in the pattern of their dealingships.As both couples undergo emotional turmoils it turns out that, ironically, their mutual savor of cooking may be the only thing that remains between them, while their designer friendship is gone. Dinner with Friends is mostly built upon conversations as the vehicle to unfold the story. The personages talk a lot closely different things, from their love of food to their ideas virtually the meaning of life, and the director managed to make dialogues in the plastic film very life-like, akin to those that we would expect from really good friends .In this way, touching upon the theme of the complexity of human transaction that is familiar and important to most of us, the film provides very subtle insights into the nuances of friendship, marriage as a very delicate union between people, and divorce as a force that can have profound impact on lives of people. Now, speaking about interpersonal communication we may immediately begin to find examples of it in the film.Being the direct and the most personal form of interaction, interpersonal communication helps people learn about each other in an intimate way. We can see this in the film, which depicts communication between two people, similarly called dyadic communication. Dyadic communication occurs in privacy between Gabe and Karen, and Beth and Tom, and also between Karen and Beth, and Tom and Gabe, when due to the break-up of their traditional relations tensions develop between these women and men.In this regard, it is interesting to point out that as Gabe and Karen perceiv ed their friendship with Beth and Tom as a close one, after learning about the alleged high treason of Beth by Tom Karen is angry that she had been unaware of the brewing troubles in their marriage. Thus, the previous apparent intimacy of relations between the couples was not completely true, and it could hardly be such. As Karen bitterly says, one can spend the whole life with another person, and in the end it may turn out that the person you full entrusted your fate to is an impostor.To this, Gabe thoughtfully responds But it cant be as simple as that. Indeed, in accordance with the developmental view of interpersonal communication, with time communicators get to know more details about each another, develop ability to partly predict their behavior, and create their own rules of communication. But in the plate of the couples from the movie, it seems that their established rules of communication at some point began to lag behind the changing nature of relationships within couples themselves, as most notably was the case with Beth and Tom.At the same time, being influenced and disturbed by the divorce of friends Gabe and Karen also had to reevaluate their seemingly healthy marriage. This fact hints about another quality of interpersonal communication, which lies in its core group on formation of our self-concepts through confirmation and gradual shift key of our identities. In application to the characters from the film, this can be evidenced by the belief of Gabe and Karen that they knew their friends very well, while in reality this was not the case.And when tensions between couples develop, Beth reevaluates the nature of gifts that Karen, who considered Beth to be a mess, had pictureed to her. In the scene where Beth declares that she has a new lover and Karen advises her to slow down, Beth observes . . . you love it when Im a mess. Every Karen needs a Beth. It is not wonder that such aggressive stance of the person who had been your close friend can s urely influence our self-perception. We also may interpret the interrelations between the characters of the film as representative of the small group communication aspect of interpersonal communication.While it is somewhat difficult to define a small group, some researches propose to consider as small such a group in which each participant can immediately sense and remember the presence of other participants. This commentary suits the situations of the personages of the film Dinner With Friends very well. Judging from this viewpoint, small group communication between the couples can be interpreted as a dynamical process of receiving inputs, processing the information, and issueting certain behavioral modes.Input factors are present even before a group forms, and in our case it is the mutual background of the two couples, as Beth and Tom were in the first place introduced to each other by Gabe and Karen process factors are developments that write out in the process of communicatio n within group, as exemplified in the film by rapid change of the format of individual relations between the personages themselves, and, consequently, between the couples in the aftermath of the break-up between Beth and Tom finally, output factors are end results of the communication, and for Gabe, Karen, Beth, and Tom the end results were different, but in all cases prominent.For Beth and Tom the divorce meant the transformation of their lives, and for Gabe and Karen the separation of their friends from their small group serves as an impetus to come to conscious conclusion that practical matters outgo abandon when it comes to their own family chores. On ground of what we have discussed, we can see that in the end of the film all its personages are deeply affected by the changes in the disposition of their dyadic relations and relations within their small group. In this way, it becomes clear that interpersonal communication has a very important persona for all of us because it ca n influence the most important aspects of our life, friendship and marriage among them.