Brent Marchant's Blog, page 119
May 21, 2016
Check out Today's CoffeeCast
Whats coming to the movies this summer? Check out my metaphysical cinema preview on The CoffeeCast with host Tom Cheevers, today at 1 pm ET/10 am PT on Netroots Radio, by clicking here.
May 18, 2016
‘Money Monster’ surveys lessons in responsibility
“Money Monster” (2016). Cast: George Clooney, Julia Roberts, Jack O’Connell, Dominic West, Caitriona Balfe, Giancarlo Esposito, Christopher Denham, Lenny Venito, Dennis Boutsikaris, Emily Meade, Condola Rashad, Aaron Yoo, Carsey Walker Jr., Greta Lee, Makhaola Ndebele, Darri Ingolfsson. Director: Jodie Foster. Screenplay: Jamie Linden, Alan DiFiore and Jim Kouf. Story: Alan DiFiore and Jim Kouf. Web site. Trailer.
We’re all no doubt aware of the notion that “actions speak louder than words.” However, many of us may be less familiar with the corollary that “consequences speak louder than actions” (even though we’ve often personally felt its impact). So how do we cope with the potentially troublesome effects of this principle? It often comes down to a question of responsibility, a concept explored from multiple angles in the gripping new thriller, “Money Monster.”
As host of the Financial News Network’s Money Monster, Lee Gates (George Clooney) presides over the cable channel’s hottest program. With his singular flair and outlandish showmanship, Gates serves up a daily digest of financial news and stock tips, punctuated by comical sound effects, old movie clips and even an opening dance number, a somewhat exaggerated take on shows like CNBC’s Mad Money. His colorful, high-energy on-screen presence makes him an audience favorite, though his inclinations for ad libs and confrontation frequently try the patience of his producer, Patty Fenn (Julia Roberts), a no-nonsense professional who toils to keep her star in check – and the show on the rails.
Lee Gates (George Clooney) hosts the colorful financial news show Money Monster in director Jodie Foster’s gripping new thriller, “Money Monster.” Photo by Atsushi Nishijima, courtesy © 2016 CTMG, Inc.
When one of Gates’s stock tips, Ibis Clear Capital, suddenly goes bust, he decides to address the issue on air in an interview with the company’s founder, Walt Camby (Dominic West). But, at the last minute, Camby is nowhere to be found. His unexplained disappearance raises some eyebrows and necessitates the implementation of a backup plan, an interview with Ibis’s chief communications officer, Diane Lester (Caitriona Balfe). This makeshift solution is far from ideal, but, as events unfold, it will turn out to be the least of the show staff’s worries.
Not long after the broadcast begins, trouble breaks out. A disgruntled Ibis investor, Kyle Budwell (Jack O’Connell), sneaks onto the set, armed to the teeth. With gun in hand, he takes Gates hostage on air, holding him and Camby responsible for the loss of his $60,000 investment, all of the money he had. And, to show everyone he means business, Budwell forces Gates to don a vest fitted with a bomb and demands to speak with Camby, for whom he has a vest of his own all prepared. He wants reimbursement and apologies for his loss, threatening dire consequences for their failure to comply.
Gates, needless to say, is stunned but struggles to keep calm, thanks in large part to Fenn’s composure to hold it all together. Much of the production staff is evacuated from the studio, and crisis management personnel from the police and Ibis corporate move in to address the situation. And, almost instantaneously, the story blows up into a worldwide phenomenon, with networks around the globe picking up FNN’s live feed. Audiences are captivated as they watch the drama play out, live on the air.
Host Lee Gates (George Clooney, left) and producer Patty Fenn (Julia Roberts, right) frequently disagree on their approaches to the hit financial news show Money Monster in the thrilling new drama, “Money Monster.” Photo by Atsushi Nishijima, courtesy © 2016 CTMG, Inc.
Various solutions are pursued to bring the situation under control. Attempts at negotiation are initiated by New York Police Captain Marcus Powell (Giancarlo Esposito), and even Kyle’s pregnant girlfriend, Molly (Emily Meade), is brought in to try and reason with him. But, as this tense scenario unfolds, it gradually becomes apparent that there’s much more to this story than just a hostage taking, as becomes apparent when Camby suddenly resurfaces, setting up an end game that has to be seen to be believed.
In a situation like this, one might be tempted to ask, “So who’s responsible for all this?” On first glance, it may be tempting to lay the blame squarely at Kyle’s feet. But is he solely at fault? If we take a wider view here, the answer would be “no.” And, in light of that, a more accurate answer to the question posed above would be “everybody.”
Why everybody? Because all of the characters in this multifaceted narrative have a role to play, they all contribute to its unfolding. In terms of conscious creation philosophy – the doctrine that maintains we manifest the reality we experience through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents – the story in “Money Monster” represents a jointly created mass event, one in which multiple parties partake in its materialization. And, of necessity, as conscious creators are well aware, with the act of creation comes the consequence of responsibility, something about which we must always be aware with whatever we manifest.
So how are others besides Kyle responsible? Let’s start with Camby, who created the investment opportunity. By making this stock issuance available, he has a responsibility to his investors in terms of how he structures it and how he conducts the affairs of the company, which will have a bearing on the investment’s returns. Granted, he can’t control everything associated with the investment or with Ibis’s performance, but he has an obligation to act responsibly in handling the offering’s setup and the company’s operation.
While on the air, disgruntled investor Kyle Budwell (Jack O’Connell, foreground) takes financial news show host Lee Gates (George Clooney, background) hostage as revenge for alleged bad investment advice in “Money Monster.” Photo by Atsushi Nishijima, courtesy © 2016 CTMG, Inc.
Then there’s Gates, who disseminates information about the investment and the company. As someone who shares this with the viewing public, he has a responsibility to make available the most accurate and authoritative information he can find. Because he has influence with his audience, he contributes to the formation of their beliefs, the actions they take and the reality they experience, a crucial consideration given that their savings are at stake. However, if he abrogates his responsibility by taking the lazy way out – such as by merely passing along company press release information instead of investigating the organization’s claims directly – he runs the risk of passing along spin in lieu of bona fide data, a potentially misleading approach that could seriously impact the financial well-being of his viewers.
In turn, one could also argue that the investing public has its own responsibility. Failure to look into the stock issuer’s claims by merely following the recommendations of a cable TV guru (who may or may not have done his own homework) could be a potentially perilous path. Given that, then, would-be investors have a responsibility to themselves to investigate where they’re putting their money to avoid the possible pitfalls associated with slipshod scrutiny. Indeed, those who shirk their diligence had better be prepared for the consequences of their inaction (and the beliefs that inspire it).
Kyle, of course, has responsibility for how he responds to the news of his investment’s collapse. As in the initiation of any conscious creation endeavor, he has multiple options available to him, from the one he implements here to the many other, less volatile possibilities he eschews. Each option carries consequences – some more disruptive than others – but he’s ultimately responsible for what results in each scenario, whichever one he chooses. Given how events play out in the film, some might suggest he should have considered another path, that getting revenge nearly always backfires. But then, in light of what incited him, some might also contend that he took the path he needed to take. Whichever course he pursues, however, he (like all of us) must be prepared to deal with the fallout, for better or worse.
And then there’s the production staff, which also has a role to play in this scenario. By keeping the broadcast on the air, the Money Monster crew allows the world to view what’s transpiring, keeping the public informed, which some would say is a responsible act. But others might contend that maintaining the live feed carries such implications as inciting public unrest, inspiring copycat perpetrators and exploiting personal misfortune, all of which raise questions of propriety and carry potentially disastrous consequences. Finding a balance in circumstances like this may be challenging, but, no matter what the staff decides, they’re responsible for their actions and must be prepared for whatever comes from what they create.
Flamboyant TV show host Lee Gates (George Clooney, center) presents the latest financial news with a variety of gimmicks, like an opening dance number, in “Money Monster.” Photo by Atsushi Nishijima, courtesy © 2016 CTMG, Inc.
Viewers play a part here, too, regardless of whether or not they’re investors in the financial products in question. They participate through their investment in their viewing choices. By tuning in to FNN’s “programming,” they contribute to the creation of what we collectively consider worthwhile and acceptable television, which, in turn, impacts our responses to such media content. That can lead to shifts in public attitudes about what we tolerate, what outrages us, what leaves us unfazed and so on, all of which are traceable back to us, since we all contribute to what gets created initially and what results from it subsequently.
In sum, in all of these story elements (especially those related to finances), the film raises important questions about doing what’s right versus doing what’s legal. This is tricky territory, because the law may allow certain actions, even if they’re morally or ethically questionable. If one is uncertain how to proceed in situations like this, drawing upon the responsibility factor would be a prudent course to follow, especially in assessing potential consequences. Doing otherwise may prove calamitous, and that can be quite problematic (particularly when other people’s money is involved!).
Some may argue that the foregoing observations stretch credibility, that it’s a bit much to contend that one manifestation links to all others. But, as conscious creators well know, everything is connected to everything else, regardless of how seemingly disparate “unrelated” elements of reality may superficially appear. Indeed, when we unwind the chain of connections, we see how they’re all joined to one another, in much the same way that quantum physics principles maintain that the inherently entangled atomic building blocks of existence are intrinsically linked. When we view reality from this perspective, it becomes difficult to take it – and the role we play in its manifestation – lightly, no matter how seemingly incidental we may believe our participation is. The next time you doubt that, think about this movie, and you may well reconsider your position before you act – or before you form the beliefs that lead to debatable actions.
No matter how things play out, however, we can take comfort that we always have an opportunity to make amends for what happens, thanks to the concept of redemption. Given that conscious creation enables us to explore uncharted territory and to learn various life lessons, it also makes allowances for “mistakes,” the slip-ups that are part of our individual learning curves, including in matters of responsibility. While it would be ideal to forecast the consequences of our actions (and nail the beliefs that govern them) before engaging in them, sometimes we don’t assess such matters as effectively as we might, prompting missteps. However, we’re not without recourse in these circumstances; we’re always able to make up for our “errors,” enabling us to redeem ourselves and providing us with enlightened new outlooks.
Walt Camby (Dominic West, left), founder of a financially troubled corporation, and Diane Lester (Caitriona Balfe, right), the company’s chief communications officer, go into damage control mode when bad news about the organization goes public in “Money Monster.” Photo by Atsushi Nishijima, courtesy © 2016 CTMG, Inc.
Though the plot is occasionally somewhat implausible, “Money Monster” is a genuinely taut thriller that consistently entertains and never disappoints. Filmmaker Jodie Foster has delivered her best directorial work here, with a nicely paced, well-acted, edge-of-the-seat offering that includes just the right touches of social commentary, satirical cynicism, comic relief and lessons in responsibility. Clooney, Roberts and (especially) O’Connell turn in excellent performances in bringing this showstopper to life.
Interestingly, “Money Monster” pays homage to a number of cinematic predecessors, either in terms of subject matter or the manner in which certain actions are portrayed. From a financial standpoint, for example, viewers will recognize elements and themes reminiscent of “The Big Short” (2015), “99 Homes” (2015) and “Wall Street” (1987). Similarly, in matters of media coverage of hostage situations, the film recalls such releases as “The China Syndrome” (1979), “Mad City” (1997) and “Kings and Desperate Men” (1981). The viewing public’s fascination with this picture’s version of reality TV echoes elements seen in “The Truman Show” (1998). And Kyle’s impassioned rants call to mind the ravings of delusional anchorman Howard Beale in “Network” (1976). But, in paying tribute to its influences, “Money Monster” is careful to reference them, though not to blatantly copy them, a fitting and skillfully handled approach.
Taking responsibility into account in our manifestation ventures may be seen by some as a chore, especially if it involves hard work and carries the potential for consequences we’d rather ignore. But putting in the effort on this up front often proves more manageable than having to mop up an unforeseen mess afterward. An ounce of prevention truly has metaphysical implications, and, in the end, it’s much easier to handle than that proverbial pound of cure.
Copyright © 2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
We’re all no doubt aware of the notion that “actions speak louder than words.” However, many of us may be less familiar with the corollary that “consequences speak louder than actions” (even though we’ve often personally felt its impact). So how do we cope with the potentially troublesome effects of this principle? It often comes down to a question of responsibility, a concept explored from multiple angles in the gripping new thriller, “Money Monster.”
As host of the Financial News Network’s Money Monster, Lee Gates (George Clooney) presides over the cable channel’s hottest program. With his singular flair and outlandish showmanship, Gates serves up a daily digest of financial news and stock tips, punctuated by comical sound effects, old movie clips and even an opening dance number, a somewhat exaggerated take on shows like CNBC’s Mad Money. His colorful, high-energy on-screen presence makes him an audience favorite, though his inclinations for ad libs and confrontation frequently try the patience of his producer, Patty Fenn (Julia Roberts), a no-nonsense professional who toils to keep her star in check – and the show on the rails.
Lee Gates (George Clooney) hosts the colorful financial news show Money Monster in director Jodie Foster’s gripping new thriller, “Money Monster.” Photo by Atsushi Nishijima, courtesy © 2016 CTMG, Inc.When one of Gates’s stock tips, Ibis Clear Capital, suddenly goes bust, he decides to address the issue on air in an interview with the company’s founder, Walt Camby (Dominic West). But, at the last minute, Camby is nowhere to be found. His unexplained disappearance raises some eyebrows and necessitates the implementation of a backup plan, an interview with Ibis’s chief communications officer, Diane Lester (Caitriona Balfe). This makeshift solution is far from ideal, but, as events unfold, it will turn out to be the least of the show staff’s worries.
Not long after the broadcast begins, trouble breaks out. A disgruntled Ibis investor, Kyle Budwell (Jack O’Connell), sneaks onto the set, armed to the teeth. With gun in hand, he takes Gates hostage on air, holding him and Camby responsible for the loss of his $60,000 investment, all of the money he had. And, to show everyone he means business, Budwell forces Gates to don a vest fitted with a bomb and demands to speak with Camby, for whom he has a vest of his own all prepared. He wants reimbursement and apologies for his loss, threatening dire consequences for their failure to comply.
Gates, needless to say, is stunned but struggles to keep calm, thanks in large part to Fenn’s composure to hold it all together. Much of the production staff is evacuated from the studio, and crisis management personnel from the police and Ibis corporate move in to address the situation. And, almost instantaneously, the story blows up into a worldwide phenomenon, with networks around the globe picking up FNN’s live feed. Audiences are captivated as they watch the drama play out, live on the air.
Host Lee Gates (George Clooney, left) and producer Patty Fenn (Julia Roberts, right) frequently disagree on their approaches to the hit financial news show Money Monster in the thrilling new drama, “Money Monster.” Photo by Atsushi Nishijima, courtesy © 2016 CTMG, Inc.Various solutions are pursued to bring the situation under control. Attempts at negotiation are initiated by New York Police Captain Marcus Powell (Giancarlo Esposito), and even Kyle’s pregnant girlfriend, Molly (Emily Meade), is brought in to try and reason with him. But, as this tense scenario unfolds, it gradually becomes apparent that there’s much more to this story than just a hostage taking, as becomes apparent when Camby suddenly resurfaces, setting up an end game that has to be seen to be believed.
In a situation like this, one might be tempted to ask, “So who’s responsible for all this?” On first glance, it may be tempting to lay the blame squarely at Kyle’s feet. But is he solely at fault? If we take a wider view here, the answer would be “no.” And, in light of that, a more accurate answer to the question posed above would be “everybody.”
Why everybody? Because all of the characters in this multifaceted narrative have a role to play, they all contribute to its unfolding. In terms of conscious creation philosophy – the doctrine that maintains we manifest the reality we experience through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents – the story in “Money Monster” represents a jointly created mass event, one in which multiple parties partake in its materialization. And, of necessity, as conscious creators are well aware, with the act of creation comes the consequence of responsibility, something about which we must always be aware with whatever we manifest.
So how are others besides Kyle responsible? Let’s start with Camby, who created the investment opportunity. By making this stock issuance available, he has a responsibility to his investors in terms of how he structures it and how he conducts the affairs of the company, which will have a bearing on the investment’s returns. Granted, he can’t control everything associated with the investment or with Ibis’s performance, but he has an obligation to act responsibly in handling the offering’s setup and the company’s operation.
While on the air, disgruntled investor Kyle Budwell (Jack O’Connell, foreground) takes financial news show host Lee Gates (George Clooney, background) hostage as revenge for alleged bad investment advice in “Money Monster.” Photo by Atsushi Nishijima, courtesy © 2016 CTMG, Inc.Then there’s Gates, who disseminates information about the investment and the company. As someone who shares this with the viewing public, he has a responsibility to make available the most accurate and authoritative information he can find. Because he has influence with his audience, he contributes to the formation of their beliefs, the actions they take and the reality they experience, a crucial consideration given that their savings are at stake. However, if he abrogates his responsibility by taking the lazy way out – such as by merely passing along company press release information instead of investigating the organization’s claims directly – he runs the risk of passing along spin in lieu of bona fide data, a potentially misleading approach that could seriously impact the financial well-being of his viewers.
In turn, one could also argue that the investing public has its own responsibility. Failure to look into the stock issuer’s claims by merely following the recommendations of a cable TV guru (who may or may not have done his own homework) could be a potentially perilous path. Given that, then, would-be investors have a responsibility to themselves to investigate where they’re putting their money to avoid the possible pitfalls associated with slipshod scrutiny. Indeed, those who shirk their diligence had better be prepared for the consequences of their inaction (and the beliefs that inspire it).
Kyle, of course, has responsibility for how he responds to the news of his investment’s collapse. As in the initiation of any conscious creation endeavor, he has multiple options available to him, from the one he implements here to the many other, less volatile possibilities he eschews. Each option carries consequences – some more disruptive than others – but he’s ultimately responsible for what results in each scenario, whichever one he chooses. Given how events play out in the film, some might suggest he should have considered another path, that getting revenge nearly always backfires. But then, in light of what incited him, some might also contend that he took the path he needed to take. Whichever course he pursues, however, he (like all of us) must be prepared to deal with the fallout, for better or worse.
And then there’s the production staff, which also has a role to play in this scenario. By keeping the broadcast on the air, the Money Monster crew allows the world to view what’s transpiring, keeping the public informed, which some would say is a responsible act. But others might contend that maintaining the live feed carries such implications as inciting public unrest, inspiring copycat perpetrators and exploiting personal misfortune, all of which raise questions of propriety and carry potentially disastrous consequences. Finding a balance in circumstances like this may be challenging, but, no matter what the staff decides, they’re responsible for their actions and must be prepared for whatever comes from what they create.
Flamboyant TV show host Lee Gates (George Clooney, center) presents the latest financial news with a variety of gimmicks, like an opening dance number, in “Money Monster.” Photo by Atsushi Nishijima, courtesy © 2016 CTMG, Inc.Viewers play a part here, too, regardless of whether or not they’re investors in the financial products in question. They participate through their investment in their viewing choices. By tuning in to FNN’s “programming,” they contribute to the creation of what we collectively consider worthwhile and acceptable television, which, in turn, impacts our responses to such media content. That can lead to shifts in public attitudes about what we tolerate, what outrages us, what leaves us unfazed and so on, all of which are traceable back to us, since we all contribute to what gets created initially and what results from it subsequently.
In sum, in all of these story elements (especially those related to finances), the film raises important questions about doing what’s right versus doing what’s legal. This is tricky territory, because the law may allow certain actions, even if they’re morally or ethically questionable. If one is uncertain how to proceed in situations like this, drawing upon the responsibility factor would be a prudent course to follow, especially in assessing potential consequences. Doing otherwise may prove calamitous, and that can be quite problematic (particularly when other people’s money is involved!).
Some may argue that the foregoing observations stretch credibility, that it’s a bit much to contend that one manifestation links to all others. But, as conscious creators well know, everything is connected to everything else, regardless of how seemingly disparate “unrelated” elements of reality may superficially appear. Indeed, when we unwind the chain of connections, we see how they’re all joined to one another, in much the same way that quantum physics principles maintain that the inherently entangled atomic building blocks of existence are intrinsically linked. When we view reality from this perspective, it becomes difficult to take it – and the role we play in its manifestation – lightly, no matter how seemingly incidental we may believe our participation is. The next time you doubt that, think about this movie, and you may well reconsider your position before you act – or before you form the beliefs that lead to debatable actions.
No matter how things play out, however, we can take comfort that we always have an opportunity to make amends for what happens, thanks to the concept of redemption. Given that conscious creation enables us to explore uncharted territory and to learn various life lessons, it also makes allowances for “mistakes,” the slip-ups that are part of our individual learning curves, including in matters of responsibility. While it would be ideal to forecast the consequences of our actions (and nail the beliefs that govern them) before engaging in them, sometimes we don’t assess such matters as effectively as we might, prompting missteps. However, we’re not without recourse in these circumstances; we’re always able to make up for our “errors,” enabling us to redeem ourselves and providing us with enlightened new outlooks.
Walt Camby (Dominic West, left), founder of a financially troubled corporation, and Diane Lester (Caitriona Balfe, right), the company’s chief communications officer, go into damage control mode when bad news about the organization goes public in “Money Monster.” Photo by Atsushi Nishijima, courtesy © 2016 CTMG, Inc.Though the plot is occasionally somewhat implausible, “Money Monster” is a genuinely taut thriller that consistently entertains and never disappoints. Filmmaker Jodie Foster has delivered her best directorial work here, with a nicely paced, well-acted, edge-of-the-seat offering that includes just the right touches of social commentary, satirical cynicism, comic relief and lessons in responsibility. Clooney, Roberts and (especially) O’Connell turn in excellent performances in bringing this showstopper to life.
Interestingly, “Money Monster” pays homage to a number of cinematic predecessors, either in terms of subject matter or the manner in which certain actions are portrayed. From a financial standpoint, for example, viewers will recognize elements and themes reminiscent of “The Big Short” (2015), “99 Homes” (2015) and “Wall Street” (1987). Similarly, in matters of media coverage of hostage situations, the film recalls such releases as “The China Syndrome” (1979), “Mad City” (1997) and “Kings and Desperate Men” (1981). The viewing public’s fascination with this picture’s version of reality TV echoes elements seen in “The Truman Show” (1998). And Kyle’s impassioned rants call to mind the ravings of delusional anchorman Howard Beale in “Network” (1976). But, in paying tribute to its influences, “Money Monster” is careful to reference them, though not to blatantly copy them, a fitting and skillfully handled approach.
Taking responsibility into account in our manifestation ventures may be seen by some as a chore, especially if it involves hard work and carries the potential for consequences we’d rather ignore. But putting in the effort on this up front often proves more manageable than having to mop up an unforeseen mess afterward. An ounce of prevention truly has metaphysical implications, and, in the end, it’s much easier to handle than that proverbial pound of cure.
Copyright © 2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
May 13, 2016
'Get the Picture' named an award winner!
I'm thrilled to announce that the updated edition of Get the Picture?!: Conscious Creation Goes to the Movies, my anthology of metaphysically focused movie reviews, has captured Best New Age Nonfiction honors in this year's National Indie Excellence Awards competition! The awards recognize outstanding achievements in self-published and independently published books, and I'm extremely pleased to have been include in this select grouping.
To see a complete list of winners, click here, and to learn more about the book, click here or visit the book's Facebook page.
My thanks to everyone who helped me achieve this accomplishment, especially cover designer Paul L. Clark of Inspirtainment, whose eye-popping creation (included on the winners' list) no doubt helped capture the judges' attention. And my heartfelt thanks to all my of faithful readers who have zealously supported me over the years -- I truly appreciate it.
To see a complete list of winners, click here, and to learn more about the book, click here or visit the book's Facebook page.
My thanks to everyone who helped me achieve this accomplishment, especially cover designer Paul L. Clark of Inspirtainment, whose eye-popping creation (included on the winners' list) no doubt helped capture the judges' attention. And my heartfelt thanks to all my of faithful readers who have zealously supported me over the years -- I truly appreciate it.
‘Fireworks Wednesday’ puts marriage in perspective
“Fireworks Wednesday” (“Chaharshanbe-soori”) (2006 production, 2016 release). Cast: Hamid Farakhnezhad, Hediyeh Tehrani, Taraneh Alidoosti, Pantea Bahram, Matin Heydaria, Sahar Dolatshahi. Director: Asghar Farhadi. Screenplay: Asghar Farhadi and Mani Haghighi. Web site. Trailer.
What does it mean to be married? Does it live up to the hopes and expectations associated with it? Or is the reality destined to fall short of the mark? And what impressions does it leave on those considering it as an option? Those are among the issues raised in the Iranian drama, “Fireworks Wednesday” (“Chaharshanbe-soori”), a 2006 production recently released in North American theaters for the first time.
Mojhde (Hediyeh Tehrani) and Morteza (Hamid Farakhnezhad), an upscale Tehran couple with a young son (Matin Heydaria), have a troubled marriage. Erratic behavior, emotional outbursts, suspicions of infidelity and bursts of anger resulting in property damage are the norm, and keeping a lid on the discord is becoming increasingly difficult. That becomes all too apparent when the couple hires a housekeeper, Rouhi (Taraneh Alidoosti), a young bride-to-be, to help clean up the mess that is their home – and, by extension, their marriage.
As the story unfolds, Rouhi becomes an unwitting party to the drama as it plays out. She’s even recruited by Mojhde to act as an impromptu spy to clandestinely investigate the divorced neighbor woman (Pantea Bahram) with whom she believes Morteza is having an affair. Thus, even though she inadvertently becomes part of the couple’s troubled life, Rouhi also has an opportunity to observe, from a somewhat detached perspective, what it means to be married. And, as tensions heat up, the fireworks begin going off, ironically enough all in the shadow of the Persian New Year, a celebration known for its own ubiquitous pyrotechnic displays.
How will things shake out for Mojhde and Morteza? And will Rouhi’s observations of their experience prompt her to change her mind about marriage? Those are the questions to be answered as the film plays out, for better or worse and, possibly, for later discussion.
Rouhi (Taraneh Alidoosti), a housekeeper and young bride-to-be, gets an eye-opening look at marriage when working for a couple in crisis in the Iranian drama, “Fireworks Wednesday.” Photo courtesy of Grasshopper Film.
If someone were asked to characterize the nature of the scenario playing out in this film, the most fitting description would probably be, “It depends on which character you ask.” Each clearly has his or her own perspective on the unfolding events, and their outlooks are framed by the beliefs they hold, the driving force in the conscious creation process, the means by which we manifest the reality we experience through our thoughts, ideas and intents. And, given their diverse viewpoints, an equally diverse number of interpretations of that existence is possible.
For example, Mojhde is convinced that her husband is cheating on her, and evidence suggesting that pops up at every turn. Her beliefs thus become self-fulfilling prophecies. But, because she only has suspicions, the available evidence doesn’t conclusively prove her allegations, making it difficult for a definitive claim to stick.
So what is Mojhde to do? If she’s unhappy with these circumstances, she could always pursue other options, such as choosing to embrace beliefs in a contented relationship. Nevertheless, her beliefs in her worrisome convictions are so strong that swaying her opinion in another direction would be difficult, if not impossible.
This outlook, in turn, prompts the emergence of the other conditions that surface in her life. Her fits of irrational behavior and moodiness, for example, arise as byproducts from her suspicious beliefs. And these manifestations consequently contribute to the discord she experiences with Morteza. One belief thus begets another, which begets another, and so on, leading to a spiral of events that almost seems to take on a life of its own, even though their origins can be traced directly back to the one who set this process in motion, Mojhde herself. If she continues down this line of probability, one can only guess where she’ll ultimately end up (though it’s probably not too difficult to predict the most likely outcomes).
Morteza, by contrast, believes his wife is delusional. As her husband, he tries to assuage her misgivings, continually comforting her and even going so far as to propose taking the family on a fun-filled New Year’s vacation to Dubai. But, when Mojhde’s frantic outbursts and unexplained, erratic behavior become increasingly commonplace and unpredictable (manifestations undoubtedly driven, at least in part, by the beliefs Morteza holds about her), he witnesses a commensurate spike in the volume of these frustrating events – and in the intensity of his reactions to them. He grows impatient when it seems there’s no pleasing her, especially when she engages in acts intended to air their dirty laundry publicly.
Mojhde (Hediyeh Tehrani, left) and Morteza (Hamid Farakhnezhad, right), a troubled married couple, struggles to find common ground in director Asghar Farhadi’s “Fireworks Wednesday.” Photo courtesy of Grasshopper Film.
Collectively, the conditions they each materialize in this co-creation intensify over time, affecting the quality – and perhaps even the viability – of their marriage. The interaction of their combined beliefs creates its own set of prevailing shared circumstances, conditions that impact the character of their relationship and that, in turn, serve to further influence their respective individual beliefs, perpetuating the spiral of evolution in their personal and collective outlooks. Given the state of mind that each of them possesses, it’s no wonder why the couple finds themselves where they are.
And then there’s Rouhi. As an outsider to the relationship, she has an opportunity to view what marriage is like. By being able to witness the example set by Mojhde and Morteza from an up-close-and-personal, yet ostensibly objective perspective, Rouhi has a chance to see what she might be in for, an important consideration in light of her upcoming betrothal. The operative word here, though, is “might.” The troubled couple’s example is by no means the only one the bride-to-be has to draw from; she can just as easily choose a different outcome for herself by embracing a different set of beliefs for characterizing the nature of her impending marriage.
Some may believe that the example set by Mojhde and Morteza is sufficient to make a case against marriage, that it could easily scare off Rouhi from following through on her wedding plans. However, one could also argue that they provide a valuable cautionary tale to those who are still committed to the idea of matrimony, showing prospective newlyweds what to avoid in their relationships. In any event, Rouhi’s experience with the couple provides her with an opportunity to explore possibilities, one of the primary benefits afforded by the practice of conscious creation. When we realize that we have choices, that we’re not reconciled to a path we cannot alter – be it with regard to marriage or any other undertaking for that matter – we can envision a wider range of options for ourselves, including those that we believe best suit our needs and desires. It also helps us to dispense with unrealistic, storybook notions about marriage, even if we don’t sink to the same depths as Mojhde and Morteza have.
Mojhde (Hediyeh Tehrani, left), a wife who suspects her husband is having an affair, seeks comfort from a relative (Sahar Dolatshahi, right) in “Fireworks Wednesday.” Photo courtesy of Grasshopper Film.
This intriguing look at marital life and strife is capably handled and deftly told, especially with its use of an outsider’s perspective for carrying the story. Its excellent performances (especially those of Tehrani and Farakhnezhad) are real stand-outs. At the same time, though, the sometimes-melodramatic narrative doesn’t come across as especially groundbreaking, at least in the world of cinema at large (even though it may have been audacious by Iranian audience standards at the time it was made). Also, the film’s less-than-subtle pyrotechnic metaphors grow a bit obvious as the movie progresses. “Fireworks Wednesday” provides an eye-opening examination of marriage, especially for those who look upon it naïvely, but it’s not quite in the same league as some of director Asghar Farhadi’s later works, such as “A Separation” (2011) and “The Past” (2013). The film is currently playing in limited release in theaters specializing in foreign and independent cinema.
Perspective is everything in life, no matter what aspect is involved. But, to properly appreciate it, it helps to have an open mind, an open heart and, above all, open eyes, particularly in assessing the manifesting beliefs at work. “Fireworks Wednesday” shines a spotlight on this idea when it comes to marriage, and it encourages us to thoroughly scrutinize this institution before partaking in it – especially before the explosions start.
Copyright © 2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
What does it mean to be married? Does it live up to the hopes and expectations associated with it? Or is the reality destined to fall short of the mark? And what impressions does it leave on those considering it as an option? Those are among the issues raised in the Iranian drama, “Fireworks Wednesday” (“Chaharshanbe-soori”), a 2006 production recently released in North American theaters for the first time.
Mojhde (Hediyeh Tehrani) and Morteza (Hamid Farakhnezhad), an upscale Tehran couple with a young son (Matin Heydaria), have a troubled marriage. Erratic behavior, emotional outbursts, suspicions of infidelity and bursts of anger resulting in property damage are the norm, and keeping a lid on the discord is becoming increasingly difficult. That becomes all too apparent when the couple hires a housekeeper, Rouhi (Taraneh Alidoosti), a young bride-to-be, to help clean up the mess that is their home – and, by extension, their marriage.
As the story unfolds, Rouhi becomes an unwitting party to the drama as it plays out. She’s even recruited by Mojhde to act as an impromptu spy to clandestinely investigate the divorced neighbor woman (Pantea Bahram) with whom she believes Morteza is having an affair. Thus, even though she inadvertently becomes part of the couple’s troubled life, Rouhi also has an opportunity to observe, from a somewhat detached perspective, what it means to be married. And, as tensions heat up, the fireworks begin going off, ironically enough all in the shadow of the Persian New Year, a celebration known for its own ubiquitous pyrotechnic displays.
How will things shake out for Mojhde and Morteza? And will Rouhi’s observations of their experience prompt her to change her mind about marriage? Those are the questions to be answered as the film plays out, for better or worse and, possibly, for later discussion.
Rouhi (Taraneh Alidoosti), a housekeeper and young bride-to-be, gets an eye-opening look at marriage when working for a couple in crisis in the Iranian drama, “Fireworks Wednesday.” Photo courtesy of Grasshopper Film.If someone were asked to characterize the nature of the scenario playing out in this film, the most fitting description would probably be, “It depends on which character you ask.” Each clearly has his or her own perspective on the unfolding events, and their outlooks are framed by the beliefs they hold, the driving force in the conscious creation process, the means by which we manifest the reality we experience through our thoughts, ideas and intents. And, given their diverse viewpoints, an equally diverse number of interpretations of that existence is possible.
For example, Mojhde is convinced that her husband is cheating on her, and evidence suggesting that pops up at every turn. Her beliefs thus become self-fulfilling prophecies. But, because she only has suspicions, the available evidence doesn’t conclusively prove her allegations, making it difficult for a definitive claim to stick.
So what is Mojhde to do? If she’s unhappy with these circumstances, she could always pursue other options, such as choosing to embrace beliefs in a contented relationship. Nevertheless, her beliefs in her worrisome convictions are so strong that swaying her opinion in another direction would be difficult, if not impossible.
This outlook, in turn, prompts the emergence of the other conditions that surface in her life. Her fits of irrational behavior and moodiness, for example, arise as byproducts from her suspicious beliefs. And these manifestations consequently contribute to the discord she experiences with Morteza. One belief thus begets another, which begets another, and so on, leading to a spiral of events that almost seems to take on a life of its own, even though their origins can be traced directly back to the one who set this process in motion, Mojhde herself. If she continues down this line of probability, one can only guess where she’ll ultimately end up (though it’s probably not too difficult to predict the most likely outcomes).
Morteza, by contrast, believes his wife is delusional. As her husband, he tries to assuage her misgivings, continually comforting her and even going so far as to propose taking the family on a fun-filled New Year’s vacation to Dubai. But, when Mojhde’s frantic outbursts and unexplained, erratic behavior become increasingly commonplace and unpredictable (manifestations undoubtedly driven, at least in part, by the beliefs Morteza holds about her), he witnesses a commensurate spike in the volume of these frustrating events – and in the intensity of his reactions to them. He grows impatient when it seems there’s no pleasing her, especially when she engages in acts intended to air their dirty laundry publicly.
Mojhde (Hediyeh Tehrani, left) and Morteza (Hamid Farakhnezhad, right), a troubled married couple, struggles to find common ground in director Asghar Farhadi’s “Fireworks Wednesday.” Photo courtesy of Grasshopper Film.Collectively, the conditions they each materialize in this co-creation intensify over time, affecting the quality – and perhaps even the viability – of their marriage. The interaction of their combined beliefs creates its own set of prevailing shared circumstances, conditions that impact the character of their relationship and that, in turn, serve to further influence their respective individual beliefs, perpetuating the spiral of evolution in their personal and collective outlooks. Given the state of mind that each of them possesses, it’s no wonder why the couple finds themselves where they are.
And then there’s Rouhi. As an outsider to the relationship, she has an opportunity to view what marriage is like. By being able to witness the example set by Mojhde and Morteza from an up-close-and-personal, yet ostensibly objective perspective, Rouhi has a chance to see what she might be in for, an important consideration in light of her upcoming betrothal. The operative word here, though, is “might.” The troubled couple’s example is by no means the only one the bride-to-be has to draw from; she can just as easily choose a different outcome for herself by embracing a different set of beliefs for characterizing the nature of her impending marriage.
Some may believe that the example set by Mojhde and Morteza is sufficient to make a case against marriage, that it could easily scare off Rouhi from following through on her wedding plans. However, one could also argue that they provide a valuable cautionary tale to those who are still committed to the idea of matrimony, showing prospective newlyweds what to avoid in their relationships. In any event, Rouhi’s experience with the couple provides her with an opportunity to explore possibilities, one of the primary benefits afforded by the practice of conscious creation. When we realize that we have choices, that we’re not reconciled to a path we cannot alter – be it with regard to marriage or any other undertaking for that matter – we can envision a wider range of options for ourselves, including those that we believe best suit our needs and desires. It also helps us to dispense with unrealistic, storybook notions about marriage, even if we don’t sink to the same depths as Mojhde and Morteza have.
Mojhde (Hediyeh Tehrani, left), a wife who suspects her husband is having an affair, seeks comfort from a relative (Sahar Dolatshahi, right) in “Fireworks Wednesday.” Photo courtesy of Grasshopper Film.This intriguing look at marital life and strife is capably handled and deftly told, especially with its use of an outsider’s perspective for carrying the story. Its excellent performances (especially those of Tehrani and Farakhnezhad) are real stand-outs. At the same time, though, the sometimes-melodramatic narrative doesn’t come across as especially groundbreaking, at least in the world of cinema at large (even though it may have been audacious by Iranian audience standards at the time it was made). Also, the film’s less-than-subtle pyrotechnic metaphors grow a bit obvious as the movie progresses. “Fireworks Wednesday” provides an eye-opening examination of marriage, especially for those who look upon it naïvely, but it’s not quite in the same league as some of director Asghar Farhadi’s later works, such as “A Separation” (2011) and “The Past” (2013). The film is currently playing in limited release in theaters specializing in foreign and independent cinema.
Perspective is everything in life, no matter what aspect is involved. But, to properly appreciate it, it helps to have an open mind, an open heart and, above all, open eyes, particularly in assessing the manifesting beliefs at work. “Fireworks Wednesday” shines a spotlight on this idea when it comes to marriage, and it encourages us to thoroughly scrutinize this institution before partaking in it – especially before the explosions start.
Copyright © 2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
May 12, 2016
‘Infinity’ shows the way toward destiny
“The Man Who Knew Infinity” (2015 production, 2016 release). Cast: Jeremy Irons, Dev Patel, Devika Bhise, Toby Jones, Stephen Fry, Jeremy Northam, Anthony Calf, Kevin McNally, Dhritiman Chatterjee, Arundathi Nag. Director: Matthew Brown. Screenplay: Matthew Brown. Book: Robert Kanigel, The Man Who Knew Infinity. Web site. Trailer.
Imagine that you know your destiny. Now imagine that you know what you need to do to fulfill it. But is that vision enough? Is it truly possible to translate those intangible insights into tangible outcomes? And what of any obstacles that appear in your path – what purpose do they serve? Those are the questions raised in the thoughtful new biopic, “The Man Who Knew Infinity.”
The film tells the life story of Srinivasa Ramanujan (Dev Patel), an early 20th Century mathematical genius who devised a variety of groundbreaking theories, mainly by intuiting them from what he considered an unseen divine source. He knew he needed to share these ideas with the world by getting them published through reputable channels, such as the scholarly journals of the time. However, given the means by how he arrived at these notions, coupled with the fact that he was an “uneducated” clerk from Madras, India, he was met with much prejudicial opposition from the learned powers that be, especially those with the clout to give his work a fair review.
Ramanujan got a big break, though, when Cambridge University professor G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons) – himself a somewhat radical mathematical innovator – decided to investigate his theories in greater detail. He invited his Indian colleague to join him in England to further explore the plausibility of these new ideas.
However, even the blessings of credible allies like Hardy and his colleagues, John Littlewood (Toby Jones) and Bertrand Russell (Jeremy Northam), were not enough for Ramanujan to get his work taken seriously. While his theories were seen as intriguing, he did not have the proofs to verify them, despite his impassioned insistence that they were indeed correct. Such “unsubstantiated” claims and his perceived unwillingness to prove them earned him the reputation of an arrogant charlatan, a label that his condescending English peers unreservedly slapped on him (something that came easily to them in light of their disapproving views of his ethnic background and lack of formal schooling). So, to ensure that Ramanujan received a fair shake, Hardy took him under his wing, shepherding him through the review process in hopes of his material being rendered legitimate. And, by following Hardy’s suggestions, Ramanujan came to understand what it means to have one’s dreams realized – and in ways that exceed expectations.
Cambridge University professor G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons, left) and Indian mathematical genius Srinivasa Ramanujan (Dev Patel, right) discuss advanced numerical theory in “The Man Who Knew Infinity.” Photo courtesy of Richard Blanshard, IFC Films.
A keen awareness of our destiny can be both a blessing and a curse. The clarity that comes with such heightened cognizance makes it feel almost effortless in realizing our aspirations. But that kind of unquestioned, self-assured personal understanding often runs afoul of the views of others, especially when placed under the microscope of skepticism. What’s more, given the unshakable faith we often have in such convictions, it’s easy to lose patience with naysayers who don’t share our vision, mainly because, to us, the validity of our contentions should be patently obvious.
So what accounts for such a discrepancy in outlooks? In a nutshell, it all comes down to the beliefs we each possess. And the differences in our respective perspectives become palpable when those beliefs are employed in the conscious creation process, the means by which we harness our thoughts, ideas and intents to manifest the reality we each experience.
For Ramanujan, his faith in his beliefs is so strong that he’s certain of the legitimacy of his ideas; he needs no further proof, and that contention characterizes the nature of his reality and outlook. However, those who require “evidence” of the authenticity of such notions employ a different set of manifesting beliefs in the existence they create, and that variance in intent accounts for the disconnect between their perspective and that of Ramanujan.
But, thankfully, not everything in a scenario like this is black and white. Because conscious creation and the beliefs that fuel it make it possible to materialize an infinite range of probabilities at any given time, there will always be many intermediate shades of gray available, and that’s where Ramanujan’s allies come into play. Since colleagues like Hardy can appreciate the innovative nature of Ramanujan’s work while simultaneously understanding the need for verification required by the skeptics, these intermediaries hold beliefs that take stock of both perspectives, effectively running interference between the two polarizing viewpoints and allowing each to have their say in the unfolding of this line of probability.
Those whose beliefs fall into “the middle ground” in situations like this symbolically help to illustrate how mediated notions metaphysically come into being. As conscious creators are well aware, our beliefs form through the synthesis of the input we receive from our intellect (signified here by the views of the skeptical Cambridge professors) and intuition (embodied in the unshakably poised outlook of Ramanujan). Ideally, though, we often get the best results when we strike a healthy balance between these two sources of inspiration (as symbolized by Hardy’s attitude).
The narrative in this film thus demonstrates how the belief formation process works – and how it can be finessed to work most effectively. However, to reach the point where we can fully appreciate this, we must often go through the process of experiencing the attributes of each opposing perspective (and the beliefs that drive them) to arrive at an equitable compromise, one in which we can value the benefits of both the intellect and the intuition and what arises when the two come into balance. When that happens, we have an opportunity to partake in the dance of the intellect and the intuition in belief formation for bringing forth the intangible into tangible being.
Indeed, while neither element should be allowed to ride roughshod over the other, this is not to suggest that either the intellect or the intuition is inherently damaging. Both clearly have beneficial attributes, and exploring them can prove useful in amassing our individual databases of personal experience.
For example, placing an emphasis on the intellect (as the Cambridge faculty does) enables us to hone our capacity for rational, logical thought. Fields like science and mathematics depend heavily on this, so the greater our intellectual capacities, the more adept we’re likely to become in these areas.
Similarly, focusing on the intuition (as Ramanujan does) allows us to develop an appreciation for feelings, emotions and gut impressions. Art and other creative endeavors benefit from this, enabling us to become more proficient painters, writers, chefs and musicians. But “creativity” is not limited to such tangible expressions; it encompasses anything we manifest through the conscious creation process, and a heightened intuition can help enliven this.
Indian mathematical genius Srinivasa Ramanujan (Dev Patel) seeks to get his revolutionary ideas published while in residence at Cambridge University in “The Man Who Knew Infinity.” Photo courtesy of IFC Films.
Moreover, a better grasp on our intuition can also help us foster a deeper, more intimate relationship with All That Is, our divine collaborator in all of our manifestation efforts. Ramanujan readily recognizes the existence and splendor of this partnership and doesn’t hesitate to make others aware of the role it plays in his work and the fulfillment of his destiny, no matter how reticent they may be about embracing such an outlook. Overcoming this resistance is challenging for Ramanujan, though, given the widespread skepticism among the intellectually driven Cambridge staff. Even Hardy, who is much more willing than his peers to give his protégé the benefit of the doubt on this point, has difficulty accepting Ramanujan’s contention; as an avowed atheist, Hardy has trouble appreciating such an esoteric concept, despite its undeniable influence on the existence and evolution of his colleague’s work.
Ramanujan’s belief-based faith in the role of the divine in his life has implications that extend beyond the mere development of his revolutionary theories. He knows that All That Is will see him through all of his trials and tribulations, like finding allies who will support him and locating the means to get his work published, because his beliefs enable it. But that faith even goes beyond such comparatively pedestrian challenges, extending into other areas of his life, like dealing with the rampant prejudice he faces in the dogmatic world of academia and, because of his ethnic background, in the world at large.
By going through the process of learning how beliefs form, all of the parties in this scenario (but especially Ramanujan and Hardy) develop an appreciation for the value of change. Again, because conscious creation makes all expressions of existence possible, reality obviously is not a static, unchanging state of being; rather, it is a fluid, dynamic phenomenon that is said to be in a constant state of becoming, with change (and the beliefs that drive it) being the agent of alteration.
Hardy, for example, a mathematical innovator in his own right, readily recognizes the importance of change (having been personally responsible for bringing about significant advances in the field long before he met his Indian colleague), and he’s open to additional new ideas, even if they don’t come from conventional sources. Ramanujan, meanwhile, comes to see that, if he’s to be taken seriously, he must change his ways in how he makes his ideas known, an adjustment that ultimately works to his benefit. And the Cambridge faculty members, like Major MacMahon (Kevin McNally), who have long been ensconced in their own dogma, have their eyes opened by their radical colleagues, making it possible for them to embrace changed outlooks that may have once seemed intractable.
All of these factors loom large in the fulfillment of Ramanujan’s destiny. But, thankfully, he recognizes the wisdom of these ideas as he moves through the process, with a payoff that’s beyond what he imagined – not only for himself, but also for those who benefitted from his work.
“The Man Who Knew Infinity” is a sincere, modestly intriguing biopic with excellent period piece production values and solid performances by Irons and Patel. In many regards, the film’s narrative and subject matter are somewhat reminiscent of “The Theory of Everything” (2014), effectively exploring a great mind’s attempts at overcoming obstacles in the fulfillment of one’s life purpose. The picture’s spiritual and metaphysical undertones are quite engaging, helping to elevate a story that, without them, might have otherwise been unendurably dull.
However, despite these strengths, the film comes up a little short on other fronts. Its depictions of the protagonist’s personal life – particularly his relationship with his wife (Devika Bhise), who remains in India while on his years-long journey to England – and of the impact of World War I on Ramanujan’s life at Cambridge are under-developed, their inclusion feeling more historically obligatory than meaningful and relevant. What’s more, while it’s easy to appreciate the twin collaborators’ passion for their work, the narrative is a little thin when it comes to explaining its importance, which may leave some viewers wondering why they should care about it. Shoring up these aspects of the story would have made for a better, more focused movie.
Living up to our potential is something most of us hope to do, and those who have a built-in understanding of what that entails have a distinct advantage. But knowing how to fulfill it is key, and appreciating the role of conscious creation can prove crucial, allowing us, like Ramanujan, to reach for infinity – and beyond.
Copyright © 2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Imagine that you know your destiny. Now imagine that you know what you need to do to fulfill it. But is that vision enough? Is it truly possible to translate those intangible insights into tangible outcomes? And what of any obstacles that appear in your path – what purpose do they serve? Those are the questions raised in the thoughtful new biopic, “The Man Who Knew Infinity.”
The film tells the life story of Srinivasa Ramanujan (Dev Patel), an early 20th Century mathematical genius who devised a variety of groundbreaking theories, mainly by intuiting them from what he considered an unseen divine source. He knew he needed to share these ideas with the world by getting them published through reputable channels, such as the scholarly journals of the time. However, given the means by how he arrived at these notions, coupled with the fact that he was an “uneducated” clerk from Madras, India, he was met with much prejudicial opposition from the learned powers that be, especially those with the clout to give his work a fair review.
Ramanujan got a big break, though, when Cambridge University professor G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons) – himself a somewhat radical mathematical innovator – decided to investigate his theories in greater detail. He invited his Indian colleague to join him in England to further explore the plausibility of these new ideas.
However, even the blessings of credible allies like Hardy and his colleagues, John Littlewood (Toby Jones) and Bertrand Russell (Jeremy Northam), were not enough for Ramanujan to get his work taken seriously. While his theories were seen as intriguing, he did not have the proofs to verify them, despite his impassioned insistence that they were indeed correct. Such “unsubstantiated” claims and his perceived unwillingness to prove them earned him the reputation of an arrogant charlatan, a label that his condescending English peers unreservedly slapped on him (something that came easily to them in light of their disapproving views of his ethnic background and lack of formal schooling). So, to ensure that Ramanujan received a fair shake, Hardy took him under his wing, shepherding him through the review process in hopes of his material being rendered legitimate. And, by following Hardy’s suggestions, Ramanujan came to understand what it means to have one’s dreams realized – and in ways that exceed expectations.
Cambridge University professor G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons, left) and Indian mathematical genius Srinivasa Ramanujan (Dev Patel, right) discuss advanced numerical theory in “The Man Who Knew Infinity.” Photo courtesy of Richard Blanshard, IFC Films.A keen awareness of our destiny can be both a blessing and a curse. The clarity that comes with such heightened cognizance makes it feel almost effortless in realizing our aspirations. But that kind of unquestioned, self-assured personal understanding often runs afoul of the views of others, especially when placed under the microscope of skepticism. What’s more, given the unshakable faith we often have in such convictions, it’s easy to lose patience with naysayers who don’t share our vision, mainly because, to us, the validity of our contentions should be patently obvious.
So what accounts for such a discrepancy in outlooks? In a nutshell, it all comes down to the beliefs we each possess. And the differences in our respective perspectives become palpable when those beliefs are employed in the conscious creation process, the means by which we harness our thoughts, ideas and intents to manifest the reality we each experience.
For Ramanujan, his faith in his beliefs is so strong that he’s certain of the legitimacy of his ideas; he needs no further proof, and that contention characterizes the nature of his reality and outlook. However, those who require “evidence” of the authenticity of such notions employ a different set of manifesting beliefs in the existence they create, and that variance in intent accounts for the disconnect between their perspective and that of Ramanujan.
But, thankfully, not everything in a scenario like this is black and white. Because conscious creation and the beliefs that fuel it make it possible to materialize an infinite range of probabilities at any given time, there will always be many intermediate shades of gray available, and that’s where Ramanujan’s allies come into play. Since colleagues like Hardy can appreciate the innovative nature of Ramanujan’s work while simultaneously understanding the need for verification required by the skeptics, these intermediaries hold beliefs that take stock of both perspectives, effectively running interference between the two polarizing viewpoints and allowing each to have their say in the unfolding of this line of probability.
Those whose beliefs fall into “the middle ground” in situations like this symbolically help to illustrate how mediated notions metaphysically come into being. As conscious creators are well aware, our beliefs form through the synthesis of the input we receive from our intellect (signified here by the views of the skeptical Cambridge professors) and intuition (embodied in the unshakably poised outlook of Ramanujan). Ideally, though, we often get the best results when we strike a healthy balance between these two sources of inspiration (as symbolized by Hardy’s attitude).
The narrative in this film thus demonstrates how the belief formation process works – and how it can be finessed to work most effectively. However, to reach the point where we can fully appreciate this, we must often go through the process of experiencing the attributes of each opposing perspective (and the beliefs that drive them) to arrive at an equitable compromise, one in which we can value the benefits of both the intellect and the intuition and what arises when the two come into balance. When that happens, we have an opportunity to partake in the dance of the intellect and the intuition in belief formation for bringing forth the intangible into tangible being.
Indeed, while neither element should be allowed to ride roughshod over the other, this is not to suggest that either the intellect or the intuition is inherently damaging. Both clearly have beneficial attributes, and exploring them can prove useful in amassing our individual databases of personal experience.
For example, placing an emphasis on the intellect (as the Cambridge faculty does) enables us to hone our capacity for rational, logical thought. Fields like science and mathematics depend heavily on this, so the greater our intellectual capacities, the more adept we’re likely to become in these areas.
Similarly, focusing on the intuition (as Ramanujan does) allows us to develop an appreciation for feelings, emotions and gut impressions. Art and other creative endeavors benefit from this, enabling us to become more proficient painters, writers, chefs and musicians. But “creativity” is not limited to such tangible expressions; it encompasses anything we manifest through the conscious creation process, and a heightened intuition can help enliven this.
Indian mathematical genius Srinivasa Ramanujan (Dev Patel) seeks to get his revolutionary ideas published while in residence at Cambridge University in “The Man Who Knew Infinity.” Photo courtesy of IFC Films.Moreover, a better grasp on our intuition can also help us foster a deeper, more intimate relationship with All That Is, our divine collaborator in all of our manifestation efforts. Ramanujan readily recognizes the existence and splendor of this partnership and doesn’t hesitate to make others aware of the role it plays in his work and the fulfillment of his destiny, no matter how reticent they may be about embracing such an outlook. Overcoming this resistance is challenging for Ramanujan, though, given the widespread skepticism among the intellectually driven Cambridge staff. Even Hardy, who is much more willing than his peers to give his protégé the benefit of the doubt on this point, has difficulty accepting Ramanujan’s contention; as an avowed atheist, Hardy has trouble appreciating such an esoteric concept, despite its undeniable influence on the existence and evolution of his colleague’s work.
Ramanujan’s belief-based faith in the role of the divine in his life has implications that extend beyond the mere development of his revolutionary theories. He knows that All That Is will see him through all of his trials and tribulations, like finding allies who will support him and locating the means to get his work published, because his beliefs enable it. But that faith even goes beyond such comparatively pedestrian challenges, extending into other areas of his life, like dealing with the rampant prejudice he faces in the dogmatic world of academia and, because of his ethnic background, in the world at large.
By going through the process of learning how beliefs form, all of the parties in this scenario (but especially Ramanujan and Hardy) develop an appreciation for the value of change. Again, because conscious creation makes all expressions of existence possible, reality obviously is not a static, unchanging state of being; rather, it is a fluid, dynamic phenomenon that is said to be in a constant state of becoming, with change (and the beliefs that drive it) being the agent of alteration.
Hardy, for example, a mathematical innovator in his own right, readily recognizes the importance of change (having been personally responsible for bringing about significant advances in the field long before he met his Indian colleague), and he’s open to additional new ideas, even if they don’t come from conventional sources. Ramanujan, meanwhile, comes to see that, if he’s to be taken seriously, he must change his ways in how he makes his ideas known, an adjustment that ultimately works to his benefit. And the Cambridge faculty members, like Major MacMahon (Kevin McNally), who have long been ensconced in their own dogma, have their eyes opened by their radical colleagues, making it possible for them to embrace changed outlooks that may have once seemed intractable.
All of these factors loom large in the fulfillment of Ramanujan’s destiny. But, thankfully, he recognizes the wisdom of these ideas as he moves through the process, with a payoff that’s beyond what he imagined – not only for himself, but also for those who benefitted from his work.
“The Man Who Knew Infinity” is a sincere, modestly intriguing biopic with excellent period piece production values and solid performances by Irons and Patel. In many regards, the film’s narrative and subject matter are somewhat reminiscent of “The Theory of Everything” (2014), effectively exploring a great mind’s attempts at overcoming obstacles in the fulfillment of one’s life purpose. The picture’s spiritual and metaphysical undertones are quite engaging, helping to elevate a story that, without them, might have otherwise been unendurably dull.
However, despite these strengths, the film comes up a little short on other fronts. Its depictions of the protagonist’s personal life – particularly his relationship with his wife (Devika Bhise), who remains in India while on his years-long journey to England – and of the impact of World War I on Ramanujan’s life at Cambridge are under-developed, their inclusion feeling more historically obligatory than meaningful and relevant. What’s more, while it’s easy to appreciate the twin collaborators’ passion for their work, the narrative is a little thin when it comes to explaining its importance, which may leave some viewers wondering why they should care about it. Shoring up these aspects of the story would have made for a better, more focused movie.
Living up to our potential is something most of us hope to do, and those who have a built-in understanding of what that entails have a distinct advantage. But knowing how to fulfill it is key, and appreciating the role of conscious creation can prove crucial, allowing us, like Ramanujan, to reach for infinity – and beyond.
Copyright © 2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
May 9, 2016
This Week in Movies with Meaning
Reviews of "The Man Who Knew Infinity" and "Viva" and an award-winning book announcement are all in the latest Movies with Meaning post on the Blog Page of The Good Radio Network, available by clicking here.
Photo courtesy of Richard Blanshard, IFC Films.
Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.
Cover design by Paul L. Clark, Inspirtainment.
Photo courtesy of Richard Blanshard, IFC Films.
Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.
Cover design by Paul L. Clark, Inspirtainment.May 5, 2016
On the Radio Today
Tune in to this month’s Movies with Meaning segment on Frankiesense & More radio when host Frankie Picasso and I will preview several new film releases and take a peek at the upcoming summer blockbuster movie season. Click here today at 1 pm ET or listen to the on-demand podcast for some lively movie talk!
May 4, 2016
‘Sing Street’ uncovers a knack for hidden talents
“Sing Street” (2016). Cast: Ferdia Walsh-Peelo, Lucy Boynton, Aiden Gillen, Maria Doyle Kennedy, Jack Reynor, Kelly Thornton, Ben Carolan, Mark McKenna, Percy Chamburuka, Conor Hamilton, Karl Rice, Ian Kenny, Don Wycherley, Lydia McGuinness. Director: John Carney. Screenplay: John Carney. Trailer.
When life seems to be falling apart, it helps to have something to latch onto to stay afloat. But whatever one reaches for, no matter how satisfying it may be, could lead to even bigger and better things, and much of it unexpected. Such is the case for an Irish teen seeking to find himself during deteriorating circumstances in the charming new musical romantic comedy, “Sing Street.”
In the mid 1980s, with the Irish economy in the doldrums, residents of the Emerald Isle suffered financially, with many, especially the young and talented, fleeing to England to seek new opportunities. For those who remained behind, life was hard, with many households having to make sacrifices, and even the middle class wasn’t immune. Such conditions often led to domestic strife, with couples squabbling over money and, eventually, a host of other relationship issues.
Such is life in the family of a soft-spoken, somewhat geeky teen named Conor (Ferdia Walsh-Peelo). His parents, Robert (Aiden Gillen) and Penny (Maria Doyle Kennedy), seek to save money by transferring him from a pricey private academy to the Synge Street School, a public institution in a rough, inner city Dublin neighborhood. Needless to say, Conor’s not thrilled at the prospect, especially when he meets his loutish classmates, such as the resident bully, Barry (Ian Kenny), and the school’s no-nonsense headmaster, Brother Baxter (Don Wycherley).
However, not all is lost. Shortly after arriving at Synge Street, Conor meets a mysterious young neighborhood girl, Raphina (Lucy Boynton), who is said not to give anyone the time of day. But Conor is so taken with her beautiful, enigmatic looks that he can’t resist the opportunity to try chatting her up, a gesture to which she surprisingly responds. He quickly learns that she aspires to move to London and become a model, which gives him an idea to win her affections: He asks her if she’d like to appear in a music video for his band.
Much to his amazement, Raphina agrees, and everything between them seems good to go, with one little hitch – Conor needs to form a band to make the video. But, despite this minor complication, Conor is not deterred; with the aid of his buddy, Darren (Ben Carolan), who agrees to act as the yet-assembled group’s manager, he recruits a songwriting collaborator (Mark McKenna) and a coterie of musicians (Percy Chamburuka, Conor Hamilton, Karl Rice) to join him. And, with the tutelage and encouragement of his older brother, Brendan (Jack Reynor), a one-time aspiring musician, Conor and his new band, Sing Street, are on their way.
The musicians and crew of an Irish high school band, Sing Street (from left, Karl Rice, Ben Carolan, Percy Chamburuka, Ferdia Walsh-Peelo, Lucy Boynton, Mark McKenna, Conor Hamilton, Ian Kenny), make a splash in 1980s Dublin in the new musical romantic comedy, “Sing Street.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.
What begins as a quest to win the heart of a would-be romantic interest soon takes another course. As the band hones its sound and Conor becomes polished as a musician and songwriter, his life moves in a new direction. He finds his calling and embarks on the pursuit of his unexpected destiny. And what of the amorous catalyst that launched this unforeseen endeavor? Well, you’ll have to watch to find out.
When beaten down by life’s setbacks, rebounding can be difficult, but that’s where having an inspirational spark to recharge ourselves can prove a godsend. So it is for Conor; when faced with the challenges of attending a deplorable new school, dealing with feuding parents destined for separation, and enduring the routine rants of dejected, disillusioned siblings, it’s no wonder that he needs something to give his life meaning and purpose. And that’s where he believes Raphina comes in. But, at the time they meet, little does he know that she’s merely the catalyst for something even more impressive.
Neophyte musician Conor (Ferdia Walsh-Peelo, right) receives advice from his older brother, Brendan (Jack Reynor, left), a one-time aspiring guitarist, in the new musical romantic comedy, “Sing Street.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.
Approaching Raphina certainly takes courage, given the rumors of her aloof reputation. But the hearsay doesn’t intimidate Conor; on some level, he knows that he must at least make the effort to find out what this connection will yield, a hunch that ultimately pays off far more handsomely than he ever could have imagined. It’s quite a dividend for an ostensibly simple gesture.
So what would prompt Conor to take such a seemingly improbable step? Considering his mild-mannered nature and the conventional wisdom about Raphina’s icy receptivity to advances (particularly from strangers), the odds would seem to be stacked against him. Yet Conor proceeds because, on some level, he believes something will come out of it. And that inner awareness ends up being his saving grace, but then that comes with the territory for advocates of the conscious creation process, the means by which we manifest our reality through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents.
As this story illustrates, Conor is quite proficient at employing the conscious creation process. To begin with, he makes effective use of several of its key components. For instance, he trusts the input of his intuition, regardless of how dubious its messages may seem. On top of that, he obviously has a tremendous capacity for living courageously, overcoming his fears and moving forward despite them. The result is quite a substantial payoff.
But getting Raphina’s attention is just the tip of the iceberg. What Conor’s involvement with her yields is by far the bigger prize, revealing talents that he never knew he had. To be sure, he had long dabbled with music but mainly as a dilettante. However, by making an offer to feature Raphina in a video for a nonexistent band, Conor realizes he must now get serious about his art. Given how events unfold, it’s obvious he believes he’s capable of pulling it off – and, by implication, on some level, always has been.
The musicians and crew of Sing Street (from left, Karl Rice, Percy Chamburuka, Ben Carolan, Ferdia Walsh-Peelo, Conor Hamilton, Mark McKenna) make a splash at the Synge Street School, their band’s namesake educational institution, in director John Carney’s new musical romantic comedy, “Sing Street.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.
As Conor embarks on this odyssey, his first steps are undoubtedly tentative and not without errors. But, as he gains experience, his skills improve, confirming his beliefs in his innate talents, which subsequently blossom in full-fledged tangible form. This builds his confidence, bolstering his self-reliance and abilities even more.
Conor is also proficient at drawing to himself the resources he needs to pull this off, a prime example of the law of attraction (the alternate name for conscious creation) at work. In addition to his catalytic association with Raphina, he successfully locates a band manager, a songwriting collaborator, a mentor and, of course, his band. Even the prevailing circumstances that prompted this scenario – difficult though they may have seemed at first glance – fortuitously appear and lead to the emergence of Conor’s new life path, paving a way for him that he might not have considered had they not materialized. In these ways, all of the puzzle pieces remarkably fall into place, as if by design (which, in fact, it is). This represents a clear demonstration of Conor’s ability to recognize and make use of the power of synchronicity, those meaningful coincidences that are tailor-made to meet the needs of our conscious creation undertakings.
The flowering of Conor’s previously unknown talents also illustrates the existence of our multidimensional selves. Many of us might be tempted to think that we’re merely the selves we already know, but, as Conor’s experience shows, there’s clearly more lurking within us than we may be aware of. Bringing those other aspects of our selves to the forefront is a primary aim of the conscious creation process, revealing those parts that have long remained hidden or obscured by self-imposed limitations. Their expression as physical manifestations marks their liberation and lends credence to one of conscious creation’s hallmark notions, the principle that we’re all in a constant state of becoming. And, in Conor’s case, what he becomes not only astounds those around him, but himself as well.
Aspiring musician Conor (Ferdia Walsh-Peelo, left) and music video model Raphina (Lucy Boynton, right) make quite a duo in the new musical romantic comedy, “Sing Street.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.
“Sing Street” is a charming, funny, coming of age period piece about a hopeless romantic who discovers talents he never knew he had. This finely produced feel good offering both inspires and tugs at the heart strings, but it successfully resists the temptation to become schmaltzy or clichéd. The film deftly spoofs the early days of music videos, mimicking their unapologetic silliness but without going over the top in doing so. Its original songs, composed by director John Carney, echo the music of the period and mesh well with the soundtrack’s other artists, such as Duran Duran, Hall & Oates, Joe Jackson, The Cure and The Jam. And the picture’s fine ensemble cast (many of whom are first-time on-screen performers) shines throughout, living up to the spirit of the film itself. Admittedly, the narrative would have benefitted from a bit more back story and greater character development among the supporting players (such as the other band members and Conor’s family), but, on balance, “Sing Street” never fails to entertain, offering a raucously good time at the show.
Having a diversion to get us through hard times can prove incredibly beneficial, perhaps serving as more than just a stopgap measure to stop the bleeding, as Conor’s experience demonstrates. But, to take advantage of these circumstances, it’s imperative that we have the insight to recognize them and the courage to act on them. Should we do that, though, we may end up surprising everyone – including ourselves.
Copyright © 2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
When life seems to be falling apart, it helps to have something to latch onto to stay afloat. But whatever one reaches for, no matter how satisfying it may be, could lead to even bigger and better things, and much of it unexpected. Such is the case for an Irish teen seeking to find himself during deteriorating circumstances in the charming new musical romantic comedy, “Sing Street.”
In the mid 1980s, with the Irish economy in the doldrums, residents of the Emerald Isle suffered financially, with many, especially the young and talented, fleeing to England to seek new opportunities. For those who remained behind, life was hard, with many households having to make sacrifices, and even the middle class wasn’t immune. Such conditions often led to domestic strife, with couples squabbling over money and, eventually, a host of other relationship issues.
Such is life in the family of a soft-spoken, somewhat geeky teen named Conor (Ferdia Walsh-Peelo). His parents, Robert (Aiden Gillen) and Penny (Maria Doyle Kennedy), seek to save money by transferring him from a pricey private academy to the Synge Street School, a public institution in a rough, inner city Dublin neighborhood. Needless to say, Conor’s not thrilled at the prospect, especially when he meets his loutish classmates, such as the resident bully, Barry (Ian Kenny), and the school’s no-nonsense headmaster, Brother Baxter (Don Wycherley).
However, not all is lost. Shortly after arriving at Synge Street, Conor meets a mysterious young neighborhood girl, Raphina (Lucy Boynton), who is said not to give anyone the time of day. But Conor is so taken with her beautiful, enigmatic looks that he can’t resist the opportunity to try chatting her up, a gesture to which she surprisingly responds. He quickly learns that she aspires to move to London and become a model, which gives him an idea to win her affections: He asks her if she’d like to appear in a music video for his band.
Much to his amazement, Raphina agrees, and everything between them seems good to go, with one little hitch – Conor needs to form a band to make the video. But, despite this minor complication, Conor is not deterred; with the aid of his buddy, Darren (Ben Carolan), who agrees to act as the yet-assembled group’s manager, he recruits a songwriting collaborator (Mark McKenna) and a coterie of musicians (Percy Chamburuka, Conor Hamilton, Karl Rice) to join him. And, with the tutelage and encouragement of his older brother, Brendan (Jack Reynor), a one-time aspiring musician, Conor and his new band, Sing Street, are on their way.
The musicians and crew of an Irish high school band, Sing Street (from left, Karl Rice, Ben Carolan, Percy Chamburuka, Ferdia Walsh-Peelo, Lucy Boynton, Mark McKenna, Conor Hamilton, Ian Kenny), make a splash in 1980s Dublin in the new musical romantic comedy, “Sing Street.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.What begins as a quest to win the heart of a would-be romantic interest soon takes another course. As the band hones its sound and Conor becomes polished as a musician and songwriter, his life moves in a new direction. He finds his calling and embarks on the pursuit of his unexpected destiny. And what of the amorous catalyst that launched this unforeseen endeavor? Well, you’ll have to watch to find out.
When beaten down by life’s setbacks, rebounding can be difficult, but that’s where having an inspirational spark to recharge ourselves can prove a godsend. So it is for Conor; when faced with the challenges of attending a deplorable new school, dealing with feuding parents destined for separation, and enduring the routine rants of dejected, disillusioned siblings, it’s no wonder that he needs something to give his life meaning and purpose. And that’s where he believes Raphina comes in. But, at the time they meet, little does he know that she’s merely the catalyst for something even more impressive.
Neophyte musician Conor (Ferdia Walsh-Peelo, right) receives advice from his older brother, Brendan (Jack Reynor, left), a one-time aspiring guitarist, in the new musical romantic comedy, “Sing Street.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.Approaching Raphina certainly takes courage, given the rumors of her aloof reputation. But the hearsay doesn’t intimidate Conor; on some level, he knows that he must at least make the effort to find out what this connection will yield, a hunch that ultimately pays off far more handsomely than he ever could have imagined. It’s quite a dividend for an ostensibly simple gesture.
So what would prompt Conor to take such a seemingly improbable step? Considering his mild-mannered nature and the conventional wisdom about Raphina’s icy receptivity to advances (particularly from strangers), the odds would seem to be stacked against him. Yet Conor proceeds because, on some level, he believes something will come out of it. And that inner awareness ends up being his saving grace, but then that comes with the territory for advocates of the conscious creation process, the means by which we manifest our reality through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents.
As this story illustrates, Conor is quite proficient at employing the conscious creation process. To begin with, he makes effective use of several of its key components. For instance, he trusts the input of his intuition, regardless of how dubious its messages may seem. On top of that, he obviously has a tremendous capacity for living courageously, overcoming his fears and moving forward despite them. The result is quite a substantial payoff.
But getting Raphina’s attention is just the tip of the iceberg. What Conor’s involvement with her yields is by far the bigger prize, revealing talents that he never knew he had. To be sure, he had long dabbled with music but mainly as a dilettante. However, by making an offer to feature Raphina in a video for a nonexistent band, Conor realizes he must now get serious about his art. Given how events unfold, it’s obvious he believes he’s capable of pulling it off – and, by implication, on some level, always has been.
The musicians and crew of Sing Street (from left, Karl Rice, Percy Chamburuka, Ben Carolan, Ferdia Walsh-Peelo, Conor Hamilton, Mark McKenna) make a splash at the Synge Street School, their band’s namesake educational institution, in director John Carney’s new musical romantic comedy, “Sing Street.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.As Conor embarks on this odyssey, his first steps are undoubtedly tentative and not without errors. But, as he gains experience, his skills improve, confirming his beliefs in his innate talents, which subsequently blossom in full-fledged tangible form. This builds his confidence, bolstering his self-reliance and abilities even more.
Conor is also proficient at drawing to himself the resources he needs to pull this off, a prime example of the law of attraction (the alternate name for conscious creation) at work. In addition to his catalytic association with Raphina, he successfully locates a band manager, a songwriting collaborator, a mentor and, of course, his band. Even the prevailing circumstances that prompted this scenario – difficult though they may have seemed at first glance – fortuitously appear and lead to the emergence of Conor’s new life path, paving a way for him that he might not have considered had they not materialized. In these ways, all of the puzzle pieces remarkably fall into place, as if by design (which, in fact, it is). This represents a clear demonstration of Conor’s ability to recognize and make use of the power of synchronicity, those meaningful coincidences that are tailor-made to meet the needs of our conscious creation undertakings.
The flowering of Conor’s previously unknown talents also illustrates the existence of our multidimensional selves. Many of us might be tempted to think that we’re merely the selves we already know, but, as Conor’s experience shows, there’s clearly more lurking within us than we may be aware of. Bringing those other aspects of our selves to the forefront is a primary aim of the conscious creation process, revealing those parts that have long remained hidden or obscured by self-imposed limitations. Their expression as physical manifestations marks their liberation and lends credence to one of conscious creation’s hallmark notions, the principle that we’re all in a constant state of becoming. And, in Conor’s case, what he becomes not only astounds those around him, but himself as well.
Aspiring musician Conor (Ferdia Walsh-Peelo, left) and music video model Raphina (Lucy Boynton, right) make quite a duo in the new musical romantic comedy, “Sing Street.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.“Sing Street” is a charming, funny, coming of age period piece about a hopeless romantic who discovers talents he never knew he had. This finely produced feel good offering both inspires and tugs at the heart strings, but it successfully resists the temptation to become schmaltzy or clichéd. The film deftly spoofs the early days of music videos, mimicking their unapologetic silliness but without going over the top in doing so. Its original songs, composed by director John Carney, echo the music of the period and mesh well with the soundtrack’s other artists, such as Duran Duran, Hall & Oates, Joe Jackson, The Cure and The Jam. And the picture’s fine ensemble cast (many of whom are first-time on-screen performers) shines throughout, living up to the spirit of the film itself. Admittedly, the narrative would have benefitted from a bit more back story and greater character development among the supporting players (such as the other band members and Conor’s family), but, on balance, “Sing Street” never fails to entertain, offering a raucously good time at the show.
Having a diversion to get us through hard times can prove incredibly beneficial, perhaps serving as more than just a stopgap measure to stop the bleeding, as Conor’s experience demonstrates. But, to take advantage of these circumstances, it’s imperative that we have the insight to recognize them and the courage to act on them. Should we do that, though, we may end up surprising everyone – including ourselves.
Copyright © 2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
May 2, 2016
This Week in Movies with Meaning
Reviews of "Sing Street" and "Fireworks Wednesday" and a radio show preview are all in the latest Movies with Meaning post on The Good Radio Network Blog Page available by clicking here.
Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.
Photo courtesy of Grasshopper Film.
Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.
Photo courtesy of Grasshopper Film.
April 29, 2016
‘99 Homes’ wrestles with issues of conscience
“99 Homes” (2015). Cast: Andrew Garfield, Michael Shannon, Laura Dern, Noah Lomax, Tim Guinee, Robert Larriviere. Director: Ramin Bahrani. Screenplay: Ramin Bahrani and Amir Naderi. Story: Ramin Bahrani and Bahareh Azimi. Web site. Trailer.
The pride of home ownership has long been a cornerstone of the American Dream. But that foundation of this long-sought-after way of life came crashing down for many in 2008 with the financial crisis and the housing bubble that triggered it. Countless people lost their homes – and, in many cases, their will to carry on – in the midst of that calamity, while others profited handsomely from their misfortune. The anguish of that crisis and how one homeowner attempted to bounce back from it provides the focus of the tense, heartfelt drama, “99 Homes,” now available on DVD, Blu-ray disk and video on demand.
When construction worker Dennis Nash (Andrew Garfield) loses the childhood home he shares with his son (Noah Lomax) and mother (Laura Dern), he reluctantly hands over the foreclosed property to an oily real estate broker, Rick Carver (Michael Shannon), who has craftily figured out how to manipulate the housing crisis to his advantage. However, when Carver learns what Nash can do as a hired hand, he offers him a job to do renovation and construction work on the foreclosed properties he handles. Before long, Carver grooms Nash for other kinds of work, such as conducting evictions. Ironically, in almost no time, Nash is making good money – for doing the very kind of work he was personally subjected to not long ago.
While Nash’s cash flow blossoms, so, too, do questions about the ethics of his actions, not to mention those of his boss. How can he possibly proceed with what he does knowing what it’s like to be on the receiving end of such treatment? He thus learns what it means to wrestle with his conscience. Indeed, can he continue to look the other way from his feelings simply for the sake of his pocketbook? And what is he to do when asked to engage in activities that cross the line of morality and, eventually, legality?
When it comes to setting our sights on what we want to achieve in our lives, how far are we willing to go? Is it acceptable to do whatever it takes? If not, then is it preferable to do anything that’s required as long as it’s legal, regardless of the ethics? Or should we follow our conscience and move ahead only with those acts and deeds that we know are morally and ethically proper? Those are the questions raised in this film. They’re also key considerations in the practice of conscious creation, the means by which we manifest our reality through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents, which is squarely put to the test in this story.
Specifically, these questions raise the issue of responsibility, a key consideration in the nature of what we create when employing this philosophy. To be sure, we can use it to manifest anything we want, given that the process makes all probabilities possible. But, just because we can create anything we want, does that mean we should do so? What about the fallout that comes from our creative efforts? Should we take that into account, or is the realization of what we seek all that matters?
These are dicey questions for anyone who practices conscious creation, because they all come into play with what we look to materialize. The beliefs we employ will be reflected faithfully in what’s produced, right down to the smallest nuances. Even infinitesimally small differences in our intents will be mirrored in the array of resulting creations, no matter how seemingly trivial or insignificant they may appear. Knowing this, then, it would behoove us to choose our beliefs – and what they yield – prudently.
One of the most important considerations we must confront in this context centers on the question, “Is doing what’s allowed necessarily doing what’s right?” This is something we must each address for ourselves, based on the nature of our conscience, what we’re seeking to create and what life lessons we hope to learn as a result of such an effort. The answers we arrive at will obviously vary from individual to individual, but taking stock of where we stand on these issues before we proceed may prove quite useful in what we conceive and eventually materialize.
These concerns play out loud and clear in how Dennis and Rick conduct themselves. In Dennis’s case, he seeks to restore what he lost, and he’s so preoccupied with the idea that he’s virtually willing to sell his soul to achieve that goal. Similarly, Rick freely pursues his ambitions in large part as a result of his upbringing; as the son of a father who worked hard and played by the rules (but never got ahead), he has no hesitation to disregard the so-called sage wisdom of his forbears, aggressively chasing his dreams and pushing the limits of what’s legally allowed, with little to no regard for whatever ethical concerns might be involved.
However, as the story unfolds, Dennis begins to question his actions, especially when he realizes what they do to others, such as a homeowner on the brink of foreclosure (Tim Guinee). He begins to see that actions (and creations, as well as the beliefs that inspire them) carry consequences – and not just for those on the receiving end of such manifestations. He’s thus forced into facing whether he should continue doing what he’s doing, especially when he starts feeling the impact personally, such as in his relationship with his family.
By contrast, Rick takes an approach of consequences be damned. He’s so set on seeing his objectives fulfilled that he can’t see past the desired outcomes, a practice known as un-conscious creation or creation by default. Such an approach may yield what’s hoped for, but it might also sweep up a host of unforeseen or unintended side effects in the process. In many ways, this is like playing metaphysical roulette; it may pay big dividends, but it might also lead to tremendous losses. Given that, is this really the course we should pursue?
To avoid this pitfall, we must choose our beliefs and intents wisely. But this may be trickier than one might expect, because multiple beliefs can be involved in the creation of a particular outcome. For example, Dennis seeks to get his home back, but there’s more to this than just reacquiring a piece of property; he wants the house because it’s where he grew up and where his mother operates her hairdressing business. This intent thus illustrates his emotional connection to the property, which tinges the character of the beliefs he’s employing to fulfill his goal.
Some may view this qualifying attribute of his beliefs as somewhat unimportant, but it’s not, because it seeks the realization of a specific outcome, one inherently different, for example, from a goal driven by beliefs aimed at reacquiring the property for purely economic reasons. This is important to keep in mind, because emotions, like anything else, are creations, and the beliefs we employ to manifest them are just as powerful as those used to materialize tangible items. In fact, when emotion-based beliefs become linked to those used in the creation of physical objects, the manifestation of those items can become less clear-cut, obscured by murky qualities that can complicate the realization of the sought-after tangible articles. Interestingly, Rick recognizes this, as becomes apparent when he advises Dennis on several occasions not to become emotionally attached when it comes to real estate.
In the end, though, no matter what we seek to create, we should be sure to take care in how we go about it, and this is where our conscience comes into play. If we’re indeed true with ourselves, we’ll know what to do, following our heart and intuition in manifesting what we’re supposed to materialize. The examples set in this film make that clear, and we’d be wise to follow the cautionary tale presented here.
“99 Homes” serves up a taut, engaging commentary about what ever happened to the American Dream, as well as a compelling morality play about what it means to have a conscience when those around us don’t. With gripping performances by Garfield, Dern and, especially, Shannon (who earned best supporting actor nominations in the Golden Globe, Critics Choice, Screen Actors Guild and Independent Spirit Awards competitions), this up-close-and-personal look at the debilitating effects of the 2008 housing meltdown bring the fallout of this calamity down to a human scale (think of it as “The Big Short” on the level of the Average Joe). It shows the full impact of what it’s like to have the rug pulled out from beneath oneself – and to have one’s heart ripped out – all in one fell swoop. The picture is easily one of 2015’s most overlooked releases – and one well worth a view.
Even if we don’t like owning up to our conscience, it never steers us wrong. It leads us to where we know we’re supposed to go, and we ignore it at our peril. Whether we’re talking the acquisition of real estate or the pursuit of our own peace of mind, the principle is the same in both cases. No matter what we’re seeking, we’d better pay attention – or be prepared to pay the consequences.
Copyright © 2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
The pride of home ownership has long been a cornerstone of the American Dream. But that foundation of this long-sought-after way of life came crashing down for many in 2008 with the financial crisis and the housing bubble that triggered it. Countless people lost their homes – and, in many cases, their will to carry on – in the midst of that calamity, while others profited handsomely from their misfortune. The anguish of that crisis and how one homeowner attempted to bounce back from it provides the focus of the tense, heartfelt drama, “99 Homes,” now available on DVD, Blu-ray disk and video on demand.
When construction worker Dennis Nash (Andrew Garfield) loses the childhood home he shares with his son (Noah Lomax) and mother (Laura Dern), he reluctantly hands over the foreclosed property to an oily real estate broker, Rick Carver (Michael Shannon), who has craftily figured out how to manipulate the housing crisis to his advantage. However, when Carver learns what Nash can do as a hired hand, he offers him a job to do renovation and construction work on the foreclosed properties he handles. Before long, Carver grooms Nash for other kinds of work, such as conducting evictions. Ironically, in almost no time, Nash is making good money – for doing the very kind of work he was personally subjected to not long ago.
While Nash’s cash flow blossoms, so, too, do questions about the ethics of his actions, not to mention those of his boss. How can he possibly proceed with what he does knowing what it’s like to be on the receiving end of such treatment? He thus learns what it means to wrestle with his conscience. Indeed, can he continue to look the other way from his feelings simply for the sake of his pocketbook? And what is he to do when asked to engage in activities that cross the line of morality and, eventually, legality?
When it comes to setting our sights on what we want to achieve in our lives, how far are we willing to go? Is it acceptable to do whatever it takes? If not, then is it preferable to do anything that’s required as long as it’s legal, regardless of the ethics? Or should we follow our conscience and move ahead only with those acts and deeds that we know are morally and ethically proper? Those are the questions raised in this film. They’re also key considerations in the practice of conscious creation, the means by which we manifest our reality through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents, which is squarely put to the test in this story.
Specifically, these questions raise the issue of responsibility, a key consideration in the nature of what we create when employing this philosophy. To be sure, we can use it to manifest anything we want, given that the process makes all probabilities possible. But, just because we can create anything we want, does that mean we should do so? What about the fallout that comes from our creative efforts? Should we take that into account, or is the realization of what we seek all that matters?
These are dicey questions for anyone who practices conscious creation, because they all come into play with what we look to materialize. The beliefs we employ will be reflected faithfully in what’s produced, right down to the smallest nuances. Even infinitesimally small differences in our intents will be mirrored in the array of resulting creations, no matter how seemingly trivial or insignificant they may appear. Knowing this, then, it would behoove us to choose our beliefs – and what they yield – prudently.
One of the most important considerations we must confront in this context centers on the question, “Is doing what’s allowed necessarily doing what’s right?” This is something we must each address for ourselves, based on the nature of our conscience, what we’re seeking to create and what life lessons we hope to learn as a result of such an effort. The answers we arrive at will obviously vary from individual to individual, but taking stock of where we stand on these issues before we proceed may prove quite useful in what we conceive and eventually materialize.
These concerns play out loud and clear in how Dennis and Rick conduct themselves. In Dennis’s case, he seeks to restore what he lost, and he’s so preoccupied with the idea that he’s virtually willing to sell his soul to achieve that goal. Similarly, Rick freely pursues his ambitions in large part as a result of his upbringing; as the son of a father who worked hard and played by the rules (but never got ahead), he has no hesitation to disregard the so-called sage wisdom of his forbears, aggressively chasing his dreams and pushing the limits of what’s legally allowed, with little to no regard for whatever ethical concerns might be involved.
However, as the story unfolds, Dennis begins to question his actions, especially when he realizes what they do to others, such as a homeowner on the brink of foreclosure (Tim Guinee). He begins to see that actions (and creations, as well as the beliefs that inspire them) carry consequences – and not just for those on the receiving end of such manifestations. He’s thus forced into facing whether he should continue doing what he’s doing, especially when he starts feeling the impact personally, such as in his relationship with his family.
By contrast, Rick takes an approach of consequences be damned. He’s so set on seeing his objectives fulfilled that he can’t see past the desired outcomes, a practice known as un-conscious creation or creation by default. Such an approach may yield what’s hoped for, but it might also sweep up a host of unforeseen or unintended side effects in the process. In many ways, this is like playing metaphysical roulette; it may pay big dividends, but it might also lead to tremendous losses. Given that, is this really the course we should pursue?
To avoid this pitfall, we must choose our beliefs and intents wisely. But this may be trickier than one might expect, because multiple beliefs can be involved in the creation of a particular outcome. For example, Dennis seeks to get his home back, but there’s more to this than just reacquiring a piece of property; he wants the house because it’s where he grew up and where his mother operates her hairdressing business. This intent thus illustrates his emotional connection to the property, which tinges the character of the beliefs he’s employing to fulfill his goal.
Some may view this qualifying attribute of his beliefs as somewhat unimportant, but it’s not, because it seeks the realization of a specific outcome, one inherently different, for example, from a goal driven by beliefs aimed at reacquiring the property for purely economic reasons. This is important to keep in mind, because emotions, like anything else, are creations, and the beliefs we employ to manifest them are just as powerful as those used to materialize tangible items. In fact, when emotion-based beliefs become linked to those used in the creation of physical objects, the manifestation of those items can become less clear-cut, obscured by murky qualities that can complicate the realization of the sought-after tangible articles. Interestingly, Rick recognizes this, as becomes apparent when he advises Dennis on several occasions not to become emotionally attached when it comes to real estate.
In the end, though, no matter what we seek to create, we should be sure to take care in how we go about it, and this is where our conscience comes into play. If we’re indeed true with ourselves, we’ll know what to do, following our heart and intuition in manifesting what we’re supposed to materialize. The examples set in this film make that clear, and we’d be wise to follow the cautionary tale presented here.
“99 Homes” serves up a taut, engaging commentary about what ever happened to the American Dream, as well as a compelling morality play about what it means to have a conscience when those around us don’t. With gripping performances by Garfield, Dern and, especially, Shannon (who earned best supporting actor nominations in the Golden Globe, Critics Choice, Screen Actors Guild and Independent Spirit Awards competitions), this up-close-and-personal look at the debilitating effects of the 2008 housing meltdown bring the fallout of this calamity down to a human scale (think of it as “The Big Short” on the level of the Average Joe). It shows the full impact of what it’s like to have the rug pulled out from beneath oneself – and to have one’s heart ripped out – all in one fell swoop. The picture is easily one of 2015’s most overlooked releases – and one well worth a view.
Even if we don’t like owning up to our conscience, it never steers us wrong. It leads us to where we know we’re supposed to go, and we ignore it at our peril. Whether we’re talking the acquisition of real estate or the pursuit of our own peace of mind, the principle is the same in both cases. No matter what we’re seeking, we’d better pay attention – or be prepared to pay the consequences.
Copyright © 2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
