Safe Haven (2013)

[Demetrius Dade]

Ihad no plans to see Safe Haven. I wasn't covering the movie for any particular reason, and it seemed, from the trailer and word of mouth, like one I could safely skip. Then I started hearing vague references to its twist ending. Then Matt Singer at IndieWire wrote a piece arguing that maybe some movies should be spoiled in advance -- since knowing that a given twist ending is this ludicrous might convince you to spend money on Safe Haven. After researching what this twist ending actually was, I spent money on Saturday to see Safe Haven.

Let me start by saying that I am not at all disappointed with my decision -- the ending was just as bizarre as advertized. Though, I'm fairly certain my fellow audience members who were there to see a well-constructed story do not share my sentiments. Walking out, I overheard a woman who looked to be in her late 60s ask her husband, "Can you believe it was that bad?" (In response, he shrugged.)

As you saw in the title of this post, we are going to discuss the ending of Safe Haven at length. I suspect you are in one of two camps at this point: (a) you are a Nicholas Sparks fan and you've seen Safe Haven, or (b) you have no intentions of seeing Safe Haven or, if you do, it's only because you're being forced to see it. If you are in the latter group, you may want to stick around.

Julianne Hough plays Katie, a woman on the run who finds, yes, safe haven in North Carolina. What she is running from, we're not sure at first. It appears that she's on the run from the police and, through some misleading flashbacks, it does appear that Katie killed someone -- there's even an APB out for her arrest on murder charges. But, you see, there is a twist! (Not the twist, though.) It turns out that the police officer obsessed with finding Katie is her husband. And it turns out that Katie didn't kill anyone, she only slightly stabbed her husband in self-defense because he's an abusive drunk.

It's funny, when I first started hearing about "the twist," I assumed it would turn out to be the false murder rap. (Like the husband at the movie theater would later do, I shrugged.) Boy, I was wrong.

So, once Katie gets to North Carolina, she befriends a widower named Alex, played by Josh Duhamel. She also befriends her new neighbor, Jo, played by Cobie Smulders. For 80 percent of the movie, it's just scene after scene of Typical Movie Romance -- there are floor painting and conversations about kale. All the while, Katie confides her feelings toward Alex to her new friend, Jo. (This is your last chance to stop reading before we get to the twist.)

So, Jo is a ghost. And not just any ghost; she's the ghost of Alex's dead wife, who wants to make sure that Katie is a serviceable replacement. Now, again, I knew this before I saw Safe Haven, but knowing didn't make the movie any less absurd. (During the reveal, the crowd let out an audible groan.) I couldn't help but wonder what supernatural rules govern the universe of this movie. I mean, the first time we meet Jo, she's peering into the window of Katie's home and seems genuinely startled when Katie sneaks up on her from behind. (Is this possible? Can a living human not only sneak up on a ghost but startle a ghost?) I suppose some clues are there: Jo seems very interested in Alex, Joe never participates in any group events, Jo watches passively (or dickishly) as Katie paints her floor with no help.

This is one of the most insane twists that I've ever seen in a movie. Not because it's a great twist, but because it's so out of left field. Actually, the rather pedestrian notion of "left field" doesn't do this justice. It's more out of left of left field -- you know, where the ball boy sits waiting for foul balls to scoop up and toss into the stands. It's as if that guy all of a sudden came up with this twist. I mean, there is nothing about the tone of Safe Haven that would ever make you think that one of the main characters is a ghost.

Aside from those totally true examples, Safe Haven has the most absurd ending to a movie that I can remember. Adding to this, when Katie realizes that she befriended a ghost, it does not faze her in the least. The look her face seems to say, Huh. Wadd'ya know?

I am not suggesting that you see Safe Haven based on this twist alone -- but I am kind of suggesting that you see Safe Haven based on this twist alone. It's weird. If my mindset had been, "I want to see a romantic movie that made me cry," I would have walked out just as disappointed as the woman I mentioned earlier. But! Going in with the mindset of, "I want to see this batshit-crazy ending for myself that I've been hearing about all week," well, Safe Haven delivered beyond my wildest dreams.

Any DC resident who is the parent of a newborn less than 14 days old may give the infant to workers at any hospital in DC, all of which are desigated safe havens. The surrendering parent does not have to give his or her name. The parent may provide a health history to help the baby, but doing so is optional. As long as the infant is unharmed, the parent will not face any legal consequences.

Since beginning in Texas in 1999, all state legislatures have enacted Baby Moses laws (infant safe haven laws) to address infant abandonment and infanticide. Safe haven laws generally allow a parent to remain anonymous and shielded from prosecution in exchange for surrendering an unharmed infant to a designated location.

Copyright: 2013 Gcsi et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

However, the interpretation of changes in mean HR is not simple, because stress-induced and motion-induced changes could overlap [18]. Increased physical activity results in elevated HR in dogs [16]; [19]; [20], so we should be careful when relying on HR as a physiological marker for stress.

Heart rate variability (HRV) is a further cardiac parameter that could be used as a sensitive indicator to assess stress, emotional states and mental activity both in humans (e.g. [21]; [22]) and non-human animals (for a review see: [23]). HRV is a conventionally accepted term to describe variations of instantaneous heart beat intervals (RR intervals) and it reflects the changes in the activity of the autonomic nervous system (e.g. sympatho-vagal balance) of the organism [24]; [25].

Psychological states may have an impact on sympatho-vagal balance, thus resulting in changes in HRV in the absence of measurable alteration in heart rate [23]. For example Zupan et al., [26] found no difference in the HR of tail biter pigs and control (not involved in tail biting) animals in a novel object test; meanwhile the HRV of these two groups differed significantly suggesting an altered regulation of the vagal tone. Tail biters had a suppressed parasympathetic tone in comparison to the controls. Furthermore, learning to control an aversive event was not reflected in HR but was associated with an elevated HRV in sheep [27]. Uncontrollability of the environment, however, was mirrored by decreased HRV suggesting greater sympathetic control over the heart.

In dogs the relationship of behaviour and HRV is less known. Bergamasco et al. [28] found very little correlation between HRV measures and the behavioural data. In a study of Maros et al. [20] the standard deviation of the normal to normal intervals (SDNN), which is an indicator of HRV, was affected neither by posture (laying, sitting, standing) nor by movement (slow walk) of the dogs, but a significant elevation of SDNN during orientation to a favourite toy was reported.

In sum, cardiac activity is considered a useful indicator to evaluate stress in both humans and animals, it thus seems to offer valuable additional information to behavioural observations when we investigate human-analogue phenomena in animals.

All procedures involving dogs and owners were approved by the Ethical Committee of Etvs Lornd University, and conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the Hungarian State Health and Medical Service (XIV-I-001/520-4). The owners undertook the test on a voluntary basis and they were informed that they would participate in a scientific study.

The behavioural observations were carried out at the Family Dog Project laboratory (Etvs Lornd University, Budapest, Hungary) in a 35 m experimental room. Three cameras were used to record the behaviour of the dog; one was placed above the door, to show the dog from the front, and two cameras were placed at the left and right side of the room. A fourth camera was behind the dog, pointing at the door to show when the different episodes started and ended (persons entered or left). A fifth camera was used to record only the sounds. An experimenter controlled the events by watching a TV screen that presented the recordings. With a knocking on the window the experimenter could indicate to the owner or stranger when to leave the experimental room.

Before the start of the experiment the fur of the dog was shaved off in three circles of 5 cm in diameter on the chest. The shaving and fastening of the HR recording equipment on the subject was carried out by the experimenter in a waiting room. Then the owner and the dog were led into the experimental room and the dog could explore for about ten minutes. During this time the experimenter explained to the owner what to do during the episodes. Then the dog was tied by a 1.5-meter long leash to the back wall and the owner sat down on a chair at the wall beside the dog or left the room with the experimenter depending on the test order.

The test included two encounters with the threatening stranger, one in the presence and one in the absence of the owner. In both cases, before and after the encounter the dog was observed in two identical episodes. Two orders were set up to avoid an order effect of the threatening approach. In order A, dogs faced the stranger first in the presence of the owner and later in separation. In the order B dogs were threatened first in separation and then they faced the stranger in the presence of the owner. The threatening approach was enacted by the same unfamiliar female for all subjects.

3a8082e126