Brent Marchant's Blog, page 124
January 28, 2016
‘Kaballah Me’ presents a blueprint for living
“Kabbalah Me” (2014). Cast: Steven E. Bram, Miriam Bram, Rabbi Stuart Shiff, Dr. Jane Bram, William Bram, Rabbi Adam Jacobs, Rabbi Robert Levine, Rabbi David Ingber, Rabbi Beryl Epstein, Rabbi Chaim Miller, Shannan Catlett, Elchonon Kranz, Rabbi Avraham Sutton, Rabbi Efim Svirsky, The Skolyia Rebbe, Bob Potter, Rabbi Yitzchak Schwartz, Rabbi Tzadok Cable, Rabbi Yom Tov Glaser, Rabbi David Aaron, Rabbi Adam Sinay, David Friedman, Benzion Eliyahu Lehrer, Yehudit Goldfarb. Directors: Steven E. Bram and Judah Lazarus. Screenplay: Steven E. Bram, Judah Lazarus and Adam Zucker. Story: Steven E. Bram and Rabbi Adam Jacobs. Web site. Trailer.
The search for meaning in life can be a lonely and frustrating one. For many of us, it seems like there must be something that gives it direction and purpose. But what is it? And how do we find it? Those are among the issues addressed in the enlightening DVD, “Kaballah Me.”
For years, New York-based filmmaker Steven E. Bram felt something was missing from his life. Though he was materially successful and a happily married father of two, he had an uneasy sense that his existence came up short somehow. To compensate, he pursued a variety of “experiences,” from going to Grateful Dead concerts to skydiving to devotedly following the New York Jets, all in hopes of attaining some sort of meaning. But the enlightenment he sought always seemed to elude him. And then, in the wake of 9/11 (which impacted him personally) and with his 50th birthday looming, Steven’s longing to resolve that nagging, nebulous emptiness grew ever stronger. But how? Interestingly, the process began somewhat innocuously at an unlikely location.
While attending a sporting event at New York’s Madison Square Garden, Bram spoke about his quest with a friend, who recommended someone who might be able to help, Rabbi Stuart Shiff. The suggestion surprised Bram, but it also piqued his interest, for, even though Steven grew up in a Jewish household, his connection to his heritage was primarily secular, not religious. But, with no other option readily available to him, he decided to give it a try.
Rabbi Shiff advised Bram that he should look into Kabbalah, the study of Jewish mysticism, a topic about which he (like many of his peers) knew virtually nothing. In fact, about all he knew was that it was a discipline that had been popularized by a number of celebrities in recent years (most notably Madonna). However, the more the rabbi spoke about it, the more intrigued Bram became. Rabbi Shiff recommended that Steven meet with Rabbi Adam Jacobs, a Kabbalah instructor and managing director of the New York Aish Center, for more information. And, after meeting with Rabbi Jacobs, Bram was off and running.
Jacobs recommended that Bram meet with members of New York’s orthodox Jewish community to learn more. This included meetings with orthodox relatives whom Steven knew of but had never met, as well as visits to the facilities of Kabbalah-related organizations. And the more he learned about the subject, the more he could see there were no easy answers when it came to understanding it.
An ancient Torah, as seen in the engaging documentary, “Kabbalah Me.” Photo courtesy of First Run Features.
Why the complexity? In large part, it stemmed from the fact that experts on the subject had widely divergent views about what constitutes Kabbalah. To begin with, most followers fall into one of two principal camps. For some, Kabbalah is an intrinsic aspect of the religion with which it’s associated (even if many of the faith’s practitioners are themselves unfamiliar with it). For others, however, it’s a philosophy all its own that can be readily separated from its theological roots and studied independently, regardless of whether one is Jewish. So, based on this fundamental distinction alone, it’s easy to see how someone could easily become confused about the subject. But, in light of the many elements the discipline embodies, the study of Kabbalah is a lot to take in, especially for someone just starting out with it.
To find the right fit, Steven chose to investigate both of the foregoing approaches. With regard to Kabbalah as a purely philosophical pursuit, he visited New York’s Kabbalah Centre, an organization offering study of the subject regardless of religious affiliation. Ironically enough, he also conversed with several rabbis, such as Rabbi Yitzchak Schwartz, a former Texas cowboy-turned-Kabbalah teacher, who urges the curious to take up their study of the subject even if they aren’t interested in adopting the related theological practices.
By contrast, Bram also investigated Kabbalah-related organizations and events that fully embrace the discipline’s religious aspects. This included visiting traditional Jewish bookstores, festivals and study centers in Brooklyn and attending a gathering of about 100,000 orthodox seekers at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium. He also looked into some of Judaism’s time-honored practices, like keeping kosher.
The act of lighting candles in a Kabbalah ceremony, as seen in filmmaker Steven E. Bram’s documentary, “Kabbalah Me.” Photo courtesy of First Run Features.
Bram’s decision to examine both approaches was important for reasons other than keeping an open mind; he also had his marriage and family to consider. Even though Steven and his wife Miriam were married in a synagogue, the couple had never practiced the rituals and traditions of their faith. Miriam, in fact, was a student of Buddhism and a yoga practitioner, but her interest in these matters was primarily spiritual, not religious. Consequently, she was concerned about the direction Steven’s quest would take. While she applauded his desire to find meaning, she wasn’t interested in joining him if he were to become religiously observant. She openly and candidly wondered what impact such a move might have on their marriage and in their role as parents, so Steven had to balance these considerations while pursuing the fulfillment of his own needs.
After investigating all of the resources New York had to offer, Steven still felt unfulfilled. He decided that, if he were to really find out everything Kabbalah had to offer, he needed to immerse himself in it, to visit where it all began – Israel. And so, with a list of recommended sites and contacts in hand, he traveled to the Holy Land, visiting the Sea of Galilee, the Kabbalah center of Tzfat, a joyous Kabbalah celebration in Meron and Jerusalem’s Western Wall. He met and spoke with Kabbalah instructors and practitioners from all walks of life, in addition to dancing, praying and taking ritualistic baths (mikvahs).
Filmmaker Steven E. Bram (center) dances with orthodox Jewish men while on a pilgrimage to Israel, as depicted in the director’s documentary, “Kabbalah Me.” Photo courtesy of First Run Features.
As Steven engaged in this spiritual odyssey, both at home and overseas, friends began to question his actions and motives. Some even thought he went over the deep end and joined a cult. But, thanks to this journey, he emerged a changed person with a renewed outlook on life. The meaning that had always seemed to escape him no longer seemed so elusive. And he had Kabbalah to thank for it.
So what exactly did Bram discover? He learned a set of principles for guiding him on his journey through life. And, as a closer look at those precepts reveals, many of its core concepts closely resemble those found in the practice of conscious creation, the means by which we manifest the reality we experience through our thoughts, beliefs and intents. Those parallel principles include the following:
Kabbalah , like conscious creation, is a journey of personal discovery. Just as conscious creation urges us to comprehend the beliefs that manifest our respective realities, Kabbalah likewise encourages its followers to look for meaning in their lives. Specifically, Kabbalah prompts the search for what one’s existence is all about and what holds it together. This requires finding an expanded sense of consciousness and connection on a deeper, soul level. It involves looking inward, into the same realm where our beliefs – the drivers of conscious creation – reside and, consequently, coming to understand those intents and their ramifications. Our acknowledgment and comprehension of those beliefs bring to us a greater overall awareness, and the more receptive we are to it, the more we get out of it. In that sense, conscious creation, like Kabbalah, is an act of receiving knowledge, an acceptance of our true selves and how that’s reflected in the reality we experience. In fact, the word “Kabbalah,” which means “receiving,” embodies that very notion in its name.
One must change the inside to change the outside. The aim in both disciplines is to learn about where we’re coming from. Conscious creators call this understanding our beliefs, while Kabbalists refer to it as learning the language of the heart, but, in both cases, the process is essentially the same. And, if we’re intent on bettering our existences, this is where we must start, regardless of which practice we employ. Implementing change calls for executing shifts in consciousness (or altering our beliefs), a process that requires us to be honest with ourselves. It may take time – perhaps even an entire lifetime – to get results. In many ways, both disciplines involve an evolutionary process (what conscious creators would call “a constant state of becoming”), with the end of each “chapter” marking the beginning of a new one (and, one would hope, one that reflects the materialization of those hoped-for changes).
Kabbalah can be applied in many different ways. Just as conscious creation can be employed to any endeavor, so, too, can Kabbalah. In fact, the film illustrates this, showing how it can be applied in such diverse pursuits as art, meditation, and healing and nutrition. But, then, that shouldn’t come as any surprise, since all of those undertakings are outer expressions of our inner world.
Kaballah involves finding a balance between our internal and external lives, harmonizing “flow” and “structure” (i.e., consciousness and manifestation). In one of Bram’s more engaging conversations, he discusses the significance of this principle with Rabbi Yom Tov Glaser, also known as “the surfing rabbi.” As an avid fan of riding the waves, Glaser waxes philosophically about his passion and how it – like any venture pursued through Kabbalah – calls for its practitioners to make use of this concept. “Flow” represents the unimpeded stream of consciousness from our inner selves into the outer world, while “structure” accounts for the physically manifested shape it takes in external reality. To put this idea into context, Glaser offers an excellent analogy. He asks viewers to think of the ocean: This vast body of water, with its myriad ebbs and currents, symbolizes our consciousness (flow), while the shoreline, with its inherent defining effect, represents the concept of manifestation by giving shape (structure) to the ocean. The potential is thus made manifest as the tangible. Again, this is a notion that can be employed in virtually any aspect of life through Kaballah. Or, as another of Bram’s interview subjects puts it, the purpose behind this practice is “ending in actuality, not theory,” no matter how it is applied.
Kaballah requires us to become reacquainted with our intrinsic sense of connection. This is crucial, because it’s something many of us have fundamentally forgotten. The problem is that we have allowed ourselves to become held hostage by our ego selves, our sense of “I,” so much so that we often fail to recognize our connection to our larger, expanded selves. However, this sense of separation must be dispensed with if we are ever to rediscover our lost sense of connection. This is one of several significant misunderstandings of the Universe that we must cope with if we ever hope to get ourselves back on track.
A man blows a ceremonial horn known as a shofar, as seen in the documentary, “Kabbalah Me.” Photo courtesy of First Run Features.
Of course, Kaballah’s similarities to its contemporary metaphysical cousin don’t end there. It also deals with such familiar conscious creation concepts as choice and free will, living in the present moment (and not worrying about tomorrow), living in community and not just individually (the impact of co-created mass events), figuring out the reasons for things (understanding our manifesting beliefs), becoming aware of the qualities of our greater existence (including the existence of such attributes as different dimensions, reincarnation and “soul fragments”), and so on. In fact, in light of all this, then one might successfully argue that conscious creation, at its core, is little more than a modern restatement of this time-honored philosophy.
Considering how long Kaballah has been around, and given the relative obscurity to which it had been relegated for so long, one might wonder why it’s experiencing such a resurgence at the moment. But, to answer that, one need only look at Bram’s own experience. As someone in middle life looking for the meaning that has long been missing from it, combined with the tremendous emotional impact of the 9/11 tragedy, it’s not surprising that something seemingly capable of filling that void would hold enormous appeal.
This is especially true in a world beset by as many challenges as we’re experiencing currently, both individually and collectively. For many of us, everyday existence often seems like more than we can bear. But, as several of the film’s interview subjects observe, “every light is preceded by a darkness, and the greater the darkness, the greater the shift that will come from it.” Some even contend that we’re now in the time of the “Double Darkness,” where it’s so dark we don’t even realize it’s dark. Perhaps that’s why so many Kabbalah seekers have come along now – to collectively implement the Tikkun – the “rectification” – to address these issues. We can only hope.
Pilgrims pray at Jerusalem’s sacred Western Wall, as depicted in the documentary, “Kabbalah Me.” Photo courtesy of First Run Features.
For those seeking answers to life’s questions, “Kaballah Me” may offer just the ticket they’re looking for. The film presents its material in a clear, concise, easily understood manner, with a highly personalized approach, taking lofty notions and bringing them down to a readily accessible level (kind of like what Kaballah itself is intended to do). It also infuses a great deal of humor and heartfelt emotion in taking viewers to its ultimate destination, providing a fun-loving ride for the journey. Think of it as an entertaining philosophical travelogue, and you get the idea.
In addition to the main film, the DVD includes an excellent selection of bonus features. Through a series of short vignettes, viewers are treated to additional material covering a variety of intriguing subjects, such as Kaballah’s relation to (and interpretation of) oneness, science, and good and evil. There is also a segment on the role of women in Kabbalah, extended footage of the Kabbalah celebration in Meron and a moving meditation on opening the heart.
As every architect knows, a good blueprint is essential to erect a sturdy, properly functioning finished structure. Unfortunately, many of us haven’t done the same for ourselves in building the structures of our lives. Taking such a haphazard approach has often left us to construct the frames of our lives without direction, purpose or clarity. But, with the aid of the ancient wisdom of Kaballah (and its contemporary counterpart), we have an opportunity to create an existence characterized by satisfaction, joy and fulfillment. So go grab that metaphysical tool belt – and get to work.
Copyright © 2015-2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
The search for meaning in life can be a lonely and frustrating one. For many of us, it seems like there must be something that gives it direction and purpose. But what is it? And how do we find it? Those are among the issues addressed in the enlightening DVD, “Kaballah Me.”
For years, New York-based filmmaker Steven E. Bram felt something was missing from his life. Though he was materially successful and a happily married father of two, he had an uneasy sense that his existence came up short somehow. To compensate, he pursued a variety of “experiences,” from going to Grateful Dead concerts to skydiving to devotedly following the New York Jets, all in hopes of attaining some sort of meaning. But the enlightenment he sought always seemed to elude him. And then, in the wake of 9/11 (which impacted him personally) and with his 50th birthday looming, Steven’s longing to resolve that nagging, nebulous emptiness grew ever stronger. But how? Interestingly, the process began somewhat innocuously at an unlikely location.
While attending a sporting event at New York’s Madison Square Garden, Bram spoke about his quest with a friend, who recommended someone who might be able to help, Rabbi Stuart Shiff. The suggestion surprised Bram, but it also piqued his interest, for, even though Steven grew up in a Jewish household, his connection to his heritage was primarily secular, not religious. But, with no other option readily available to him, he decided to give it a try.
Rabbi Shiff advised Bram that he should look into Kabbalah, the study of Jewish mysticism, a topic about which he (like many of his peers) knew virtually nothing. In fact, about all he knew was that it was a discipline that had been popularized by a number of celebrities in recent years (most notably Madonna). However, the more the rabbi spoke about it, the more intrigued Bram became. Rabbi Shiff recommended that Steven meet with Rabbi Adam Jacobs, a Kabbalah instructor and managing director of the New York Aish Center, for more information. And, after meeting with Rabbi Jacobs, Bram was off and running.
Jacobs recommended that Bram meet with members of New York’s orthodox Jewish community to learn more. This included meetings with orthodox relatives whom Steven knew of but had never met, as well as visits to the facilities of Kabbalah-related organizations. And the more he learned about the subject, the more he could see there were no easy answers when it came to understanding it.
An ancient Torah, as seen in the engaging documentary, “Kabbalah Me.” Photo courtesy of First Run Features.Why the complexity? In large part, it stemmed from the fact that experts on the subject had widely divergent views about what constitutes Kabbalah. To begin with, most followers fall into one of two principal camps. For some, Kabbalah is an intrinsic aspect of the religion with which it’s associated (even if many of the faith’s practitioners are themselves unfamiliar with it). For others, however, it’s a philosophy all its own that can be readily separated from its theological roots and studied independently, regardless of whether one is Jewish. So, based on this fundamental distinction alone, it’s easy to see how someone could easily become confused about the subject. But, in light of the many elements the discipline embodies, the study of Kabbalah is a lot to take in, especially for someone just starting out with it.
To find the right fit, Steven chose to investigate both of the foregoing approaches. With regard to Kabbalah as a purely philosophical pursuit, he visited New York’s Kabbalah Centre, an organization offering study of the subject regardless of religious affiliation. Ironically enough, he also conversed with several rabbis, such as Rabbi Yitzchak Schwartz, a former Texas cowboy-turned-Kabbalah teacher, who urges the curious to take up their study of the subject even if they aren’t interested in adopting the related theological practices.
By contrast, Bram also investigated Kabbalah-related organizations and events that fully embrace the discipline’s religious aspects. This included visiting traditional Jewish bookstores, festivals and study centers in Brooklyn and attending a gathering of about 100,000 orthodox seekers at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium. He also looked into some of Judaism’s time-honored practices, like keeping kosher.
The act of lighting candles in a Kabbalah ceremony, as seen in filmmaker Steven E. Bram’s documentary, “Kabbalah Me.” Photo courtesy of First Run Features.Bram’s decision to examine both approaches was important for reasons other than keeping an open mind; he also had his marriage and family to consider. Even though Steven and his wife Miriam were married in a synagogue, the couple had never practiced the rituals and traditions of their faith. Miriam, in fact, was a student of Buddhism and a yoga practitioner, but her interest in these matters was primarily spiritual, not religious. Consequently, she was concerned about the direction Steven’s quest would take. While she applauded his desire to find meaning, she wasn’t interested in joining him if he were to become religiously observant. She openly and candidly wondered what impact such a move might have on their marriage and in their role as parents, so Steven had to balance these considerations while pursuing the fulfillment of his own needs.
After investigating all of the resources New York had to offer, Steven still felt unfulfilled. He decided that, if he were to really find out everything Kabbalah had to offer, he needed to immerse himself in it, to visit where it all began – Israel. And so, with a list of recommended sites and contacts in hand, he traveled to the Holy Land, visiting the Sea of Galilee, the Kabbalah center of Tzfat, a joyous Kabbalah celebration in Meron and Jerusalem’s Western Wall. He met and spoke with Kabbalah instructors and practitioners from all walks of life, in addition to dancing, praying and taking ritualistic baths (mikvahs).
Filmmaker Steven E. Bram (center) dances with orthodox Jewish men while on a pilgrimage to Israel, as depicted in the director’s documentary, “Kabbalah Me.” Photo courtesy of First Run Features.As Steven engaged in this spiritual odyssey, both at home and overseas, friends began to question his actions and motives. Some even thought he went over the deep end and joined a cult. But, thanks to this journey, he emerged a changed person with a renewed outlook on life. The meaning that had always seemed to escape him no longer seemed so elusive. And he had Kabbalah to thank for it.
So what exactly did Bram discover? He learned a set of principles for guiding him on his journey through life. And, as a closer look at those precepts reveals, many of its core concepts closely resemble those found in the practice of conscious creation, the means by which we manifest the reality we experience through our thoughts, beliefs and intents. Those parallel principles include the following:
Kabbalah , like conscious creation, is a journey of personal discovery. Just as conscious creation urges us to comprehend the beliefs that manifest our respective realities, Kabbalah likewise encourages its followers to look for meaning in their lives. Specifically, Kabbalah prompts the search for what one’s existence is all about and what holds it together. This requires finding an expanded sense of consciousness and connection on a deeper, soul level. It involves looking inward, into the same realm where our beliefs – the drivers of conscious creation – reside and, consequently, coming to understand those intents and their ramifications. Our acknowledgment and comprehension of those beliefs bring to us a greater overall awareness, and the more receptive we are to it, the more we get out of it. In that sense, conscious creation, like Kabbalah, is an act of receiving knowledge, an acceptance of our true selves and how that’s reflected in the reality we experience. In fact, the word “Kabbalah,” which means “receiving,” embodies that very notion in its name.
One must change the inside to change the outside. The aim in both disciplines is to learn about where we’re coming from. Conscious creators call this understanding our beliefs, while Kabbalists refer to it as learning the language of the heart, but, in both cases, the process is essentially the same. And, if we’re intent on bettering our existences, this is where we must start, regardless of which practice we employ. Implementing change calls for executing shifts in consciousness (or altering our beliefs), a process that requires us to be honest with ourselves. It may take time – perhaps even an entire lifetime – to get results. In many ways, both disciplines involve an evolutionary process (what conscious creators would call “a constant state of becoming”), with the end of each “chapter” marking the beginning of a new one (and, one would hope, one that reflects the materialization of those hoped-for changes).
Kabbalah can be applied in many different ways. Just as conscious creation can be employed to any endeavor, so, too, can Kabbalah. In fact, the film illustrates this, showing how it can be applied in such diverse pursuits as art, meditation, and healing and nutrition. But, then, that shouldn’t come as any surprise, since all of those undertakings are outer expressions of our inner world.
Kaballah involves finding a balance between our internal and external lives, harmonizing “flow” and “structure” (i.e., consciousness and manifestation). In one of Bram’s more engaging conversations, he discusses the significance of this principle with Rabbi Yom Tov Glaser, also known as “the surfing rabbi.” As an avid fan of riding the waves, Glaser waxes philosophically about his passion and how it – like any venture pursued through Kabbalah – calls for its practitioners to make use of this concept. “Flow” represents the unimpeded stream of consciousness from our inner selves into the outer world, while “structure” accounts for the physically manifested shape it takes in external reality. To put this idea into context, Glaser offers an excellent analogy. He asks viewers to think of the ocean: This vast body of water, with its myriad ebbs and currents, symbolizes our consciousness (flow), while the shoreline, with its inherent defining effect, represents the concept of manifestation by giving shape (structure) to the ocean. The potential is thus made manifest as the tangible. Again, this is a notion that can be employed in virtually any aspect of life through Kaballah. Or, as another of Bram’s interview subjects puts it, the purpose behind this practice is “ending in actuality, not theory,” no matter how it is applied.
Kaballah requires us to become reacquainted with our intrinsic sense of connection. This is crucial, because it’s something many of us have fundamentally forgotten. The problem is that we have allowed ourselves to become held hostage by our ego selves, our sense of “I,” so much so that we often fail to recognize our connection to our larger, expanded selves. However, this sense of separation must be dispensed with if we are ever to rediscover our lost sense of connection. This is one of several significant misunderstandings of the Universe that we must cope with if we ever hope to get ourselves back on track.
A man blows a ceremonial horn known as a shofar, as seen in the documentary, “Kabbalah Me.” Photo courtesy of First Run Features.Of course, Kaballah’s similarities to its contemporary metaphysical cousin don’t end there. It also deals with such familiar conscious creation concepts as choice and free will, living in the present moment (and not worrying about tomorrow), living in community and not just individually (the impact of co-created mass events), figuring out the reasons for things (understanding our manifesting beliefs), becoming aware of the qualities of our greater existence (including the existence of such attributes as different dimensions, reincarnation and “soul fragments”), and so on. In fact, in light of all this, then one might successfully argue that conscious creation, at its core, is little more than a modern restatement of this time-honored philosophy.
Considering how long Kaballah has been around, and given the relative obscurity to which it had been relegated for so long, one might wonder why it’s experiencing such a resurgence at the moment. But, to answer that, one need only look at Bram’s own experience. As someone in middle life looking for the meaning that has long been missing from it, combined with the tremendous emotional impact of the 9/11 tragedy, it’s not surprising that something seemingly capable of filling that void would hold enormous appeal.
This is especially true in a world beset by as many challenges as we’re experiencing currently, both individually and collectively. For many of us, everyday existence often seems like more than we can bear. But, as several of the film’s interview subjects observe, “every light is preceded by a darkness, and the greater the darkness, the greater the shift that will come from it.” Some even contend that we’re now in the time of the “Double Darkness,” where it’s so dark we don’t even realize it’s dark. Perhaps that’s why so many Kabbalah seekers have come along now – to collectively implement the Tikkun – the “rectification” – to address these issues. We can only hope.
Pilgrims pray at Jerusalem’s sacred Western Wall, as depicted in the documentary, “Kabbalah Me.” Photo courtesy of First Run Features.For those seeking answers to life’s questions, “Kaballah Me” may offer just the ticket they’re looking for. The film presents its material in a clear, concise, easily understood manner, with a highly personalized approach, taking lofty notions and bringing them down to a readily accessible level (kind of like what Kaballah itself is intended to do). It also infuses a great deal of humor and heartfelt emotion in taking viewers to its ultimate destination, providing a fun-loving ride for the journey. Think of it as an entertaining philosophical travelogue, and you get the idea.
In addition to the main film, the DVD includes an excellent selection of bonus features. Through a series of short vignettes, viewers are treated to additional material covering a variety of intriguing subjects, such as Kaballah’s relation to (and interpretation of) oneness, science, and good and evil. There is also a segment on the role of women in Kabbalah, extended footage of the Kabbalah celebration in Meron and a moving meditation on opening the heart.
As every architect knows, a good blueprint is essential to erect a sturdy, properly functioning finished structure. Unfortunately, many of us haven’t done the same for ourselves in building the structures of our lives. Taking such a haphazard approach has often left us to construct the frames of our lives without direction, purpose or clarity. But, with the aid of the ancient wisdom of Kaballah (and its contemporary counterpart), we have an opportunity to create an existence characterized by satisfaction, joy and fulfillment. So go grab that metaphysical tool belt – and get to work.
Copyright © 2015-2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
January 27, 2016
Visit the Movies with Meaning Page
Visit the new Movies with Meaning page on The Good Radio Network web site, available by clicking here. And check out my first Movies with Meaning radio segment on the Frankiesense & More radio show this Thursday, January 28, at 2 pm Eastern, available live or via podcast by clicking here.
Check out Movies with Meaning!
I'm thrilled to announce that I have been named Movie Correspondent for The Good Radio Network and its Frankiesense & More radio show with host Frankie Picasso. Look for my regular Movies with Meaning blog posts on the network's web site, featuring movie-related news and reviews (the first one is now available here). And then tune in on the last Thursday of every month for my regular Movies with Meaning news and reviews segment on Frankiesense & More, available for listening live or on the show's downloadable podcast.
January 21, 2016
‘The Big Short’ dissects a financial meltdown
“The Big Short” (2015). Cast: Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Brat Pitt, Melissa Leo, Marisa Tomei, Finn Wittrock, John Magaro, Rafe Spall, Hamish Linklater, Jeremy Strong, Adepero Oduye, Tracy Letts, Byron Mann, Rajeev Jacob, Jeffry Griffin, Karen Gillan, Billy Magnussen, Max Greenfield, Margot Robbie, Selena Gomez, Anthony Bourdain, Richard Thaler. Director: Adam McKay. Screenplay: Charles Randolph and Adam McKay. Book: Michael Lewis, The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine. Web site. Trailer.
The Great Recession of 2008 is all too well known to a great many people. Much of the blame was placed on the collapse of the home mortgage market, and, at least superficially, that might be true. But what was behind that debacle, the underlying cause of an event that nearly brought the entire world’s economy to its knees? That’s what “The Big Short” seeks to explain.
In 2005, virtually everyone in the financial services industry was living high on the hog. Despite the losses that occurred in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the economy rebounded strongly in the time since that fateful day in 2001. Money rolled in as if it were on a perpetual upward spiral, a nonstop gravy train that most insiders thought would never end. People in the business partied like there was no tomorrow, celebrating the good fortune that was now being looked on as unending and matter of fact.
Many of those fortunes were made in the home mortgage market, a segment of the economy seen as rock solid dependable. But was it? As several astute financial analysts began to discover, the mortgage business looked like a disaster waiting to happen. The “bubble” that was forming in the housing market was getting ready to burst – and in a very big way. But, because most everyone in the business was so busy swilling champagne and spending money hand over fist, no one was paying attention to the fact that the mortgage market was built on risky investments that weren’t adequately investigated. These shaky housing loans were routinely bundled into investments known as “collateralized debt obligations” (or “CDOs”) and passed off as legitimate instruments when they were, in fact, seldom worth the paper they were printed on. In essence, the whole ball game was based on shoddy due diligence at best and rampant fraud at worst.
A handful of financial analysts saw the writing on the wall in 2005, and they projected a catastrophic collapse coming in 2007. Their thinking naturally ran contrary to the prevailing wisdom, and they were frequently laughed at by their peers. But they were undeterred in investigating matters further. Among those on this cutting-edge forefront was a colorful cast of characters:
* Michael Burry (Christian Bale), an eccentric, socially awkward, San Jose-based neurologist-turned-money manager with a penchant for heavy metal music and walking around barefoot. He astutely spotted the bubble when virtually no one else did and wanted to find a way to cash in on it. After all, if no one else was going to make money off of this impending disaster, at least he and his investors would. He proceeded to invent a financial instrument called a “credit default swap,” an investment that effectively bet against the viability of the risky loans, providing investors with a payout if they failed. The practice of purposely investing against the backers of the mortgages in hopes that the loans would default was known as “shorting.” At the time the swaps were created, buying into them was considered financial suicide. But, if Burry’s projections were to pan out, investors would be rewarded handsomely for their unconventional speculation.
* Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling), a slick, young, high-powered Wall Street banker who profited profusely from his efforts but who also had an underlying disdain for the conspicuous arrogance (and ignorance) of his colleagues. When he learned about Burry’s new investment vehicle, he looked into it and saw the financial opportunity of a lifetime emerging. He was determined to pounce on it, even if his clueless peers were oblivious to it, and sought investors to join him in this new venture.
* Mark Baum (Steve Carell), a high-strung hedge fund manager whose financial outlook was based on a wider view than just doing whatever it takes to make money. When approached by Vennett to join him in his bold undertaking, Baum was initially skeptical and decided to investigate further with the aid of his wise-cracking colleagues, Porter Collins (Hamish Linklater), Vinnie Daniel (Jeremy Strong) and Danny Moses (Rafe Spall). They quickly validated what Jared said, a revelation whose implications troubled Mark deeply, for he saw consequences far worse than anyone ever imagined – including those who spotted the emerging bubble in the first place.
* Charlie Geller (John Magaro) and Jamie Shipley (Finn Wittrock), a pair of upstart Colorado-based money managers aching to break into the Wall Street financial world. They, too, spotted the coming mortgage market collapse and wanted in on the shorting transactions. But, because their operation amounted to financial small potatoes, they needed help to get into the game in a big way. They turned to their friend, Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt), a retired financier who now used his time and resources to promote socially conscious initiatives. Rickert possessed the clout to help Geller and Shipley – and the wits to take on a system that he had come to see as patently toxic.
Over time, the more these financial mavericks investigated the market, the more inherently corrupt they found it to be. When they discovered, for example, that some of the professionals charged with supposedly safeguarding the integrity of these investments (such as ratings agency analyst Georgia Hale (Melissa Leo) and CDO portfolio manager Mr. Chau (Byron Mann)) were blatantly disregarding their responsibilities, they were even more convinced that they were right. And, when they learned that no one in the media was willing to blow the whistle on the scam, they decided to jump in and await the arrival of their fortunes, for, if they were right about what was to transpire, the prospect of an untold fortune loomed large.
Betting on the mortgage market failing was seen as irresponsibly risky, something that most conventional financiers saw as a ludicrously improbable long shot—but one that would also yield an enormous payout if the projected result came to pass. Which it ultimately did.
The outcome of all this, of course, was the 2008 financial collapse. Even though it didn’t arrive exactly on cue, it arrived nevertheless, triggering a fiscal avalanche in short order (no pun intended). The fallout was felt far and wide; with the economy in meltdown, countless people lost their jobs and their homes. And, for what it’s worth, the prognosticators of financial doom made their money, their prescience in most cases tainted by decidedly mixed emotions. Sometimes being right doesn’t feel as good as one might assume it would.
Those who engage in the practice of conscious creation, the means by which we realize our reality through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents, should take heed of this cautionary tale. The narrative of “The Big Short” provides an exemplary example of what can happen when we blatantly disregard the forces that drive our existence.
For instance, while most of Wall Street was preoccupied with making money and having a good time without paying attention to how that was happening, a time bomb was lurking beneath the surface of the industry’s collective consciousness. By focusing purely on the result and ignoring how it came to pass, the financial industry effectively turned a blind eye to its own looming fate, a practice commonly known as un-conscious creation. And, by the time its ranks recognized what was happening, it was too late to do anything about it – both for themselves and the hordes of those affected by their intrinsic metaphysical irresponsibility.
The conscious creation component most notably lacking in this scenario was a vitally crucial element – integrity. When we seek to employ the process, we nearly always get the best results when we’re in touch with our beliefs, particularly those that reflect our truest selves. But, when such integrity is absent or shunted off to the side, the results rarely meet our hoped-for expectations. The financiers who put their own interests ahead of their work and the welfare of those they served clearly lacked this attribute in their beliefs. So, considering how events ultimately played out, is it any surprise that this shortcoming would come back to bite them in a big way? (Payback, it would seem, really can live up to its decidedly surly reputation.)
As with any conscious creation undertaking, this film thus capably illustrates how we get back what we put into our ventures, especially when we disregard the importance of elements like integrity. This obviously applies to the financial operatives who wound up broke; they lost their shirts when they lost their heads. But the same could also be said for the many homeowners who lost their properties when they agreed to loan deals that were effectively too good to be true. Their desire to own homes at all costs, no matter what it took, reflected their own lack of integrity – and their own practice of un-conscious creation.
By ignoring the importance of integrity in the conscious creation process, we’re playing with metaphysical fire. And, as the film aptly shows, it’s easy to get burned when we seek to manifest our existence without its presence in our belief portfolio.
By contrast, those who are true to themselves, who purposely include integrity as part of their mix of intentions, manage to see their goals realized. Having this quality in place enables such conscious creation practitioners to make better use of other metaphysical tools at their disposal, like intuition and the ability to spot synchronicities. This was very much the case with Burry, Vennett, Baum, Rickert and their associates. They saw the emerging scenario and listened to their instincts, even if no one else was willing to give the idea a second thought. And, when opportunities appeared that enabled them to capitalize on their well-considered hunches, they availed themselves of what they had to offer.
Given that the financiers in this film profited off of the hardship of others, one might legitimately ask, “Where’s the integrity in that?” That argument certainly has some merit. However, as “integrity” is used here, the term has to do with being true to oneself and one’s beliefs in seeing through the materialization of one’s reality. And, in that context, their beliefs were borne out. Indeed, they succeeded in being able to say to the naysayers, “I told you so.”
As for the moral implications of this, that’s an entirely different matter. As becomes apparent in the film, each of the protagonists had their own reactions to what they did and how they felt about it. Vennett, for example, saw the opportunity as a chance to cash in big and didn’t hesitate to do so, unaffected – and mostly unapologetic – about the fallout of having made his investment. That’s what he wanted for himself – and promptly proceeded to create it, plain and simple.
At the other end of the spectrum, Rickert, Baum and, to an extent, Burry saw what was happening in the financial industry before the collapse and were troubled by the implications, and their decisions to proceed with their investments were tempered by other considerations. Rickert, for instance, used his now-considerably enhanced financial resources to bankroll socially responsible endeavors, undertakings that may not have come into being as readily were it not for the funds he amassed through his investment.
Similarly, Baum and Burry realized they needed to look out for the welfare of their investors, and, even though they may not have been entirely comfortable with their actions, they were at least able to make the decisions necessary to take care of those who placed their faith in them. Time for soul searching of the greater implications involved came later, a process that was by no means easy for either of them. But, despite such introspection, they could rest assured that they did what they needed to do for their clients.
And then there were Geller and Shipley, who initially believed much as Vennett did. But, when Rickert pointed out the ramifications of what their investment would likely yield, they came in for a rude awakening. The experience proved to be a useful lesson in turning away from un-conscious creation toward a more considered outlook about their beliefs – and what they can produce.
The collectively created mass event that was the financial collapse consisted of a wide array of individual stories and life lessons. The circumstances that provided the means for these assorted experiences may have been jointly manifested, but that overarching scenario made it possible for a diverse range of people to obtain what they needed to get out of it. Given the stakes involved, we can only hope that we learned our lesson from it. The potential for loss from sleepwalking through life or approaching it without integrity is substantial, consequences that are likely to be worse each time we fail to pass the test.
“The Big Short” is a surprisingly enjoyable movie about an unlikely subject that’s brought to life through a clever script, understated wit and masterful film editing. The picture skillfully provides novel analogies to explain complex financial concepts, employing celebrity lecturers like Margot Robbie, Selena Gomez and Anthony Bourdain. But, most of all, the film features a superb cast with stellar performances by Bale, Carell, Gosling and Leo. I can honestly say this is my favorite film of 2015, outclassing virtually all of the other offerings from what turned out to be a somewhat tepid year in cinema.
This offering is well deserving of all the accolades it has received. It previously earned four Golden Globe Award nominations (best comedy picture, screenplay, and comedy actor honors (for Bale and Carell)), though it took home no statues. It subsequently won three Critics Choice Awards for best comedy, adapted screenplay and comedy actor (Bale) on seven total nominations. In pending competitions, the film is awaiting word on its two Screen Actors Guild Award nominations (best ensemble, supporting actor (Bale)), its four BAFTA nominations (best picture, editing, screenplay, supporting actor (Bale)) and its five Oscar nominations (best picture, director, adapted screenplay, editing, supporting actor (Bale)).
When we wonder why things turn out as they do, we need look no further than ourselves – and what drives us, namely, our beliefs. Sometimes we come up proud of ourselves, but, at other times, we might stumble upon some difficult realizations. This film illustrates that impeccably, showing us what can result when we grow lazy or unconcerned about the intents that create our existence. And that’s one instance where we certainly wouldn’t want to come up short.
Copyright © 2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
The Great Recession of 2008 is all too well known to a great many people. Much of the blame was placed on the collapse of the home mortgage market, and, at least superficially, that might be true. But what was behind that debacle, the underlying cause of an event that nearly brought the entire world’s economy to its knees? That’s what “The Big Short” seeks to explain.
In 2005, virtually everyone in the financial services industry was living high on the hog. Despite the losses that occurred in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the economy rebounded strongly in the time since that fateful day in 2001. Money rolled in as if it were on a perpetual upward spiral, a nonstop gravy train that most insiders thought would never end. People in the business partied like there was no tomorrow, celebrating the good fortune that was now being looked on as unending and matter of fact.
Many of those fortunes were made in the home mortgage market, a segment of the economy seen as rock solid dependable. But was it? As several astute financial analysts began to discover, the mortgage business looked like a disaster waiting to happen. The “bubble” that was forming in the housing market was getting ready to burst – and in a very big way. But, because most everyone in the business was so busy swilling champagne and spending money hand over fist, no one was paying attention to the fact that the mortgage market was built on risky investments that weren’t adequately investigated. These shaky housing loans were routinely bundled into investments known as “collateralized debt obligations” (or “CDOs”) and passed off as legitimate instruments when they were, in fact, seldom worth the paper they were printed on. In essence, the whole ball game was based on shoddy due diligence at best and rampant fraud at worst.
A handful of financial analysts saw the writing on the wall in 2005, and they projected a catastrophic collapse coming in 2007. Their thinking naturally ran contrary to the prevailing wisdom, and they were frequently laughed at by their peers. But they were undeterred in investigating matters further. Among those on this cutting-edge forefront was a colorful cast of characters:
* Michael Burry (Christian Bale), an eccentric, socially awkward, San Jose-based neurologist-turned-money manager with a penchant for heavy metal music and walking around barefoot. He astutely spotted the bubble when virtually no one else did and wanted to find a way to cash in on it. After all, if no one else was going to make money off of this impending disaster, at least he and his investors would. He proceeded to invent a financial instrument called a “credit default swap,” an investment that effectively bet against the viability of the risky loans, providing investors with a payout if they failed. The practice of purposely investing against the backers of the mortgages in hopes that the loans would default was known as “shorting.” At the time the swaps were created, buying into them was considered financial suicide. But, if Burry’s projections were to pan out, investors would be rewarded handsomely for their unconventional speculation.
* Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling), a slick, young, high-powered Wall Street banker who profited profusely from his efforts but who also had an underlying disdain for the conspicuous arrogance (and ignorance) of his colleagues. When he learned about Burry’s new investment vehicle, he looked into it and saw the financial opportunity of a lifetime emerging. He was determined to pounce on it, even if his clueless peers were oblivious to it, and sought investors to join him in this new venture.
* Mark Baum (Steve Carell), a high-strung hedge fund manager whose financial outlook was based on a wider view than just doing whatever it takes to make money. When approached by Vennett to join him in his bold undertaking, Baum was initially skeptical and decided to investigate further with the aid of his wise-cracking colleagues, Porter Collins (Hamish Linklater), Vinnie Daniel (Jeremy Strong) and Danny Moses (Rafe Spall). They quickly validated what Jared said, a revelation whose implications troubled Mark deeply, for he saw consequences far worse than anyone ever imagined – including those who spotted the emerging bubble in the first place.
* Charlie Geller (John Magaro) and Jamie Shipley (Finn Wittrock), a pair of upstart Colorado-based money managers aching to break into the Wall Street financial world. They, too, spotted the coming mortgage market collapse and wanted in on the shorting transactions. But, because their operation amounted to financial small potatoes, they needed help to get into the game in a big way. They turned to their friend, Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt), a retired financier who now used his time and resources to promote socially conscious initiatives. Rickert possessed the clout to help Geller and Shipley – and the wits to take on a system that he had come to see as patently toxic.
Over time, the more these financial mavericks investigated the market, the more inherently corrupt they found it to be. When they discovered, for example, that some of the professionals charged with supposedly safeguarding the integrity of these investments (such as ratings agency analyst Georgia Hale (Melissa Leo) and CDO portfolio manager Mr. Chau (Byron Mann)) were blatantly disregarding their responsibilities, they were even more convinced that they were right. And, when they learned that no one in the media was willing to blow the whistle on the scam, they decided to jump in and await the arrival of their fortunes, for, if they were right about what was to transpire, the prospect of an untold fortune loomed large.
Betting on the mortgage market failing was seen as irresponsibly risky, something that most conventional financiers saw as a ludicrously improbable long shot—but one that would also yield an enormous payout if the projected result came to pass. Which it ultimately did.
The outcome of all this, of course, was the 2008 financial collapse. Even though it didn’t arrive exactly on cue, it arrived nevertheless, triggering a fiscal avalanche in short order (no pun intended). The fallout was felt far and wide; with the economy in meltdown, countless people lost their jobs and their homes. And, for what it’s worth, the prognosticators of financial doom made their money, their prescience in most cases tainted by decidedly mixed emotions. Sometimes being right doesn’t feel as good as one might assume it would.
Those who engage in the practice of conscious creation, the means by which we realize our reality through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents, should take heed of this cautionary tale. The narrative of “The Big Short” provides an exemplary example of what can happen when we blatantly disregard the forces that drive our existence.
For instance, while most of Wall Street was preoccupied with making money and having a good time without paying attention to how that was happening, a time bomb was lurking beneath the surface of the industry’s collective consciousness. By focusing purely on the result and ignoring how it came to pass, the financial industry effectively turned a blind eye to its own looming fate, a practice commonly known as un-conscious creation. And, by the time its ranks recognized what was happening, it was too late to do anything about it – both for themselves and the hordes of those affected by their intrinsic metaphysical irresponsibility.
The conscious creation component most notably lacking in this scenario was a vitally crucial element – integrity. When we seek to employ the process, we nearly always get the best results when we’re in touch with our beliefs, particularly those that reflect our truest selves. But, when such integrity is absent or shunted off to the side, the results rarely meet our hoped-for expectations. The financiers who put their own interests ahead of their work and the welfare of those they served clearly lacked this attribute in their beliefs. So, considering how events ultimately played out, is it any surprise that this shortcoming would come back to bite them in a big way? (Payback, it would seem, really can live up to its decidedly surly reputation.)
As with any conscious creation undertaking, this film thus capably illustrates how we get back what we put into our ventures, especially when we disregard the importance of elements like integrity. This obviously applies to the financial operatives who wound up broke; they lost their shirts when they lost their heads. But the same could also be said for the many homeowners who lost their properties when they agreed to loan deals that were effectively too good to be true. Their desire to own homes at all costs, no matter what it took, reflected their own lack of integrity – and their own practice of un-conscious creation.
By ignoring the importance of integrity in the conscious creation process, we’re playing with metaphysical fire. And, as the film aptly shows, it’s easy to get burned when we seek to manifest our existence without its presence in our belief portfolio.
By contrast, those who are true to themselves, who purposely include integrity as part of their mix of intentions, manage to see their goals realized. Having this quality in place enables such conscious creation practitioners to make better use of other metaphysical tools at their disposal, like intuition and the ability to spot synchronicities. This was very much the case with Burry, Vennett, Baum, Rickert and their associates. They saw the emerging scenario and listened to their instincts, even if no one else was willing to give the idea a second thought. And, when opportunities appeared that enabled them to capitalize on their well-considered hunches, they availed themselves of what they had to offer.
Given that the financiers in this film profited off of the hardship of others, one might legitimately ask, “Where’s the integrity in that?” That argument certainly has some merit. However, as “integrity” is used here, the term has to do with being true to oneself and one’s beliefs in seeing through the materialization of one’s reality. And, in that context, their beliefs were borne out. Indeed, they succeeded in being able to say to the naysayers, “I told you so.”
As for the moral implications of this, that’s an entirely different matter. As becomes apparent in the film, each of the protagonists had their own reactions to what they did and how they felt about it. Vennett, for example, saw the opportunity as a chance to cash in big and didn’t hesitate to do so, unaffected – and mostly unapologetic – about the fallout of having made his investment. That’s what he wanted for himself – and promptly proceeded to create it, plain and simple.
At the other end of the spectrum, Rickert, Baum and, to an extent, Burry saw what was happening in the financial industry before the collapse and were troubled by the implications, and their decisions to proceed with their investments were tempered by other considerations. Rickert, for instance, used his now-considerably enhanced financial resources to bankroll socially responsible endeavors, undertakings that may not have come into being as readily were it not for the funds he amassed through his investment.
Similarly, Baum and Burry realized they needed to look out for the welfare of their investors, and, even though they may not have been entirely comfortable with their actions, they were at least able to make the decisions necessary to take care of those who placed their faith in them. Time for soul searching of the greater implications involved came later, a process that was by no means easy for either of them. But, despite such introspection, they could rest assured that they did what they needed to do for their clients.
And then there were Geller and Shipley, who initially believed much as Vennett did. But, when Rickert pointed out the ramifications of what their investment would likely yield, they came in for a rude awakening. The experience proved to be a useful lesson in turning away from un-conscious creation toward a more considered outlook about their beliefs – and what they can produce.
The collectively created mass event that was the financial collapse consisted of a wide array of individual stories and life lessons. The circumstances that provided the means for these assorted experiences may have been jointly manifested, but that overarching scenario made it possible for a diverse range of people to obtain what they needed to get out of it. Given the stakes involved, we can only hope that we learned our lesson from it. The potential for loss from sleepwalking through life or approaching it without integrity is substantial, consequences that are likely to be worse each time we fail to pass the test.
“The Big Short” is a surprisingly enjoyable movie about an unlikely subject that’s brought to life through a clever script, understated wit and masterful film editing. The picture skillfully provides novel analogies to explain complex financial concepts, employing celebrity lecturers like Margot Robbie, Selena Gomez and Anthony Bourdain. But, most of all, the film features a superb cast with stellar performances by Bale, Carell, Gosling and Leo. I can honestly say this is my favorite film of 2015, outclassing virtually all of the other offerings from what turned out to be a somewhat tepid year in cinema.
This offering is well deserving of all the accolades it has received. It previously earned four Golden Globe Award nominations (best comedy picture, screenplay, and comedy actor honors (for Bale and Carell)), though it took home no statues. It subsequently won three Critics Choice Awards for best comedy, adapted screenplay and comedy actor (Bale) on seven total nominations. In pending competitions, the film is awaiting word on its two Screen Actors Guild Award nominations (best ensemble, supporting actor (Bale)), its four BAFTA nominations (best picture, editing, screenplay, supporting actor (Bale)) and its five Oscar nominations (best picture, director, adapted screenplay, editing, supporting actor (Bale)).
When we wonder why things turn out as they do, we need look no further than ourselves – and what drives us, namely, our beliefs. Sometimes we come up proud of ourselves, but, at other times, we might stumble upon some difficult realizations. This film illustrates that impeccably, showing us what can result when we grow lazy or unconcerned about the intents that create our existence. And that’s one instance where we certainly wouldn’t want to come up short.
Copyright © 2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
January 16, 2016
‘Hitchcock/Truffaut’ chronicles creative mastery at work
“Hitchcock/Truffaut” (2015). Cast: Interviews: Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, Arnaud Desplechin, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Wes Anderson, James Gray, Olivier Assayas, Richard Linklater, Peter Bogdanovich, Paul Schrader, Mathieu Amalric (narrator). Archive Footage: Alfred Hitchcock, François Truffaut, James Stewart, Henry Fonda, Cary Grant, Anthony Perkins, Martin Balsam, Kim Novak, Tippi Hendren, Janet Leigh, Vera Miles, Doris Day, Veronica Cartwright, Rod Taylor, Jessica Tandy, Montgomery Clift, Alma Reville. Director: Kent Jones. Screenplay: Kent Jones and Serge Toubiana. Book: François Truffaut, Hitchcock/Truffaut (originally released as Le Cinéma selon Alfred Hitchcock (The Cinema According to Alfred Hitchcock)). Web site. Trailer.
The creative mind is something to behold. How it functions in realizing its goals is mesmerizing and, for many of us, mysterious. But understanding its workings need not be quite so inscrutable if we look at what drives it, the beliefs that emerge from our consciousness and that mobilize themselves for the materialization of the visions held within them. An examination of how this plays out as illustrated through the works of two legendary artists provides the focus of the compelling new documentary, “Hitchcock/Truffaut.”
In 1962, filmmaker François Truffaut (1932-1984) was a rising star in the world of cinema, having directed a small but significant number of acclaimed pictures, such as “The 400 Blows” (1959) and “Jules and Jim” (1962). Yet, when the brash young French auteur was asked to name the greatest influence on his work, he cited a veteran of the field, someone many years his senior, the legendary British director Alfred Hitchcock (1899-1980).
As the visionary who brought to life such pictures as “Vertigo” (1958), “The Birds” (1963), “Psycho” (1960), “North by Northwest” (1959) and “The Man Who Knew Too Much” (1934 and 1956), Hitchcock created a singular style of filmmaking and transformed the medium in countless ways, influencing legions of young directors like Truffaut. But exactly how did Hitchcock achieve this?
That’s what Truffaut wanted to find out. He contacted Hitchcock and asked him if he would be willing to sit with him for a week-long series of interviews to share his secrets of filmmaking, a request to which the master agreed. Based on the dialogues that came out of that meeting, Truffaut penned a book that would become must-reading for aspiring filmmakers, Le Cinéma selon Alfred Hitchcock (The Cinema According to Alfred Hitchcock) (later rereleased as Hitchcock/Truffaut). That seminal work, in turn, provided the inspiration for this documentary.
The story of this historic summit is fleshed out through excerpts from the original interview tape recordings, backed by still images of the meeting snapped by veteran portrait photographer Philippe Halsman (1906-1979). Intercut with this material is a choice selection of archive footage from the films of Hitchcock and Truffaut, particularly clips that epitomize the principles characteristic of their work. And all of this is further put into perspective by the insights of many of today’s leading directors, including filmmakers Martin Scorsese (“Taxi Driver” (1976), “Hugo” (2011)), David Fincher (“The Social Network” (2010), “Gone Girl” (2014)), Wes Anderson (“Moonrise Kingdom” (2012), “The Grand Budapest Hotel” (2014)), Richard Linklater (“Boyhood” (2014), “Waking Life” (2001)), Peter Bogdanovich (“The Last Picture Show” (1971), “Paper Moon” (1973)) and Paul Schrader (“Auto Focus” (2002), “Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters” (1985)).
In his younger days, French filmmaker François Truffaut (left) was so enamored by the works of veteran director Alfred Hitchcock (right) that he set up a week-long meeting with him purely to discuss the secrets of cinema success, a summit now chronicled in the new documentary, “Hitchcock/Truffaut.” Photo by Philippe Halsman, courtesy of Cohen Media Group.
Even though the film’s title contains the names of both directors, the picture focuses more on Hitchcock than Truffaut, primarily because the master’s output far exceeded his protégé’s, both at the time of their meeting and over the course of their respective careers. Despite this disparity, however, the film nevertheless examines the works and philosophies of both directors using the aforementioned combination of elements, providing viewers with an interesting exploration of what made each artist’s works come to life. This is particularly true when it comes to the beliefs and perspectives that drove them and led to the materialization of their finished products. In this way, then, viewers are treated to a highly illustrative case study into the workings of the conscious creation process, the means by which our reality and all of its component parts (including those of an artistic nature) come into being.
For instance, the film details how Hitchcock made use of conscious creation principles to inventively explore themes like sexuality and obsession in his movies, many of which are depicted symbolically yet effectively. This is perhaps most obvious in “Vertigo” in which Hitchcock had to get creative to convey these provocative ideas despite the puritanical standards in place at the time the film was made. To make these points, he had to believe that they could be successfully expressed without being hemmed in by prevailing moral and industry limitations, a challenge that prompted him to search the boundless realm of possibilities to find ways to fulfill his goals. That search, of course, ultimately led to some of the most suggestive imagery ever captured on film – and all without sacrificing his obligation to conform to the socially acceptable norms of the era.
Similarly, this is also how Hitchcock helped transform the way we look at film. Before the director made a name for himself in the 1940s and ʼ50s, movies were largely seen as an amusing diversion, a lightweight commercial pastime. However, through the use of his many cinematic innovations, Hitchcock elevated a form of popular entertainment into a form of art, taking it to heights of serious aesthetic consideration never before seen. He would subsequently blaze a similar trail for how movies were financed and distributed, a revolutionary accomplishment detailed in the biopic “Hitchcock” (2012), a chronicle detailing how his classic screamfest “Psycho” came into being.
Both of the foregoing examples illustrate how conscious creation can prove invaluable for resolving challenges of any kind, be they artistic or otherwise. By embracing the perspective that limitless options for expression are always available to us at any given moment – regardless of the context involved – we enable ourselves to drum up workable solutions, as Hitchcock’s ingenuity illustrates. (Bear this in mind the next time you believe something insurmountable crosses your path.)
The experiences one encounters in one part of life often have impact on others, as is apparent in the films of both directors. For example, events from Truffaut’s childhood provided fodder for the lives of his characters as seen in works like “The 400 Blows” and “Day for Night” (1973). The events that manifested in his youth had a subsequent bleed-through effect in his later artistic life, enlivening his characters in ways that paralleled his own experiences. The beliefs that led to the realization of those initial circumstances thus served to inspire those yet to come, and, even though those latter materializations occurred in a fictional context, they nevertheless mirrored their forerunners, springing forth in both cases from the consciously creative mind of the same individual.
The same could be said of Hitchcock’s infamous personal preoccupation with blonde femme fatales. So, given that, is it any wonder that he ended up casting actresses who emulated those qualities for his films? Again, the attributes of one milieu carried over into another.
In both of the foregoing examples, the parallels between the life and artistic experiences of the two directors illustrate another of conscious creation’s cornerstone principles, the connectedness of all things. Much of the time, many of us tend to view our existence from a compartmentalized standpoint, looking upon all of the elements of our lives as separate, individualized components. Yet, when we consider how conscious creation functions and see how comparable notions recur in different aspects of our reality, we’re invariably able to trace the roots in each case to a common source, our beliefs (and, frequently, analogous beliefs at that). This thus helps to explain why the underlying themes present in one area of life mimic those found in others.
Two giants of cinema, François Truffaut (left) and Alfred Hitchcock (right), meet for a historic summit on moviemaking in 1962, the subject of Kent Jones’s new documentary, “Hitchcock/Truffaut.” Photo by Philippe Halsman, courtesy of Cohen Media Group.
Anyone who appreciates the power of conscious creation concepts, the influential impact of cinema and how these elements overlap with one another (the basis upon which I view and analyze film, not to mention the underlying foundation of my writing) is likely to see the value of “Hitchcock/Truffaut.” This documentary capably illustrates these notions not only in principle, but also through the specific works and experiences of two of the art form’s greatest practitioners. Audiences can thus take away much from viewing this inspirational and enlightening offering, all the while having an enjoyable time at the movies. To be sure, the film would have benefited from paying a little more attention to Truffaut’s repertoire, but, this shortcoming aside, this release is solid in virtually every other respect.
This nominee for the 2015 Cannes Film Festival Golden Eye documentary award is a must-see for die-hard cinephiles. It’s currently playing in limited release in theaters specializing in documentary, independent and foreign films.
The compulsion to create, and the desire to become a master at it, is something all great artists strive for. It can be seen in their work and in the vision they hold to see those creations come to life. Alfred Hitchcock and François Truffaut personified those notions, resplendently inspiring the generations of filmmakers – and conscious creators – who followed them.
Copyright © 2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
The creative mind is something to behold. How it functions in realizing its goals is mesmerizing and, for many of us, mysterious. But understanding its workings need not be quite so inscrutable if we look at what drives it, the beliefs that emerge from our consciousness and that mobilize themselves for the materialization of the visions held within them. An examination of how this plays out as illustrated through the works of two legendary artists provides the focus of the compelling new documentary, “Hitchcock/Truffaut.”
In 1962, filmmaker François Truffaut (1932-1984) was a rising star in the world of cinema, having directed a small but significant number of acclaimed pictures, such as “The 400 Blows” (1959) and “Jules and Jim” (1962). Yet, when the brash young French auteur was asked to name the greatest influence on his work, he cited a veteran of the field, someone many years his senior, the legendary British director Alfred Hitchcock (1899-1980).
As the visionary who brought to life such pictures as “Vertigo” (1958), “The Birds” (1963), “Psycho” (1960), “North by Northwest” (1959) and “The Man Who Knew Too Much” (1934 and 1956), Hitchcock created a singular style of filmmaking and transformed the medium in countless ways, influencing legions of young directors like Truffaut. But exactly how did Hitchcock achieve this?
That’s what Truffaut wanted to find out. He contacted Hitchcock and asked him if he would be willing to sit with him for a week-long series of interviews to share his secrets of filmmaking, a request to which the master agreed. Based on the dialogues that came out of that meeting, Truffaut penned a book that would become must-reading for aspiring filmmakers, Le Cinéma selon Alfred Hitchcock (The Cinema According to Alfred Hitchcock) (later rereleased as Hitchcock/Truffaut). That seminal work, in turn, provided the inspiration for this documentary.
The story of this historic summit is fleshed out through excerpts from the original interview tape recordings, backed by still images of the meeting snapped by veteran portrait photographer Philippe Halsman (1906-1979). Intercut with this material is a choice selection of archive footage from the films of Hitchcock and Truffaut, particularly clips that epitomize the principles characteristic of their work. And all of this is further put into perspective by the insights of many of today’s leading directors, including filmmakers Martin Scorsese (“Taxi Driver” (1976), “Hugo” (2011)), David Fincher (“The Social Network” (2010), “Gone Girl” (2014)), Wes Anderson (“Moonrise Kingdom” (2012), “The Grand Budapest Hotel” (2014)), Richard Linklater (“Boyhood” (2014), “Waking Life” (2001)), Peter Bogdanovich (“The Last Picture Show” (1971), “Paper Moon” (1973)) and Paul Schrader (“Auto Focus” (2002), “Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters” (1985)).
In his younger days, French filmmaker François Truffaut (left) was so enamored by the works of veteran director Alfred Hitchcock (right) that he set up a week-long meeting with him purely to discuss the secrets of cinema success, a summit now chronicled in the new documentary, “Hitchcock/Truffaut.” Photo by Philippe Halsman, courtesy of Cohen Media Group.Even though the film’s title contains the names of both directors, the picture focuses more on Hitchcock than Truffaut, primarily because the master’s output far exceeded his protégé’s, both at the time of their meeting and over the course of their respective careers. Despite this disparity, however, the film nevertheless examines the works and philosophies of both directors using the aforementioned combination of elements, providing viewers with an interesting exploration of what made each artist’s works come to life. This is particularly true when it comes to the beliefs and perspectives that drove them and led to the materialization of their finished products. In this way, then, viewers are treated to a highly illustrative case study into the workings of the conscious creation process, the means by which our reality and all of its component parts (including those of an artistic nature) come into being.
For instance, the film details how Hitchcock made use of conscious creation principles to inventively explore themes like sexuality and obsession in his movies, many of which are depicted symbolically yet effectively. This is perhaps most obvious in “Vertigo” in which Hitchcock had to get creative to convey these provocative ideas despite the puritanical standards in place at the time the film was made. To make these points, he had to believe that they could be successfully expressed without being hemmed in by prevailing moral and industry limitations, a challenge that prompted him to search the boundless realm of possibilities to find ways to fulfill his goals. That search, of course, ultimately led to some of the most suggestive imagery ever captured on film – and all without sacrificing his obligation to conform to the socially acceptable norms of the era.
Similarly, this is also how Hitchcock helped transform the way we look at film. Before the director made a name for himself in the 1940s and ʼ50s, movies were largely seen as an amusing diversion, a lightweight commercial pastime. However, through the use of his many cinematic innovations, Hitchcock elevated a form of popular entertainment into a form of art, taking it to heights of serious aesthetic consideration never before seen. He would subsequently blaze a similar trail for how movies were financed and distributed, a revolutionary accomplishment detailed in the biopic “Hitchcock” (2012), a chronicle detailing how his classic screamfest “Psycho” came into being.
Both of the foregoing examples illustrate how conscious creation can prove invaluable for resolving challenges of any kind, be they artistic or otherwise. By embracing the perspective that limitless options for expression are always available to us at any given moment – regardless of the context involved – we enable ourselves to drum up workable solutions, as Hitchcock’s ingenuity illustrates. (Bear this in mind the next time you believe something insurmountable crosses your path.)
The experiences one encounters in one part of life often have impact on others, as is apparent in the films of both directors. For example, events from Truffaut’s childhood provided fodder for the lives of his characters as seen in works like “The 400 Blows” and “Day for Night” (1973). The events that manifested in his youth had a subsequent bleed-through effect in his later artistic life, enlivening his characters in ways that paralleled his own experiences. The beliefs that led to the realization of those initial circumstances thus served to inspire those yet to come, and, even though those latter materializations occurred in a fictional context, they nevertheless mirrored their forerunners, springing forth in both cases from the consciously creative mind of the same individual.
The same could be said of Hitchcock’s infamous personal preoccupation with blonde femme fatales. So, given that, is it any wonder that he ended up casting actresses who emulated those qualities for his films? Again, the attributes of one milieu carried over into another.
In both of the foregoing examples, the parallels between the life and artistic experiences of the two directors illustrate another of conscious creation’s cornerstone principles, the connectedness of all things. Much of the time, many of us tend to view our existence from a compartmentalized standpoint, looking upon all of the elements of our lives as separate, individualized components. Yet, when we consider how conscious creation functions and see how comparable notions recur in different aspects of our reality, we’re invariably able to trace the roots in each case to a common source, our beliefs (and, frequently, analogous beliefs at that). This thus helps to explain why the underlying themes present in one area of life mimic those found in others.
Two giants of cinema, François Truffaut (left) and Alfred Hitchcock (right), meet for a historic summit on moviemaking in 1962, the subject of Kent Jones’s new documentary, “Hitchcock/Truffaut.” Photo by Philippe Halsman, courtesy of Cohen Media Group.Anyone who appreciates the power of conscious creation concepts, the influential impact of cinema and how these elements overlap with one another (the basis upon which I view and analyze film, not to mention the underlying foundation of my writing) is likely to see the value of “Hitchcock/Truffaut.” This documentary capably illustrates these notions not only in principle, but also through the specific works and experiences of two of the art form’s greatest practitioners. Audiences can thus take away much from viewing this inspirational and enlightening offering, all the while having an enjoyable time at the movies. To be sure, the film would have benefited from paying a little more attention to Truffaut’s repertoire, but, this shortcoming aside, this release is solid in virtually every other respect.
This nominee for the 2015 Cannes Film Festival Golden Eye documentary award is a must-see for die-hard cinephiles. It’s currently playing in limited release in theaters specializing in documentary, independent and foreign films.
The compulsion to create, and the desire to become a master at it, is something all great artists strive for. It can be seen in their work and in the vision they hold to see those creations come to life. Alfred Hitchcock and François Truffaut personified those notions, resplendently inspiring the generations of filmmakers – and conscious creators – who followed them.
Copyright © 2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
January 14, 2016
Three New Conscious Cinema Reviews
Check out three new Conscious Cinema Reviews on the New Consciousness Review web site -- "Fully Charged," "The Physics of the Soul" and Time Is Art," all available by clicking here.
January 7, 2016
‘Concussion’ hails the merits of value fulfillment
“Concussion” (2015). Cast: Will Smith, Alec Baldwin, Albert Brooks, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, David Morse, Arliss Howard, Mike O’Malley, Eddie Marsan, Paul Reiser, Hill Harper, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Richard T. Jones, Luke Wilson, Matthew Willig, Dan Ziskie, Sara Lindsey. Director: Peter Landesman. Screenplay: Peter Landesman. Magazine Article Story Source: Jeanne Marie Laskas, “Game Brain,” GQ magazine. Web site. Trailer.
Even if it’s not always apparent, we all have a purpose in life. In some cases it will be patently obvious, while in others it’s about as seemingly unlikely as one can imagine. And it’s that latter scenario that provides the basis for the story line in the new fact-based sports drama, “Concussion.”
When forensic neuropathologist Dr. Bennet Omalu (Will Smith) performs autopsies in the morgue of the Allegheny County Coroner’s Office, he treats his subjects with a sense of respect and dignity one might not expect in such a cold, clinical setting. The highly educated Nigerian-born immigrant even speaks to his “patients,” asking them to help him discover why they died, a sensitive, humane approach that goes beyond simply cutting open the victims’ bodies and performing calculated scientific analyses to find the answers behind their demise. Some of his colleagues, like co-worker Daniel Sullivan (Mike O’Malley), find such practices quaint, even amusing, but Bennet insists on showing reverence, a quality that’s an outgrowth of his spiritual background as a devout Roman Catholic. And, despite such good-natured ribbing, he nevertheless has the support of his superior, County Coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht (Albert Brooks), who truly values Bennet’s conscientious, meticulous work.
Most of Bennet’s subjects are everyday people, but that changes one day when he’s asked to perform an autopsy on a high-profile victim, former Pittsburgh Steelers center Mike Webster (David Morse). The onetime National Football League all-star, who had played on four Super Bowl championship teams and was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, died homeless and penniless of an apparent suicide after experiencing a prolonged period of mental instability. Most of Bennet’s colleagues want him to dispense with the procedure as quickly and quietly as possible to preserve the good name of the Steel City hero. But, true to form, the good doctor wants to learn why he died, looking for the underlying cause that prompted Webster to take his own life in the first place.
In performing Webster’s autopsy, Bennet makes some puzzling discoveries. He finds no evidence of brain tumors or other abnormalities typically associated with mental instability. So, in light of that, he wonders, why would a 50-year-old man with an apparently normal brain fall prey to a condition like this, one that would prove to be so troubling that it would lead to suicide? That’s what Bennet wants to find out.
To discover the cause, Bennet proposes conducting a number of specialized tests not typically performed on autopsy victims, a suggestion that meets with much resistance due to cost and potential damage to Webster’s legacy. In the interest of finding the truth, Bennet is at a loss to understand such opposition. When he’s asked if he knows who Webster is and what he meant to the City of Pittsburgh, Bennet confesses that he knows nothing of his subject’s career or about football in general, adding that such considerations don’t matter to him in the pursuit of finding an answer. In fact, he’s so concerned that he even agrees to pay for the tests out of his own pocket, an amount totaling about $20,000.
When Bennet receives the test results, he’s startled. He discovers evidence consistent with the effects of extreme repetitive head trauma, the kind that he postulates would come from repeated blows to the brain brought about by recurring hits from the helmets of opposing football players. Given Webster’s years of playing the game as a child, in high school, in college and in 16 years as a pro, Bennet estimates that Webster suffered over 70,000 such hits, most likely resulting in numerous concussions, many of which may have gone unrecognized. And, considering how many players participated in the game over the years, Bennet suspects that Webster’s case is far from an isolated instance, a suspicion that would soon prove correct.
With the suicides of additional players, like former Pittsburgh Steeler Justin Strzelczyk (Matthew Willig) and Philadelphia Eagle Andre Waters (Richard T. Jones), further evidence of the condition (now known as chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE) becomes available. Shortly thereafter, Bennet approaches renowned University of Pittsburgh neurology researcher Dr. Steven DeKosky (Eddie Marsan) with his findings, seeking to publish them in a professional medical journal. DeKosky agrees with Bennet’s conclusions, and, before long, word of his work gets into print, an unpopular development that launches an avalanche of retribution against the author from a variety of sources, most notably the NFL.
Given the potentially disastrous economic and public relations consequences of this disclosure, the NFL (led by the likes of League Commissioners Paul Tagliabue (Dan Ziskie) and Roger Goodell (Luke Wilson)) seeks to bury the issue. Bennet is called a quack with no substantiation for his findings, and he and his wife, Prema (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), are targeted for various forms of harassment and intimidation. Even Bennet’s boss, Dr. Wecht, comes under scrutiny; as an elected public official, he’s indicted on trumped-up charges of having used public resources for personal purposes.
However, despite this fabricated smear campaign, a supportive, highly credible ally comes to Bennet’s aid, Dr. Julian Bailes (Alec Baldwin). As former Pittsburgh Steelers team physician, Julian acknowledges and concurs with Bennet’s research. He also advises Bennet that the NFL had been aware of the concussion issue for years but chose to look the other way, claiming that the issue continually needed more study. And so, with this powerful new collaborator in tow, Bennet forges ahead to take on those who would attempt to silence him, to get them to tell the truth.
At first glance, Bennet’s crusade may seem almost quixotic. Who would have thought that a Nigerian immigrant who knows little, if anything, about a sport that’s totally foreign to him would be willing to take on one of America’s most cherished institutions (and most powerful and influential corporations) over the health and safety practices it employs with regard to its players? Yet that’s precisely what he does. So that naturally raises the question, why?
Ultimately the answer rests with Bennet’s character, the persona he has crafted for himself through the conscious creation process, the means by which we manifest the reality we experience through our thoughts, beliefs and intents. In creating himself, Bennet produces a caring, compassionate soul, one who lives his life in line with his benevolent, spiritual nature for the betterment of himself and those around him, a principle in conscious creation circles known as value fulfillment.
Those who live their value fulfillment possess certain unmistakable qualities that are hallmarks of the conscious creation process. For example, they operate from a tremendous underlying capacity for integrity. In seeking to make his findings known, Bennet never second-guesses his actions or intentions. To him, the results speak for themselves and must be made known, regardless of the implications. The truth, in his eyes, is the truth and must be told, period.
This quality pervades Bennet’s character so thoroughly that it’s even reflected in his family surname, which he shortened to Omalu from Onyemalukwube when he emigrated. In a rare moment of doubt in which he shares with Prema some reservations about his actions, she reminds him that he can’t help but carry through because his efforts mirror what Onyemalukwube means – “he who knows, speak.” With that gentle reminder, Bennet’s resolve is re-energized, and he vows to proceed, no matter what the cost.
This outlook speaks to another conscious creation principle that Bennet freely embraces – his willingness to live heroically. When others outline the potential ramifications of making his findings known, he’s unfazed. This becomes apparent, for example, when Dr. Wecht warns Bennet that he’s about to take on a corporation “that owns a day of the week,” a prospect that he readily shrugs off, because, in his mind, even those stakes should not be allowed to trump the truth. Such innate courage enables him to confront his adversaries and carry on.
Bennet is also adept at making use of the synchronicities that come his way to increase awareness for his crusade. For example, when he needs allies, he skillfully attracts them to his cause as seen by the arrivals of Drs. DeKosky and Bailes in his life. He’s also not hesitant to draw attention to his work by drawing attention to the tragic events that yielded his findings, even personalizing the circumstances to enhance their impact on public opinion and lawmakers. The effect of this is compounded when he later learns about the tragic suicide of Dave Duerson (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), a former safety for the Chicago Bears who became a League insider in retirement – and who subsequently took his own life when he was no longer able to cope with the effects of CTE. (In fact, the seemingly once-skeptical Duerson had such a change of heart about the seriousness of this condition that he even went so far as to shoot himself in the chest in order to preserve his brain for further study after his death, quite a reversal for a onetime company man.) Some might arguably call such tactics exploitation, but, then, would anyone have known about this troubling issue had Bennet not made word of it public?
Even seemingly “negative” or obstructing influences can have unexpectedly fortuitous, synchronistic effects. For instance, the many impediments that Bennet runs into may superficially appear to be hindrances or setbacks, but they also have a beneficial impact by keeping him focused and galvanizing him in his beliefs, the means by which he creates the outcomes he seeks. The attempted harassment, stonewalling, obstructionism and character assassination thrust upon Bennet not only fail to achieve their objective but actually serve to empower him in his efforts. He knows how to respond to such intended hampering initiatives by employing beliefs that turn them on their ear and making them work to his advantage. His ability to envision desired results by both effectively creating his own successes and making lemonade out of the foul fruits others throw him ultimately lead him to realize his goals, aspirations that benefit others and epitomize the very meaning of value fulfillment.
“Concussion” may not seem like interesting fare for a feature film, but it succeeds tremendously on virtually every front. Though somewhat formulaic, this exceedingly well-made picture tells an engaging tale about one sincere, committed man’s efforts to exact justice when it’s perilously impaled on the capitalist sacrificial altar. The film capably weaves suspense, heartfelt drama and understated heroics into a package loaded with outstanding performances, particularly those of Smith, Morse and Brooks. There’s a slight tendency for the pacing to drag at times in the second hour, and the romantic interest subplot doesn’t work as well as it could have, but “Concussion” passes muster in almost every other respect.
The film is truly one of the pleasant surprises of this year’s awards season releases. Which is why it’s also surprising that the film hasn’t garnered more attention in this year’s awards competitions. Thus far it has only earned one nomination, a best dramatic actor nod for Smith in the Golden Globe Awards contest. It would be gratifying to see the picture grab more attention in some of this year’s remaining competitions, like the Oscars.
Heroism comes in all forms and in all manner of milieus, and it often takes the form of the David and Goliath scenario on display here. And, no matter how bad things may get, thankfully we nearly always have champions who will step up to address such matters. But, then, that’s to be expected from anyone who is committed to living out his value fulfillment, an effort for which everyone who benefits should be eternally grateful.
Copyright © 2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Even if it’s not always apparent, we all have a purpose in life. In some cases it will be patently obvious, while in others it’s about as seemingly unlikely as one can imagine. And it’s that latter scenario that provides the basis for the story line in the new fact-based sports drama, “Concussion.”
When forensic neuropathologist Dr. Bennet Omalu (Will Smith) performs autopsies in the morgue of the Allegheny County Coroner’s Office, he treats his subjects with a sense of respect and dignity one might not expect in such a cold, clinical setting. The highly educated Nigerian-born immigrant even speaks to his “patients,” asking them to help him discover why they died, a sensitive, humane approach that goes beyond simply cutting open the victims’ bodies and performing calculated scientific analyses to find the answers behind their demise. Some of his colleagues, like co-worker Daniel Sullivan (Mike O’Malley), find such practices quaint, even amusing, but Bennet insists on showing reverence, a quality that’s an outgrowth of his spiritual background as a devout Roman Catholic. And, despite such good-natured ribbing, he nevertheless has the support of his superior, County Coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht (Albert Brooks), who truly values Bennet’s conscientious, meticulous work.
Most of Bennet’s subjects are everyday people, but that changes one day when he’s asked to perform an autopsy on a high-profile victim, former Pittsburgh Steelers center Mike Webster (David Morse). The onetime National Football League all-star, who had played on four Super Bowl championship teams and was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, died homeless and penniless of an apparent suicide after experiencing a prolonged period of mental instability. Most of Bennet’s colleagues want him to dispense with the procedure as quickly and quietly as possible to preserve the good name of the Steel City hero. But, true to form, the good doctor wants to learn why he died, looking for the underlying cause that prompted Webster to take his own life in the first place.
In performing Webster’s autopsy, Bennet makes some puzzling discoveries. He finds no evidence of brain tumors or other abnormalities typically associated with mental instability. So, in light of that, he wonders, why would a 50-year-old man with an apparently normal brain fall prey to a condition like this, one that would prove to be so troubling that it would lead to suicide? That’s what Bennet wants to find out.
To discover the cause, Bennet proposes conducting a number of specialized tests not typically performed on autopsy victims, a suggestion that meets with much resistance due to cost and potential damage to Webster’s legacy. In the interest of finding the truth, Bennet is at a loss to understand such opposition. When he’s asked if he knows who Webster is and what he meant to the City of Pittsburgh, Bennet confesses that he knows nothing of his subject’s career or about football in general, adding that such considerations don’t matter to him in the pursuit of finding an answer. In fact, he’s so concerned that he even agrees to pay for the tests out of his own pocket, an amount totaling about $20,000.
When Bennet receives the test results, he’s startled. He discovers evidence consistent with the effects of extreme repetitive head trauma, the kind that he postulates would come from repeated blows to the brain brought about by recurring hits from the helmets of opposing football players. Given Webster’s years of playing the game as a child, in high school, in college and in 16 years as a pro, Bennet estimates that Webster suffered over 70,000 such hits, most likely resulting in numerous concussions, many of which may have gone unrecognized. And, considering how many players participated in the game over the years, Bennet suspects that Webster’s case is far from an isolated instance, a suspicion that would soon prove correct.
With the suicides of additional players, like former Pittsburgh Steeler Justin Strzelczyk (Matthew Willig) and Philadelphia Eagle Andre Waters (Richard T. Jones), further evidence of the condition (now known as chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE) becomes available. Shortly thereafter, Bennet approaches renowned University of Pittsburgh neurology researcher Dr. Steven DeKosky (Eddie Marsan) with his findings, seeking to publish them in a professional medical journal. DeKosky agrees with Bennet’s conclusions, and, before long, word of his work gets into print, an unpopular development that launches an avalanche of retribution against the author from a variety of sources, most notably the NFL.
Given the potentially disastrous economic and public relations consequences of this disclosure, the NFL (led by the likes of League Commissioners Paul Tagliabue (Dan Ziskie) and Roger Goodell (Luke Wilson)) seeks to bury the issue. Bennet is called a quack with no substantiation for his findings, and he and his wife, Prema (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), are targeted for various forms of harassment and intimidation. Even Bennet’s boss, Dr. Wecht, comes under scrutiny; as an elected public official, he’s indicted on trumped-up charges of having used public resources for personal purposes.
However, despite this fabricated smear campaign, a supportive, highly credible ally comes to Bennet’s aid, Dr. Julian Bailes (Alec Baldwin). As former Pittsburgh Steelers team physician, Julian acknowledges and concurs with Bennet’s research. He also advises Bennet that the NFL had been aware of the concussion issue for years but chose to look the other way, claiming that the issue continually needed more study. And so, with this powerful new collaborator in tow, Bennet forges ahead to take on those who would attempt to silence him, to get them to tell the truth.
At first glance, Bennet’s crusade may seem almost quixotic. Who would have thought that a Nigerian immigrant who knows little, if anything, about a sport that’s totally foreign to him would be willing to take on one of America’s most cherished institutions (and most powerful and influential corporations) over the health and safety practices it employs with regard to its players? Yet that’s precisely what he does. So that naturally raises the question, why?
Ultimately the answer rests with Bennet’s character, the persona he has crafted for himself through the conscious creation process, the means by which we manifest the reality we experience through our thoughts, beliefs and intents. In creating himself, Bennet produces a caring, compassionate soul, one who lives his life in line with his benevolent, spiritual nature for the betterment of himself and those around him, a principle in conscious creation circles known as value fulfillment.
Those who live their value fulfillment possess certain unmistakable qualities that are hallmarks of the conscious creation process. For example, they operate from a tremendous underlying capacity for integrity. In seeking to make his findings known, Bennet never second-guesses his actions or intentions. To him, the results speak for themselves and must be made known, regardless of the implications. The truth, in his eyes, is the truth and must be told, period.
This quality pervades Bennet’s character so thoroughly that it’s even reflected in his family surname, which he shortened to Omalu from Onyemalukwube when he emigrated. In a rare moment of doubt in which he shares with Prema some reservations about his actions, she reminds him that he can’t help but carry through because his efforts mirror what Onyemalukwube means – “he who knows, speak.” With that gentle reminder, Bennet’s resolve is re-energized, and he vows to proceed, no matter what the cost.
This outlook speaks to another conscious creation principle that Bennet freely embraces – his willingness to live heroically. When others outline the potential ramifications of making his findings known, he’s unfazed. This becomes apparent, for example, when Dr. Wecht warns Bennet that he’s about to take on a corporation “that owns a day of the week,” a prospect that he readily shrugs off, because, in his mind, even those stakes should not be allowed to trump the truth. Such innate courage enables him to confront his adversaries and carry on.
Bennet is also adept at making use of the synchronicities that come his way to increase awareness for his crusade. For example, when he needs allies, he skillfully attracts them to his cause as seen by the arrivals of Drs. DeKosky and Bailes in his life. He’s also not hesitant to draw attention to his work by drawing attention to the tragic events that yielded his findings, even personalizing the circumstances to enhance their impact on public opinion and lawmakers. The effect of this is compounded when he later learns about the tragic suicide of Dave Duerson (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), a former safety for the Chicago Bears who became a League insider in retirement – and who subsequently took his own life when he was no longer able to cope with the effects of CTE. (In fact, the seemingly once-skeptical Duerson had such a change of heart about the seriousness of this condition that he even went so far as to shoot himself in the chest in order to preserve his brain for further study after his death, quite a reversal for a onetime company man.) Some might arguably call such tactics exploitation, but, then, would anyone have known about this troubling issue had Bennet not made word of it public?
Even seemingly “negative” or obstructing influences can have unexpectedly fortuitous, synchronistic effects. For instance, the many impediments that Bennet runs into may superficially appear to be hindrances or setbacks, but they also have a beneficial impact by keeping him focused and galvanizing him in his beliefs, the means by which he creates the outcomes he seeks. The attempted harassment, stonewalling, obstructionism and character assassination thrust upon Bennet not only fail to achieve their objective but actually serve to empower him in his efforts. He knows how to respond to such intended hampering initiatives by employing beliefs that turn them on their ear and making them work to his advantage. His ability to envision desired results by both effectively creating his own successes and making lemonade out of the foul fruits others throw him ultimately lead him to realize his goals, aspirations that benefit others and epitomize the very meaning of value fulfillment.
“Concussion” may not seem like interesting fare for a feature film, but it succeeds tremendously on virtually every front. Though somewhat formulaic, this exceedingly well-made picture tells an engaging tale about one sincere, committed man’s efforts to exact justice when it’s perilously impaled on the capitalist sacrificial altar. The film capably weaves suspense, heartfelt drama and understated heroics into a package loaded with outstanding performances, particularly those of Smith, Morse and Brooks. There’s a slight tendency for the pacing to drag at times in the second hour, and the romantic interest subplot doesn’t work as well as it could have, but “Concussion” passes muster in almost every other respect.
The film is truly one of the pleasant surprises of this year’s awards season releases. Which is why it’s also surprising that the film hasn’t garnered more attention in this year’s awards competitions. Thus far it has only earned one nomination, a best dramatic actor nod for Smith in the Golden Globe Awards contest. It would be gratifying to see the picture grab more attention in some of this year’s remaining competitions, like the Oscars.
Heroism comes in all forms and in all manner of milieus, and it often takes the form of the David and Goliath scenario on display here. And, no matter how bad things may get, thankfully we nearly always have champions who will step up to address such matters. But, then, that’s to be expected from anyone who is committed to living out his value fulfillment, an effort for which everyone who benefits should be eternally grateful.
Copyright © 2016, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
December 30, 2015
‘Joy’ celebrates pursuing one’s dreams
“Joy” (2015). Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, Bradley Cooper, Édgar Ramírez, Diane Ladd, Virginia Madsen, Isabella Rossellini, Dascha Polanco, Elisabeth Röhm, Susan Lucci, Laura Wright, Jimmy Jean-Louis, Ken Howard, Melissa Rivers, Drena De Niro, Isabelle Crovetti-Cramp, Emily Nuñez, Madison Wolfe, Aundrea Gadsby, Gia Gadsby, Alexander Cook, Bates Wilder, Bill Thorpe, Marianne Leone, Donna Mills. Director: David O. Russell. Screenplay: David O. Russell. Story: Annie Mumolo and David O. Russell. Web site. Trailer.
It’s a pretty safe bet to say that most of us have dreams we would like to see realized. But how many of us actually follow through even partially, let alone at all? Perhaps it’s because we don’t know how to make them happen. Or maybe we don’t have the gumption for what it takes. But perhaps it’s a matter of our outlook, the set of beliefs we hold about the viability of our dreams and how they can be made manifest. Those in search of inspiration on this front may find what they’re looking for in the new fact-based comedy-drama, “Joy.”
Based on the lives of several successful women entrepreneurs (most notably inventor and cable television product sales mogul Joy Mangano), the film follows the misadventures, exploits and accomplishments of a composite character simply named Joy (Jennifer Lawrence). When viewers first meet the film’s heroine, she lives a harried and frustrating life. As the divorced mother of two, she works a thankless job as an airline ticket counter agent, barely eking out a living to support her largely dysfunctional family. Besides her two kids, Joy shares a cramped house with her divorced, soap opera-addicted mother, Terry (Virginia Madsen), a socially challenged recluse who almost never leaves her bedroom; her ne’er-do-well ex-husband, Tony (Édgar Ramírez), an aspiring but mostly unsuccessful lounge singer who lives in the basement; and her recently arrived father, Rudy (Robert De Niro), a genuinely loving and supportive influence in Joy’s life but who, thanks to a history of failed relationships, has now been forced into sharing the basement with his former son-in-law. In addition to the challenges of her crazy housemates, Joy also has to contend with the routine wranglings of her malicious half-sister, Peggy (Elisabeth Röhm), with whom she has had an ongoing, inexplicably spiteful rivalry ever since childhood.
But Joy is not without her supporters either. First there’s Joy’s childhood friend, Jackie (Dascha Polanco), who has faithfully stood by her through the years, even when things were at their worst. And then there’s the bright spot of Joy’s household, Mimi (Diane Ladd), her adoring grandmother (and the film’s narrator), who sees great things for her granddaughter (even when she can’t envision them for herself).
The ability to envision those grand accomplishments, however, is precisely what Mimi believes will be Joy’s ticket to success and abundance. She sees sparks of this in her granddaughter’s ingenuity for coming up with ideas for simple, inventive products that fulfill important consumer needs and hold the potential to make piles of cash. But, given Joy’s frantic schedule and lack of funds, she seldom has time or money to devote to these pursuits. That all changes one day, however, when a little domestic accident gives rise to an idea that proves to be the seminal brainchild for launching a new career.
While on a sailing excursion with her family on the boat of Rudy’s latest love interest, Trudy (Isabella Rossellini), a wealthy widow, a wine bottle falls and breaks, spilling its contents and shattering glass all over the deck. Joy volunteers to clean up the mess, but, while manually wringing the mop head, she cuts her hand by glass shards that became embedded in the cloth. As painful as this is, however, the incident gives her an idea for creating a new type of self-wringing mop.
Not long thereafter, Joy develops a prototype and seeks backers, like Trudy, to finance her efforts. Jackie, Rudy and Tony lend their support, too, running interference against detractors like Peggy, who repeatedly snipes at her sibling, claiming that she knows nothing about running a business. So, with such tangible, intangible and backhanded assistance, Joy forges ahead, finding sources to create molds and supply materials for her product.
With her new Miracle Mop in hand, Joy begins marketing her wares but without much success. Her fates change dramatically, however, when Tony introduces Joy to an old friend, Neil Walker (Bradley Cooper), an influential programming executive at an up-and-coming powerhouse in the cable television home shopping industry, QVC. As an enterprise featuring such high-profile spokespeople as Joan Rivers (Melissa Rivers), QVC and its principals look upon an upstart like Joy with much skepticism. But, when Neil is sold on the product’s capabilities, he relents and decides to give Joy a shot. Thus begins a rollercoaster ride that Joy never could have imagined, one involving phenomenal success, devastating setbacks, internal family squabbles, fraud and personal heartache. But it also marks Joy’s emergence as a personal dynamo, a true force to be reckoned with, one who many underestimated – and very much at their peril.
Living our dreams is something that most of us hope to realize for ourselves, but many times we’re at a loss to figure out how to do so. When “life happens to us,” we often lose our focus, frequently becoming discouraged, unable to make much, if any, headway on reaching our goals. However, all need not be lost, especially if we make judicious use of the conscious creation process, the means by which we manifest the reality we experience in all of its various aspects.
The core of this practice rests with our beliefs, the driving force in shaping our existence. They provide the conceptual template for our reality, and, when they are coupled with the energy provided by our divine collaborator (the Universe or whatever comparable name best suits you), they spring forth into tangible form. But, to make the process work to our liking, it’s important that we identify what those beliefs are. And, for those with an inherently creative bent, it’s crucial that we identify those beliefs with specificity to make the most of the process.
When inventive types (like Joy) seek to make use of the process, they must be able to envision the output of their ideas to bring them into being. This often involves thinking outside the box and pushing the limits of their creativity. Some might see this as an overwhelming task, but, for those who are able to conceptualize the solutions necessary to address their particular problems, the beliefs – and their physically manifested progeny – frequently follow.
The more one is able to embrace the foregoing, the more likely one is able to get the desired results. This is where the concept of faith comes into play. By imbuing our conceptions with an unshakable sense of certainty, we develop a greater sense of confidence in the viability of our ideas and the ability to see them realized as tangible materializations. And, the stronger the faith, the better the outcome.
There are several steps we can take to enhance our effectiveness at this. For instance, following our intuition can pay big dividends, because it provides clues about what we should consider pursuing in the formation of our beliefs. Joy picks up on this, for example, when the idea for the mop comes to her. She sees the potential and subsequently forms the beliefs necessary for bringing it into physical existence.
Intuition (and the beliefs that arise from it) can also show us what to avoid by birthing creations that depict what doesn’t serve us. In Joy’s case, this becomes apparent when she looks at her mother’s soap opera addiction. The show that Terry incessantly watches features a cast of pathetic, squabbling, self-serving characters (Susan Lucci, Laura Wright, Alexander Cook) reminiscent of Joy’s own family. Segments from the program are intercut with incidents from Joy’s everyday existence, paralleling her own reality and reminding her of what she doesn’t want out of life.
Mirrors like this are unmistakable, prompting us to identify what’s wrong and what needs to be changed. For Joy, they trigger memories of her younger self (Isabelle Crovetti-Cramp), an ambitious, enterprising young girl who believed she could do great things, like create marvelous inventions, and those flashbacks help to set her on a new course. And, when those insights are reinforced with Mimi’s supremely confident encouragement, Joy is able to adjust her prevailing outlook, enabling her to get back on track with her plans, to get back to those original beliefs about herself and what she wanted to do with her life.
In part successful materialization also depends on identifying the synchronicities that help foster our creations. These meaningful coincidences, which also spring forth from our beliefs, provide the catalytic sparks that prompt new rounds of more defined beliefs that further the manifestation process. For example, had Joy not recognized the opportunity available to her when the wine bottle broke on Trudy’s boat deck, she might not have invented her mop – or reaped any of the rewards that flowed from that.
These simple concepts are important for all of us, but budding entrepreneurs and inventors may find them particularly useful. They provide the inspiration we need to make things happen. And the example set by Joy just might be the impetus for helping us get our own plans off the ground.
While watching “Joy,” I couldn’t help but repeatedly remark to myself, “What unusual subject matter for a movie.” Given Hollywood’s current penchant for recycling story lines, unduly extending movie franchises and needlessly launching reboots, I appreciate the attempt at originality, something director David O. Russell has come to be known for, as seen in movies like “American Hustle” (2013) and “Flirting with Disaster” (1996). And its inspiring ideas are truly helpful for those seeking to live their dreams and to chart a path to success.
However, to make a movie such as this work, it has to fire on all cylinders, which, unfortunately, “Joy” does not do consistently. The film works well in a number of ways (acting, casting, inspirational themes) but drops the ball in others (writing, pacing, staying on point). Had the script and film editing gone through some additional tweaking, this might have been a truly terrific movie, but, as it stands now, it’s merely above average. With that said, however, be sure to give sufficient props to Jennifer Lawrence, Isabella Rossellini and Virginia Madsen for great acting turns in their respective performances.
Despite its shortcomings, the film has garnered a modicum of attention in this year’s awards competitions. Thus far it has earned two Golden Globe Award nominations for Lawrence’s stellar performance and as best comedy film. It has also captured comparable recognition in the Critics Choice Award contest, grabbing three nominations for best comedy film and two nods for Lawrence as best actress overall and best actress in a comedy.
When life doesn’t pan out as hoped for, it’s easy to become discouraged. We may reconcile ourselves to our circumstances, giving up on ever seeing our dreams come true. But sometimes simple adjustments in our thinking can bring about significant changes, as Joy’s experience illustrates. And who knows, if we go about it correctly, those changes just might prove to be the kind that allow us to mop up the rewards.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
It’s a pretty safe bet to say that most of us have dreams we would like to see realized. But how many of us actually follow through even partially, let alone at all? Perhaps it’s because we don’t know how to make them happen. Or maybe we don’t have the gumption for what it takes. But perhaps it’s a matter of our outlook, the set of beliefs we hold about the viability of our dreams and how they can be made manifest. Those in search of inspiration on this front may find what they’re looking for in the new fact-based comedy-drama, “Joy.”
Based on the lives of several successful women entrepreneurs (most notably inventor and cable television product sales mogul Joy Mangano), the film follows the misadventures, exploits and accomplishments of a composite character simply named Joy (Jennifer Lawrence). When viewers first meet the film’s heroine, she lives a harried and frustrating life. As the divorced mother of two, she works a thankless job as an airline ticket counter agent, barely eking out a living to support her largely dysfunctional family. Besides her two kids, Joy shares a cramped house with her divorced, soap opera-addicted mother, Terry (Virginia Madsen), a socially challenged recluse who almost never leaves her bedroom; her ne’er-do-well ex-husband, Tony (Édgar Ramírez), an aspiring but mostly unsuccessful lounge singer who lives in the basement; and her recently arrived father, Rudy (Robert De Niro), a genuinely loving and supportive influence in Joy’s life but who, thanks to a history of failed relationships, has now been forced into sharing the basement with his former son-in-law. In addition to the challenges of her crazy housemates, Joy also has to contend with the routine wranglings of her malicious half-sister, Peggy (Elisabeth Röhm), with whom she has had an ongoing, inexplicably spiteful rivalry ever since childhood.
But Joy is not without her supporters either. First there’s Joy’s childhood friend, Jackie (Dascha Polanco), who has faithfully stood by her through the years, even when things were at their worst. And then there’s the bright spot of Joy’s household, Mimi (Diane Ladd), her adoring grandmother (and the film’s narrator), who sees great things for her granddaughter (even when she can’t envision them for herself).
The ability to envision those grand accomplishments, however, is precisely what Mimi believes will be Joy’s ticket to success and abundance. She sees sparks of this in her granddaughter’s ingenuity for coming up with ideas for simple, inventive products that fulfill important consumer needs and hold the potential to make piles of cash. But, given Joy’s frantic schedule and lack of funds, she seldom has time or money to devote to these pursuits. That all changes one day, however, when a little domestic accident gives rise to an idea that proves to be the seminal brainchild for launching a new career.
While on a sailing excursion with her family on the boat of Rudy’s latest love interest, Trudy (Isabella Rossellini), a wealthy widow, a wine bottle falls and breaks, spilling its contents and shattering glass all over the deck. Joy volunteers to clean up the mess, but, while manually wringing the mop head, she cuts her hand by glass shards that became embedded in the cloth. As painful as this is, however, the incident gives her an idea for creating a new type of self-wringing mop.
Not long thereafter, Joy develops a prototype and seeks backers, like Trudy, to finance her efforts. Jackie, Rudy and Tony lend their support, too, running interference against detractors like Peggy, who repeatedly snipes at her sibling, claiming that she knows nothing about running a business. So, with such tangible, intangible and backhanded assistance, Joy forges ahead, finding sources to create molds and supply materials for her product.
With her new Miracle Mop in hand, Joy begins marketing her wares but without much success. Her fates change dramatically, however, when Tony introduces Joy to an old friend, Neil Walker (Bradley Cooper), an influential programming executive at an up-and-coming powerhouse in the cable television home shopping industry, QVC. As an enterprise featuring such high-profile spokespeople as Joan Rivers (Melissa Rivers), QVC and its principals look upon an upstart like Joy with much skepticism. But, when Neil is sold on the product’s capabilities, he relents and decides to give Joy a shot. Thus begins a rollercoaster ride that Joy never could have imagined, one involving phenomenal success, devastating setbacks, internal family squabbles, fraud and personal heartache. But it also marks Joy’s emergence as a personal dynamo, a true force to be reckoned with, one who many underestimated – and very much at their peril.
Living our dreams is something that most of us hope to realize for ourselves, but many times we’re at a loss to figure out how to do so. When “life happens to us,” we often lose our focus, frequently becoming discouraged, unable to make much, if any, headway on reaching our goals. However, all need not be lost, especially if we make judicious use of the conscious creation process, the means by which we manifest the reality we experience in all of its various aspects.
The core of this practice rests with our beliefs, the driving force in shaping our existence. They provide the conceptual template for our reality, and, when they are coupled with the energy provided by our divine collaborator (the Universe or whatever comparable name best suits you), they spring forth into tangible form. But, to make the process work to our liking, it’s important that we identify what those beliefs are. And, for those with an inherently creative bent, it’s crucial that we identify those beliefs with specificity to make the most of the process.
When inventive types (like Joy) seek to make use of the process, they must be able to envision the output of their ideas to bring them into being. This often involves thinking outside the box and pushing the limits of their creativity. Some might see this as an overwhelming task, but, for those who are able to conceptualize the solutions necessary to address their particular problems, the beliefs – and their physically manifested progeny – frequently follow.
The more one is able to embrace the foregoing, the more likely one is able to get the desired results. This is where the concept of faith comes into play. By imbuing our conceptions with an unshakable sense of certainty, we develop a greater sense of confidence in the viability of our ideas and the ability to see them realized as tangible materializations. And, the stronger the faith, the better the outcome.
There are several steps we can take to enhance our effectiveness at this. For instance, following our intuition can pay big dividends, because it provides clues about what we should consider pursuing in the formation of our beliefs. Joy picks up on this, for example, when the idea for the mop comes to her. She sees the potential and subsequently forms the beliefs necessary for bringing it into physical existence.
Intuition (and the beliefs that arise from it) can also show us what to avoid by birthing creations that depict what doesn’t serve us. In Joy’s case, this becomes apparent when she looks at her mother’s soap opera addiction. The show that Terry incessantly watches features a cast of pathetic, squabbling, self-serving characters (Susan Lucci, Laura Wright, Alexander Cook) reminiscent of Joy’s own family. Segments from the program are intercut with incidents from Joy’s everyday existence, paralleling her own reality and reminding her of what she doesn’t want out of life.
Mirrors like this are unmistakable, prompting us to identify what’s wrong and what needs to be changed. For Joy, they trigger memories of her younger self (Isabelle Crovetti-Cramp), an ambitious, enterprising young girl who believed she could do great things, like create marvelous inventions, and those flashbacks help to set her on a new course. And, when those insights are reinforced with Mimi’s supremely confident encouragement, Joy is able to adjust her prevailing outlook, enabling her to get back on track with her plans, to get back to those original beliefs about herself and what she wanted to do with her life.
In part successful materialization also depends on identifying the synchronicities that help foster our creations. These meaningful coincidences, which also spring forth from our beliefs, provide the catalytic sparks that prompt new rounds of more defined beliefs that further the manifestation process. For example, had Joy not recognized the opportunity available to her when the wine bottle broke on Trudy’s boat deck, she might not have invented her mop – or reaped any of the rewards that flowed from that.
These simple concepts are important for all of us, but budding entrepreneurs and inventors may find them particularly useful. They provide the inspiration we need to make things happen. And the example set by Joy just might be the impetus for helping us get our own plans off the ground.
While watching “Joy,” I couldn’t help but repeatedly remark to myself, “What unusual subject matter for a movie.” Given Hollywood’s current penchant for recycling story lines, unduly extending movie franchises and needlessly launching reboots, I appreciate the attempt at originality, something director David O. Russell has come to be known for, as seen in movies like “American Hustle” (2013) and “Flirting with Disaster” (1996). And its inspiring ideas are truly helpful for those seeking to live their dreams and to chart a path to success.
However, to make a movie such as this work, it has to fire on all cylinders, which, unfortunately, “Joy” does not do consistently. The film works well in a number of ways (acting, casting, inspirational themes) but drops the ball in others (writing, pacing, staying on point). Had the script and film editing gone through some additional tweaking, this might have been a truly terrific movie, but, as it stands now, it’s merely above average. With that said, however, be sure to give sufficient props to Jennifer Lawrence, Isabella Rossellini and Virginia Madsen for great acting turns in their respective performances.
Despite its shortcomings, the film has garnered a modicum of attention in this year’s awards competitions. Thus far it has earned two Golden Globe Award nominations for Lawrence’s stellar performance and as best comedy film. It has also captured comparable recognition in the Critics Choice Award contest, grabbing three nominations for best comedy film and two nods for Lawrence as best actress overall and best actress in a comedy.
When life doesn’t pan out as hoped for, it’s easy to become discouraged. We may reconcile ourselves to our circumstances, giving up on ever seeing our dreams come true. But sometimes simple adjustments in our thinking can bring about significant changes, as Joy’s experience illustrates. And who knows, if we go about it correctly, those changes just might prove to be the kind that allow us to mop up the rewards.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
December 23, 2015
Courage, hope and inspiration heralded in ‘The Danish Girl’
“The Danish Girl” (2015). Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Alicia Vikander, Matthias Schoenaerts, Ben Whishaw, Amber Heard, Adrian Schiller, Sebastian Koch, Pip Torrens. Director: Tom Hooper. Screenplay: Lucinda Coxon. Book: David Ebershoff, The Danish Girl. Web site. Trailer.
To get through awkward times during our upbringing, most of us were probably advised at one point or another to “just be yourself,” a nebulous suggestion we likely found difficult to fathom. But consider what that might mean for someone who lacks a clear sense of his or her own identity, even when it comes to something as fundamental as gender. Imagine how frightening such a prospect would be. If you can appreciate that, then you’ll have an idea of what goes on in the mind of the protagonist in the new fact-based biopic, “The Danish Girl.”
In 1926, life was good for Einar Wegener (Eddie Redmayne) and his wife, Gerda (Alicia Vikander). The couple lived comfortably in Copenhagen as aspiring artists; Einar specialized in landscapes, and Gerda painted portraits. When not working, they enjoyed a lively social life, hobnobbing with the city’s social elite and members of the arts community, such as their good friend, Ulla (Amber Heard), a colorful though somewhat flighty ballet dancer. But, above all, they were madly in love with one another. They were also anxious to start a family, a process that wasn’t going too well (but at which they nevertheless kept trying).
Life took a strange turn one day, however, when Gerda made an unusual, though seemingly innocent request of her husband. For some time, Gerda had been working on an oversized portrait of a ballerina for which Ulla had been modeling. But, true to her unreliable nature, Ulla didn’t show up for her appointment, leaving Gerda without a model. Given that the painting was nearly finished, Gerda was eager to complete it, so she asked Einar if he wouldn’t mind serving as a stand-in. Einar was reluctant, but Gerda assured him that she didn’t need him to don the full outfit; she merely needed him to model the ballerina’s shoes and stockings, a request to which he eventually agreed.
However, as Gerda began painting, she found she didn’t have sufficient perspective to continue with her work; she told Einar that she needed him to hold up the tutu so she could see how the stockings and shoes related to the rest of the outfit. He again agreed somewhat reluctantly, but, as he drew the costume close to him, it cast a spell over him. He felt a certain inexplicable comfort with this gesture, and Gerda could sense that almost instantaneously. She found Einar’s ease with the clothing somewhat provocative, even titillating, since it lent him an unexpectedly natural grace and beauty.
Einar and Gerda got a few laughs out of this incident, too, and those chuckles prompted an idea for an interesting little prank – wouldn’t it be fun if Einar went out in public dressed up in full female garb, perhaps even to one of their high-profile social events, to see if anyone would recognize him? And so, after a little coaching, that’s just what they did, a move that drew more of a reaction than they bargained for.
When the pair arrived at the event, Gerda introduced her female companion as Lili Elbe, Einar’s cousin. But Einar’s transformation was so convincing that no one but Ulla recognized him. His clothes, makeup and mannerisms were so alluring that he quickly drew the attention of a host of would-be male suitors, such as Henrik (Ben Whishaw), who made no attempt at hiding his affection. And, when Gerda saw this, suddenly the little joke didn’t seem quite so funny anymore.
Still, despite Gerda’s now-conflicted feelings about what might be going on with her husband, she also saw an opportunity emerge. Einar as Lili provided fertile subject matter for Gerda’s paintings, and, before long, she had ample interest from the Paris arts community in her newest works. But, while Gerda seemed to be finding herself, Einar was losing himself, and no one seemed to be able to help. Even a doctor (Pip Torrens) who claimed to be able to assist him was quick to give up on his patient, ready to subject Einar to sanctioned treatment for “perversion.”
News of the doctor’s diagnosis prompted a hasty move to Paris. Einar, who now spent much of his time as Lili, lost nearly all interest in painting. He saw several more doctors, but they were all quick to label him either a homosexual or mentally ill, diagnoses that both he and Gerda knew weren’t true. With little hope, Einar withdrew from life, lost and unsure what to do.
Gerda, meanwhile, saw her profile rise in the Paris arts community. She befriended an influential arts dealer, Hans Axgil (Matthias Schoenaerts), who turned out to be a childhood friend of Einar – and with whom she was developing a growing attraction. Together Gerda and Hans sought to find help for Lili, which they found through a progressively minded German doctor, Kurt Warnekros (Sebastian Koch). Through a series of counseling sessions, Prof. Warnekros came to realize that Lili was neither homosexual nor mentally ill; he recognized the real nature of her circumstances – the dilemma of being a woman trapped in a man’s body.
However, even with such an accurate diagnosis, what was Lili to do? Prof. Warnekros suggested a radical, experimental approach to addressing her circumstances – gender reassignment surgery. The procedure was untried, and success was far from guaranteed, but Lili seriously had to consider the option. Balancing the risks and rewards called for a big decision, but it was one that might be her only way to find peace.
When confronted with such a painful predicament, it’s understandable how one might not want to deal with it, especially when potential resolution involves making a painful choice. However, to remove the agony, having the courage to forge ahead may be the only way to alleviate the suffering. This is thus a prime example of how important it is to get in touch with our feelings and beliefs, the driving forces of the conscious creation process, the means by which our reality unfolds.
For Lili to be able to make a decision like this, it’s crucial that she examine her innermost beliefs about herself, and she must be brutally honest in doing so. Indeed, is she truly the woman she claims to be, or is the presence of this recently emerged persona some delusional creation of Einar’s? Facing down that question, then, is essential to understand those heartfelt intents.
In some ways, this may be a tricky proposition, given our intrinsic multidimensional nature. Conscious creation maintains that there are many parts to our greater selves but that we’re usually only aware of our “localized” personas, the ones into which we focus the lion’s share of our consciousness. However, sometimes we find that previously unknown aspects of our localized selves begin to emerge, which can cause conflict and confusion, especially if those new attributes tend to run counter to what we’ve typically come to believe about who and what we are.
In light of the foregoing, then, is it possible, for instance, for someone to identify with both a male and a female self simultaneously? From a conscious creation perspective, the answer could potentially be yes or no (and to varying degrees). This again depends on our beliefs, particularly those associated with how willing our localized selves are to allow the various aspects of our greater selves to express themselves, either individually or in tandem.
This is at the heart of Einar and Lili’s quandary, yet they must address it to know how to proceed. As the film unfolds, viewers learn that the emergence of Lili’s persona is not entirely the recent phenomenon that everyone has been led to believe. Einar acknowledges that he sensed her presence as far back as childhood but suppressed the idea; after all, he was in a man’s body. But does the body alone define one’s persona? As time passes and Lili begins to forge beliefs that allow her to give expression to her repressed self, her true identity starts to emerge. And, with that realization, perhaps now it’s time to finally let her come to life.
Once this question is answered, the next step is to determine whether or not one possesses the fortitude to press on, moving beyond whatever fears lie ahead. This, too, is crucial, for fear-based beliefs undercut our manifestation abilities by presenting our divine conscious creation collaborator with an unsolvable contradiction. The Universe (or God, Goddess, All That Is or whatever other term best suits you) is unable to comply with our materialization request because of this inherent paradox. So, to move head, our fears (and the beliefs that drive them) must be eliminated.
Given Lili’s willingness to embrace her true identity, it’s obvious the fear issue is something she’s ready to leave behind. It’s something that no longer serves her (or Einar for that matter), so she can press ahead with her newest creation – becoming a full-fledged woman in every sense of the word. It’s something she apparently wants badly enough, too, considering how adept she has become at drawing to her the synchronicities she needs to make it possible.
Synchronicities – those meaningful “coincidences” that seem so perfectly suited to our needs that they can’t possibly be instances of random chance – play a huge role in Lili’s transformation. For example, would Lili’s emergence have occurred if it had not been for Ulla’s failure to show up for her modeling appointment? Similarly, what would have happened if Gerda had managed to become pregnant? But, perhaps most importantly, would Lili have ever met Prof. Warnekros (and everything that came with that) if Gerda had not painted the portraits that raised her artistic profile and subsequently prompted the couple’s move from Copenhagen to Paris?
Such seemingly little incidents might superficially appear to have little significance at the time they occur. However, as events transpire, their importance grows in magnitude, ultimately proving to be quite fortuitous in helping Lili attain her goal. But, then, they also would not have occurred were it not for Lili putting out the beliefs and intents that manifested them – and everything that they birthed – in the first place. And, by drawing them into her existence, she demonstrates how conscious creation (or, as it’s sometimes known, the law of attraction) truly works.
In pursuing this course, Lili also lives out her value fulfillment, the conscious creation concept associated with being one’s best, truest self for the benefit of ourselves and those around us. This becomes apparent in a number of ways, too. For example, by providing subject matter for Gerda, Lili gave her onetime spouse a significant boost to her artistic career. But, perhaps even more importantly, Lili was a pioneer in the transgender movement. By taking such fearless steps at a time when gender reassignment surgery was experimental and when the mere thought of something so radically taboo as a sex change was considered positively scandalous, Lili courageously led all those who would follow her in generations to come. Her efforts ultimately benefitted many, none of whom she would know, but her legacy left an indelible mark that would help bring peace of mind to those who might not have otherwise known it.
As “The Danish Girl” aptly illustrates, director Tom Hooper seems to keep finding ways to knock it out of the park, much as he did in previous efforts like “The King’s Speech” (2010) and “Les Misérables” (2012). This sensitive, moving, lavishly produced period piece is easily one of the year’s best. Its superb performances by Redmayne and Vikander, backed by excellent production values, gorgeous cinematography and a sweeping soundtrack, make for heartfelt, affecting viewing. The pacing is a bit sluggish in a few spots, but everything else is top shelf across the board.
From my perspective, perhaps the film’s only troubling aspect is that it’s based on a novel, and not a biography, of historic figures. While such works tend to make for good entertainment, they’re not the most reliable when it comes to authenticity. Sticklers (like me) may take issue with this (to varying degrees), but, for those who can successfully look past it, good, inspiring storytelling nevertheless awaits, and it all comes wrapped up in a gorgeously executed package.
“The Danish Girl” is racking up significant recognition in this year’s awards competitions. Thus far it has earned three Golden Globe Award nominations for the lead performances by Redmayne and Vikander, as well as its original score. In the Screen Actors Guild contest, Redmayne scored another nod, as did Vikander but in the supporting actress category. The film’s biggest haul, however, has come in the Critics Choice Award competition, where it captured nominations for Redmayne and Vikander (again in the supporting category), as well as recognition for production design, costumes, and hair and makeup. Look for the picture to earn its share of Oscar nods when those nominations are announced.
Taking the first bold step toward discovering one’s destiny is rarely easy. That’s particularly true when such a step involves charting new territory, especially when it entails pursuing objectives that others ridicule or even persecute. But progress depends on pioneers who venture into unexplored realms, and that’s where courageous souls like Lili Elbe make their mark. They provide inspiration to those who walk in their footsteps – impressions that never would have been made were it not for the bold moves they were willing to make.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
To get through awkward times during our upbringing, most of us were probably advised at one point or another to “just be yourself,” a nebulous suggestion we likely found difficult to fathom. But consider what that might mean for someone who lacks a clear sense of his or her own identity, even when it comes to something as fundamental as gender. Imagine how frightening such a prospect would be. If you can appreciate that, then you’ll have an idea of what goes on in the mind of the protagonist in the new fact-based biopic, “The Danish Girl.”
In 1926, life was good for Einar Wegener (Eddie Redmayne) and his wife, Gerda (Alicia Vikander). The couple lived comfortably in Copenhagen as aspiring artists; Einar specialized in landscapes, and Gerda painted portraits. When not working, they enjoyed a lively social life, hobnobbing with the city’s social elite and members of the arts community, such as their good friend, Ulla (Amber Heard), a colorful though somewhat flighty ballet dancer. But, above all, they were madly in love with one another. They were also anxious to start a family, a process that wasn’t going too well (but at which they nevertheless kept trying).
Life took a strange turn one day, however, when Gerda made an unusual, though seemingly innocent request of her husband. For some time, Gerda had been working on an oversized portrait of a ballerina for which Ulla had been modeling. But, true to her unreliable nature, Ulla didn’t show up for her appointment, leaving Gerda without a model. Given that the painting was nearly finished, Gerda was eager to complete it, so she asked Einar if he wouldn’t mind serving as a stand-in. Einar was reluctant, but Gerda assured him that she didn’t need him to don the full outfit; she merely needed him to model the ballerina’s shoes and stockings, a request to which he eventually agreed.
However, as Gerda began painting, she found she didn’t have sufficient perspective to continue with her work; she told Einar that she needed him to hold up the tutu so she could see how the stockings and shoes related to the rest of the outfit. He again agreed somewhat reluctantly, but, as he drew the costume close to him, it cast a spell over him. He felt a certain inexplicable comfort with this gesture, and Gerda could sense that almost instantaneously. She found Einar’s ease with the clothing somewhat provocative, even titillating, since it lent him an unexpectedly natural grace and beauty.
Einar and Gerda got a few laughs out of this incident, too, and those chuckles prompted an idea for an interesting little prank – wouldn’t it be fun if Einar went out in public dressed up in full female garb, perhaps even to one of their high-profile social events, to see if anyone would recognize him? And so, after a little coaching, that’s just what they did, a move that drew more of a reaction than they bargained for.
When the pair arrived at the event, Gerda introduced her female companion as Lili Elbe, Einar’s cousin. But Einar’s transformation was so convincing that no one but Ulla recognized him. His clothes, makeup and mannerisms were so alluring that he quickly drew the attention of a host of would-be male suitors, such as Henrik (Ben Whishaw), who made no attempt at hiding his affection. And, when Gerda saw this, suddenly the little joke didn’t seem quite so funny anymore.
Still, despite Gerda’s now-conflicted feelings about what might be going on with her husband, she also saw an opportunity emerge. Einar as Lili provided fertile subject matter for Gerda’s paintings, and, before long, she had ample interest from the Paris arts community in her newest works. But, while Gerda seemed to be finding herself, Einar was losing himself, and no one seemed to be able to help. Even a doctor (Pip Torrens) who claimed to be able to assist him was quick to give up on his patient, ready to subject Einar to sanctioned treatment for “perversion.”
News of the doctor’s diagnosis prompted a hasty move to Paris. Einar, who now spent much of his time as Lili, lost nearly all interest in painting. He saw several more doctors, but they were all quick to label him either a homosexual or mentally ill, diagnoses that both he and Gerda knew weren’t true. With little hope, Einar withdrew from life, lost and unsure what to do.
Gerda, meanwhile, saw her profile rise in the Paris arts community. She befriended an influential arts dealer, Hans Axgil (Matthias Schoenaerts), who turned out to be a childhood friend of Einar – and with whom she was developing a growing attraction. Together Gerda and Hans sought to find help for Lili, which they found through a progressively minded German doctor, Kurt Warnekros (Sebastian Koch). Through a series of counseling sessions, Prof. Warnekros came to realize that Lili was neither homosexual nor mentally ill; he recognized the real nature of her circumstances – the dilemma of being a woman trapped in a man’s body.
However, even with such an accurate diagnosis, what was Lili to do? Prof. Warnekros suggested a radical, experimental approach to addressing her circumstances – gender reassignment surgery. The procedure was untried, and success was far from guaranteed, but Lili seriously had to consider the option. Balancing the risks and rewards called for a big decision, but it was one that might be her only way to find peace.
When confronted with such a painful predicament, it’s understandable how one might not want to deal with it, especially when potential resolution involves making a painful choice. However, to remove the agony, having the courage to forge ahead may be the only way to alleviate the suffering. This is thus a prime example of how important it is to get in touch with our feelings and beliefs, the driving forces of the conscious creation process, the means by which our reality unfolds.
For Lili to be able to make a decision like this, it’s crucial that she examine her innermost beliefs about herself, and she must be brutally honest in doing so. Indeed, is she truly the woman she claims to be, or is the presence of this recently emerged persona some delusional creation of Einar’s? Facing down that question, then, is essential to understand those heartfelt intents.
In some ways, this may be a tricky proposition, given our intrinsic multidimensional nature. Conscious creation maintains that there are many parts to our greater selves but that we’re usually only aware of our “localized” personas, the ones into which we focus the lion’s share of our consciousness. However, sometimes we find that previously unknown aspects of our localized selves begin to emerge, which can cause conflict and confusion, especially if those new attributes tend to run counter to what we’ve typically come to believe about who and what we are.
In light of the foregoing, then, is it possible, for instance, for someone to identify with both a male and a female self simultaneously? From a conscious creation perspective, the answer could potentially be yes or no (and to varying degrees). This again depends on our beliefs, particularly those associated with how willing our localized selves are to allow the various aspects of our greater selves to express themselves, either individually or in tandem.
This is at the heart of Einar and Lili’s quandary, yet they must address it to know how to proceed. As the film unfolds, viewers learn that the emergence of Lili’s persona is not entirely the recent phenomenon that everyone has been led to believe. Einar acknowledges that he sensed her presence as far back as childhood but suppressed the idea; after all, he was in a man’s body. But does the body alone define one’s persona? As time passes and Lili begins to forge beliefs that allow her to give expression to her repressed self, her true identity starts to emerge. And, with that realization, perhaps now it’s time to finally let her come to life.
Once this question is answered, the next step is to determine whether or not one possesses the fortitude to press on, moving beyond whatever fears lie ahead. This, too, is crucial, for fear-based beliefs undercut our manifestation abilities by presenting our divine conscious creation collaborator with an unsolvable contradiction. The Universe (or God, Goddess, All That Is or whatever other term best suits you) is unable to comply with our materialization request because of this inherent paradox. So, to move head, our fears (and the beliefs that drive them) must be eliminated.
Given Lili’s willingness to embrace her true identity, it’s obvious the fear issue is something she’s ready to leave behind. It’s something that no longer serves her (or Einar for that matter), so she can press ahead with her newest creation – becoming a full-fledged woman in every sense of the word. It’s something she apparently wants badly enough, too, considering how adept she has become at drawing to her the synchronicities she needs to make it possible.
Synchronicities – those meaningful “coincidences” that seem so perfectly suited to our needs that they can’t possibly be instances of random chance – play a huge role in Lili’s transformation. For example, would Lili’s emergence have occurred if it had not been for Ulla’s failure to show up for her modeling appointment? Similarly, what would have happened if Gerda had managed to become pregnant? But, perhaps most importantly, would Lili have ever met Prof. Warnekros (and everything that came with that) if Gerda had not painted the portraits that raised her artistic profile and subsequently prompted the couple’s move from Copenhagen to Paris?
Such seemingly little incidents might superficially appear to have little significance at the time they occur. However, as events transpire, their importance grows in magnitude, ultimately proving to be quite fortuitous in helping Lili attain her goal. But, then, they also would not have occurred were it not for Lili putting out the beliefs and intents that manifested them – and everything that they birthed – in the first place. And, by drawing them into her existence, she demonstrates how conscious creation (or, as it’s sometimes known, the law of attraction) truly works.
In pursuing this course, Lili also lives out her value fulfillment, the conscious creation concept associated with being one’s best, truest self for the benefit of ourselves and those around us. This becomes apparent in a number of ways, too. For example, by providing subject matter for Gerda, Lili gave her onetime spouse a significant boost to her artistic career. But, perhaps even more importantly, Lili was a pioneer in the transgender movement. By taking such fearless steps at a time when gender reassignment surgery was experimental and when the mere thought of something so radically taboo as a sex change was considered positively scandalous, Lili courageously led all those who would follow her in generations to come. Her efforts ultimately benefitted many, none of whom she would know, but her legacy left an indelible mark that would help bring peace of mind to those who might not have otherwise known it.
As “The Danish Girl” aptly illustrates, director Tom Hooper seems to keep finding ways to knock it out of the park, much as he did in previous efforts like “The King’s Speech” (2010) and “Les Misérables” (2012). This sensitive, moving, lavishly produced period piece is easily one of the year’s best. Its superb performances by Redmayne and Vikander, backed by excellent production values, gorgeous cinematography and a sweeping soundtrack, make for heartfelt, affecting viewing. The pacing is a bit sluggish in a few spots, but everything else is top shelf across the board.
From my perspective, perhaps the film’s only troubling aspect is that it’s based on a novel, and not a biography, of historic figures. While such works tend to make for good entertainment, they’re not the most reliable when it comes to authenticity. Sticklers (like me) may take issue with this (to varying degrees), but, for those who can successfully look past it, good, inspiring storytelling nevertheless awaits, and it all comes wrapped up in a gorgeously executed package.
“The Danish Girl” is racking up significant recognition in this year’s awards competitions. Thus far it has earned three Golden Globe Award nominations for the lead performances by Redmayne and Vikander, as well as its original score. In the Screen Actors Guild contest, Redmayne scored another nod, as did Vikander but in the supporting actress category. The film’s biggest haul, however, has come in the Critics Choice Award competition, where it captured nominations for Redmayne and Vikander (again in the supporting category), as well as recognition for production design, costumes, and hair and makeup. Look for the picture to earn its share of Oscar nods when those nominations are announced.
Taking the first bold step toward discovering one’s destiny is rarely easy. That’s particularly true when such a step involves charting new territory, especially when it entails pursuing objectives that others ridicule or even persecute. But progress depends on pioneers who venture into unexplored realms, and that’s where courageous souls like Lili Elbe make their mark. They provide inspiration to those who walk in their footsteps – impressions that never would have been made were it not for the bold moves they were willing to make.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
December 17, 2015
‘Youth’ explores what we make of life
“Youth” (2015). Cast: Michael Caine, Harvey Keitel, Paul Dano, Rachel Weisz, Jane Fonda, Abe Macqueen, Dorji Wangchuk, Madalina Ghenea, Luna Mijovic, Roly Serrano, Wolfgang Michael, Ed Stoppard, Paloma Faith, Robert Seethaler, Lee Artin Boschin, Sumi Jo, Nate Dern, Alex Beckett, Mark Gessner, Tom Lipinski, Chloe Pirrie, Sonia Gessner, Emilia Jones, Heidi Maria Glössner, Helmut Förnbacher. Director: Paolo Sorrentino. Screenplay: Paolo Sorrentino. Web site. Trailer.
The meaning of life is something that has mesmerized, perplexed and confounded mankind throughout the ages. And, much of the time, we come away from asking this question with no definitive conclusions. But making the effort to find answers is ultimately what counts, especially before the end arrives, an undertaking pursued in earnest by a colorful cast of characters in the moving new cinematic meditation, “Youth.”
British composer and orchestra conductor Fred Ballinger (Michael Caine), former maestro of the Venice Symphony, has spent years vacationing at a luxury spa in the Swiss Alps, enjoying the exquisite scenery and the company of his long-time friend, Hollywood filmmaker Mick Boyle (Harvey Keitel). In some ways, the octogenarians have a lot in common, such as years of memories, mutual prostate problems, and the marriage of Fred’s daughter, Lena (Rachel Weisz), to Mick’s son, Julian (Ed Stoppard). But, in other ways, the pair couldn’t be more different; Fred is perfectly content to kick back and enjoy his retirement in seclusion, while Mick remains active and in the public eye, working on yet another new movie.
Long-time friends Fred Ballinger (Michael Caine, left) and Mick Boyle (Harvey Keitel, right) share memories and good times while vacationing together at an exclusive Swiss Alps resort in director Paolo Sorrentino’s latest release, “Youth.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
Despite Fred’s insistence that he’s put his working life to rest, there are those who try nudging him back onto the conducting podium. Lena, for example, calls her father “apathetic,” urging him to become more active musically as a means to remain vital, aware and alive. And then there’s Queen Elizabeth’s emissary (Alex Macqueen), who informs the maestro that Her Majesty would like to bestow the honor of knighthood upon him in exchange for conducting a command performance in celebration of Prince Philip’s birthday.
In both instances, however, Fred flatly refuses. He becomes particularly incensed when the emissary reveals the Queen’s request that he conduct his signature composition, Simple Songs, a piece the Prince is particularly fond of. But it’s also a work that holds personal – and painful – significance for Fred, and the thought of performing it again, even for a command performance and with the collaboration of famed soprano Sumi Jo (as herself), troubles him deeply, for reasons he’s highly reluctant to admit.
Mick, meanwhile, continues actively working on his new film with a coterie of young screenwriters (Nate Dern, Alex Beckett, Mark Gessner, Tom Lipinski, Chloe Pirrie) whose wide-eyed enthusiasm helps keep him young. However, despite Mick’s insistence on remaining active, he’s also aware that the years are catching up with him. So, with that in mind, he’s intent on making this film his testament, a consummate expression of who he is and the pinnacle of his artistry. He envisions the picture as a showcase for his favorite actress, Brenda Morel (Jane Fonda), an aging but prolific and profoundly versatile star with whom he has worked on many previous occasions. In doing all this, Mick’s clearly placing a lot of pressure on himself, but, with the clock winding down – and his health becoming questionable – he’s committed to seeing things through on this project while he’s still able.
As Fred and Mick attempt to sort out these matters, they also have ample opportunities to sort out their feelings about their lives. They frequently lounge by the pool or go on leisurely mountain walks, engaging in philosophical discussions about everything from their work to their families, their friendship, their love lives, their emotions, their regrets and, perhaps most importantly, what to do with the time they have left.
Lena Ballinger (Rachel Weisz), daughter of a former orchestra conductor, encourages her retired father to keep active to remain vital, one of the principal themes of the emotive new release, “Youth.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
In their attempts at arriving at meaningful conclusions about these issues, Fred and Mick often draw upon the examples set by other guests at the spa, such as Jimmy Tree (Paul Dano), a young actor desperately seeking to find his voice as a performer, the spark that will give meaning to his career. Additional inspiration comes from other visitors, such as the recently crowned Miss Universe (Madalina Ghenea), an aspiring child violinist (Lee Artin Boschin), an ever-smiling Buddhist monk (Dorji Wangchuk), and an obese, middle-aged South American celebrity (Roly Serrano) in failing health who valiantly fights to stay vital. Even the resort’s employees have something to offer, such as the insights of a shy but proficient mountain-climbing instructor (Robert Seethaler), an amusing staff physician (Wolfgang Michael) and an intuitive young masseuse (Luna Mijovic).
Over the course of their stay, Fred and Mick’s vacation turns out to be as much an exercise in personal revelation as it is an enjoyable respite, and what they find out about themselves surprises as much as it enlightens. One can only hope that whatever newfound understanding they attain will serve them well as they move forward into the future – one that’s likely going to be just as uncertain now as it was when they were younger.
When we reach the point in life that Fred and Mick have, there’s a tendency for many of us to look back and ask, what has it all meant? Have we made the most of it? Have we done all that we wanted to do? What, if anything, would we have done differently (and, if so, how)? These are “the big questions” of life, the kind that often arise when our time grows short, which, as noted earlier, also usually leads to the all-important inquiry, what do we do with the time we have left?
In assessing these questions, we nearly always end up taking a serious look at our beliefs, for they ultimately determine how our realities – and our lives – unfold, the essence of the conscious creation process. So, if we truly want to find the answers we’re supposedly looking for, the first thing we need to do is ask ourselves, what do we really believe?
This is a question we seldom pose when we’re young; in fact, most of us don’t even recognize its relevance or importance in our youth. But, even if we do, we often put off addressing it until our sunset years (if then). Nevertheless, it’s an inquiry that’s pertinent at any age, whether we’re 19 or 90, because the underlying principle is just as true when we come of age as it is in our waning days. And, in light of that, this is why the answer becomes so crucial when our time is short; if we want to take full advantage of those dwindling days, we had better have a good handle on what we hope to accomplish – and the beliefs that will make it possible – with the time we have left.
Jimmy Tree (Paul Dano), a young actor seeking to find his voice, looks to draw inspiration from the wisdom of elders to bring meaning to his work in director Paolo Sorrentino’s “Youth.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
Of course, if we really want to get the most out of life, we’d be wise to ask this question sooner rather than later. By grasping this concept as early on as possible, we significantly increase the likelihood of creating the life we want (and a full one at that). Unfortunately, many of us evade it, allowing ourselves to become distracted by incidentals, worrying about trivial obsessions, and frequently whittling away valuable time, energy and consciousness on irrelevancies, ill-conceived pursuits and unproductive endeavors.
To that end, then, think about how much potential grief, disappointment and regret we might be able to avoid by addressing this issue in our 20s rather than our 80s. Admittedly, some may contend that it’s easy to reach that conclusion in hindsight, arguing that the experience of making “mistakes” and engaging in other assorted missteps is part of our learning curve, an often-problematic but necessary step on the path to the sage wisdom that comes with age. But, if we’re able to successfully fathom this realization and put it to work in our youth, we may find ourselves astonishingly pleased with the results.
As Fred and Mick come to discover, there are a number of principles that we should consider to increase our chances of success on this point, no matter how old we are:
• Allow ourselves to feel, because our emotions often provide clues about our beliefs, and the more clarity we have about them, the better we’ll understand how and why our reality materializes as it does. Of course, we must also believe that it’s acceptable to allow ourselves to feel in the first place; if we have problems with this, we may encounter undue difficulty in getting a handle on the intents that truly drive us. Several of the film’s characters wrestle with this, and often with regretful consequences.
• Be willing to live in the moment, not in an unchangeable past or an uncertain future. As conscious creators are fond of saying, the point of power is in the present, the only moment over which we have any meaningful direct control. By getting in touch with, and having faith in, the beliefs we hold at such time, there’s no telling what we might accomplish. The fulfillment achieved in such a state of mind could startle those around us, not to mention ourselves. (If you need proof of that, look to the example set by the Buddhist monk noted earlier.)
• Give yourself the time and space to deeply examine this issue. That’s where vacations can prove invaluable. By freeing up those precious resources and removing the everyday diversions that often get in the way, we enable ourselves to pursue (and, one would hope, achieve) this goal. Vacations, retreats and other such getaways provide ideal conditions for this kind of self-examination, as the protagonists come to discover with stunning clarity.
• Warmly embrace beliefs that allow you to give yourself permission to pursue your ambitions. This is particularly true when seeking to manifest your most cherished desires or when looking to extricate yourself from situations that no longer serve you. Of course, this also requires overcoming fear- or doubt-based beliefs that undercut intents aimed at realizing such dreams; by holding on to those outmoded notions, you run the risk of sabotaging the materialization of your heart’s desire, a potentially huge source of regret as the years add up.
• Remain active, both physically and mentally, at any age. When we allow our thoughts and beliefs to atrophy, we become less engaged with our manifestation skills and, consequently, with the reality we create. This may be fine when we’ve made peace with moving on to the next phase of our soul’s evolution, but, if we’re not ready to give up on our current incarnation, we had better remain involved with the realization of our existence. It’s not dependent on age or health, either; even those in the prime of life and who possess a vigorous sense of well-being may be tempted to withdraw, especially if their journeys have been full of disappointment. However, we must remember that our beliefs create our reality, for better or worse, and, if we don’t like what we’ve materialized, we had better get busy and make the necessary adjustments. And, because such modifications depend on us taking action, this is clearly something we need to address while we still have the chance.
Aging screen idol Brenda Morel (Jane Fonda) discusses her latest film project with a long-time friend and collaborator, a filmmaker near the end of his career, in “Youth.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
In the end, the principal life challenge we all face – just like Fred, Mick and all of their cohorts at the spa – is to sort out our beliefs to make some sense of it all. This is essential for understanding why we have experienced what we have, thereby giving us a newfound appreciation of the nature of existence. And, with the attainment of such enlightenment, there’s nothing that will make us feel more young at heart.
“Youth” is a sublime, thoughtful treatise about aging, what we do with the years we have and how well we understand it all as we move through the process. The picture stylistically recalls director Paolo Sorrentino’s previous offering, the Oscar-winning best foreign language feature, “The Great Beauty” (“La grande bellezza”) (2013). With its gorgeous cinematography, its superb performances by Harvey Keitel and Jane Fonda, its diverse and emotive musical score, and its deftly nuanced, beautifully layered writing, the film is a feast for the senses and leaves viewers with much to think about in its wake. Despite a few slow passages in the first hour, “Youth” tends to grow on you the further you get into it, effectively wiping away any memories of that minor shortcoming. Allow yourself to be moved by the experience, and you’ll come away richly rewarded.
For its efforts, “Youth” has received a modest share of accolades thus far, including a Palme d’Or nomination earlier this year at the Cannes Film Festival, the event’s highest honor. In current contests, the film has earned two very deserving Golden Globe Award nominations for Fonda’s superb supporting actress performance and for the picture’s signature musical piece, Simple Song 3, an honor also bestowed on the composition in the Critics Choice Awards competition.
When we reach the end of the line, many of us would like to hope we come away from the experience having learned something about life and, more importantly, about ourselves. But doing so requires some effort on our part to assess how it all came into being, a process that, for what it’s worth, intrinsically begins with each of us and what we believe. By regularly taking stock of this, we increase the likelihood of getting the most out of the experience. To be sure, life truly is what we make of it, and films like this serve as valuable reminders of that. We can only hope we heed that advice while we still have the chance to do so.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
The meaning of life is something that has mesmerized, perplexed and confounded mankind throughout the ages. And, much of the time, we come away from asking this question with no definitive conclusions. But making the effort to find answers is ultimately what counts, especially before the end arrives, an undertaking pursued in earnest by a colorful cast of characters in the moving new cinematic meditation, “Youth.”
British composer and orchestra conductor Fred Ballinger (Michael Caine), former maestro of the Venice Symphony, has spent years vacationing at a luxury spa in the Swiss Alps, enjoying the exquisite scenery and the company of his long-time friend, Hollywood filmmaker Mick Boyle (Harvey Keitel). In some ways, the octogenarians have a lot in common, such as years of memories, mutual prostate problems, and the marriage of Fred’s daughter, Lena (Rachel Weisz), to Mick’s son, Julian (Ed Stoppard). But, in other ways, the pair couldn’t be more different; Fred is perfectly content to kick back and enjoy his retirement in seclusion, while Mick remains active and in the public eye, working on yet another new movie.
Long-time friends Fred Ballinger (Michael Caine, left) and Mick Boyle (Harvey Keitel, right) share memories and good times while vacationing together at an exclusive Swiss Alps resort in director Paolo Sorrentino’s latest release, “Youth.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.Despite Fred’s insistence that he’s put his working life to rest, there are those who try nudging him back onto the conducting podium. Lena, for example, calls her father “apathetic,” urging him to become more active musically as a means to remain vital, aware and alive. And then there’s Queen Elizabeth’s emissary (Alex Macqueen), who informs the maestro that Her Majesty would like to bestow the honor of knighthood upon him in exchange for conducting a command performance in celebration of Prince Philip’s birthday.
In both instances, however, Fred flatly refuses. He becomes particularly incensed when the emissary reveals the Queen’s request that he conduct his signature composition, Simple Songs, a piece the Prince is particularly fond of. But it’s also a work that holds personal – and painful – significance for Fred, and the thought of performing it again, even for a command performance and with the collaboration of famed soprano Sumi Jo (as herself), troubles him deeply, for reasons he’s highly reluctant to admit.
Mick, meanwhile, continues actively working on his new film with a coterie of young screenwriters (Nate Dern, Alex Beckett, Mark Gessner, Tom Lipinski, Chloe Pirrie) whose wide-eyed enthusiasm helps keep him young. However, despite Mick’s insistence on remaining active, he’s also aware that the years are catching up with him. So, with that in mind, he’s intent on making this film his testament, a consummate expression of who he is and the pinnacle of his artistry. He envisions the picture as a showcase for his favorite actress, Brenda Morel (Jane Fonda), an aging but prolific and profoundly versatile star with whom he has worked on many previous occasions. In doing all this, Mick’s clearly placing a lot of pressure on himself, but, with the clock winding down – and his health becoming questionable – he’s committed to seeing things through on this project while he’s still able.
As Fred and Mick attempt to sort out these matters, they also have ample opportunities to sort out their feelings about their lives. They frequently lounge by the pool or go on leisurely mountain walks, engaging in philosophical discussions about everything from their work to their families, their friendship, their love lives, their emotions, their regrets and, perhaps most importantly, what to do with the time they have left.
Lena Ballinger (Rachel Weisz), daughter of a former orchestra conductor, encourages her retired father to keep active to remain vital, one of the principal themes of the emotive new release, “Youth.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.In their attempts at arriving at meaningful conclusions about these issues, Fred and Mick often draw upon the examples set by other guests at the spa, such as Jimmy Tree (Paul Dano), a young actor desperately seeking to find his voice as a performer, the spark that will give meaning to his career. Additional inspiration comes from other visitors, such as the recently crowned Miss Universe (Madalina Ghenea), an aspiring child violinist (Lee Artin Boschin), an ever-smiling Buddhist monk (Dorji Wangchuk), and an obese, middle-aged South American celebrity (Roly Serrano) in failing health who valiantly fights to stay vital. Even the resort’s employees have something to offer, such as the insights of a shy but proficient mountain-climbing instructor (Robert Seethaler), an amusing staff physician (Wolfgang Michael) and an intuitive young masseuse (Luna Mijovic).
Over the course of their stay, Fred and Mick’s vacation turns out to be as much an exercise in personal revelation as it is an enjoyable respite, and what they find out about themselves surprises as much as it enlightens. One can only hope that whatever newfound understanding they attain will serve them well as they move forward into the future – one that’s likely going to be just as uncertain now as it was when they were younger.
When we reach the point in life that Fred and Mick have, there’s a tendency for many of us to look back and ask, what has it all meant? Have we made the most of it? Have we done all that we wanted to do? What, if anything, would we have done differently (and, if so, how)? These are “the big questions” of life, the kind that often arise when our time grows short, which, as noted earlier, also usually leads to the all-important inquiry, what do we do with the time we have left?
In assessing these questions, we nearly always end up taking a serious look at our beliefs, for they ultimately determine how our realities – and our lives – unfold, the essence of the conscious creation process. So, if we truly want to find the answers we’re supposedly looking for, the first thing we need to do is ask ourselves, what do we really believe?
This is a question we seldom pose when we’re young; in fact, most of us don’t even recognize its relevance or importance in our youth. But, even if we do, we often put off addressing it until our sunset years (if then). Nevertheless, it’s an inquiry that’s pertinent at any age, whether we’re 19 or 90, because the underlying principle is just as true when we come of age as it is in our waning days. And, in light of that, this is why the answer becomes so crucial when our time is short; if we want to take full advantage of those dwindling days, we had better have a good handle on what we hope to accomplish – and the beliefs that will make it possible – with the time we have left.
Jimmy Tree (Paul Dano), a young actor seeking to find his voice, looks to draw inspiration from the wisdom of elders to bring meaning to his work in director Paolo Sorrentino’s “Youth.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.Of course, if we really want to get the most out of life, we’d be wise to ask this question sooner rather than later. By grasping this concept as early on as possible, we significantly increase the likelihood of creating the life we want (and a full one at that). Unfortunately, many of us evade it, allowing ourselves to become distracted by incidentals, worrying about trivial obsessions, and frequently whittling away valuable time, energy and consciousness on irrelevancies, ill-conceived pursuits and unproductive endeavors.
To that end, then, think about how much potential grief, disappointment and regret we might be able to avoid by addressing this issue in our 20s rather than our 80s. Admittedly, some may contend that it’s easy to reach that conclusion in hindsight, arguing that the experience of making “mistakes” and engaging in other assorted missteps is part of our learning curve, an often-problematic but necessary step on the path to the sage wisdom that comes with age. But, if we’re able to successfully fathom this realization and put it to work in our youth, we may find ourselves astonishingly pleased with the results.
As Fred and Mick come to discover, there are a number of principles that we should consider to increase our chances of success on this point, no matter how old we are:
• Allow ourselves to feel, because our emotions often provide clues about our beliefs, and the more clarity we have about them, the better we’ll understand how and why our reality materializes as it does. Of course, we must also believe that it’s acceptable to allow ourselves to feel in the first place; if we have problems with this, we may encounter undue difficulty in getting a handle on the intents that truly drive us. Several of the film’s characters wrestle with this, and often with regretful consequences.
• Be willing to live in the moment, not in an unchangeable past or an uncertain future. As conscious creators are fond of saying, the point of power is in the present, the only moment over which we have any meaningful direct control. By getting in touch with, and having faith in, the beliefs we hold at such time, there’s no telling what we might accomplish. The fulfillment achieved in such a state of mind could startle those around us, not to mention ourselves. (If you need proof of that, look to the example set by the Buddhist monk noted earlier.)
• Give yourself the time and space to deeply examine this issue. That’s where vacations can prove invaluable. By freeing up those precious resources and removing the everyday diversions that often get in the way, we enable ourselves to pursue (and, one would hope, achieve) this goal. Vacations, retreats and other such getaways provide ideal conditions for this kind of self-examination, as the protagonists come to discover with stunning clarity.
• Warmly embrace beliefs that allow you to give yourself permission to pursue your ambitions. This is particularly true when seeking to manifest your most cherished desires or when looking to extricate yourself from situations that no longer serve you. Of course, this also requires overcoming fear- or doubt-based beliefs that undercut intents aimed at realizing such dreams; by holding on to those outmoded notions, you run the risk of sabotaging the materialization of your heart’s desire, a potentially huge source of regret as the years add up.
• Remain active, both physically and mentally, at any age. When we allow our thoughts and beliefs to atrophy, we become less engaged with our manifestation skills and, consequently, with the reality we create. This may be fine when we’ve made peace with moving on to the next phase of our soul’s evolution, but, if we’re not ready to give up on our current incarnation, we had better remain involved with the realization of our existence. It’s not dependent on age or health, either; even those in the prime of life and who possess a vigorous sense of well-being may be tempted to withdraw, especially if their journeys have been full of disappointment. However, we must remember that our beliefs create our reality, for better or worse, and, if we don’t like what we’ve materialized, we had better get busy and make the necessary adjustments. And, because such modifications depend on us taking action, this is clearly something we need to address while we still have the chance.
Aging screen idol Brenda Morel (Jane Fonda) discusses her latest film project with a long-time friend and collaborator, a filmmaker near the end of his career, in “Youth.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.In the end, the principal life challenge we all face – just like Fred, Mick and all of their cohorts at the spa – is to sort out our beliefs to make some sense of it all. This is essential for understanding why we have experienced what we have, thereby giving us a newfound appreciation of the nature of existence. And, with the attainment of such enlightenment, there’s nothing that will make us feel more young at heart.
“Youth” is a sublime, thoughtful treatise about aging, what we do with the years we have and how well we understand it all as we move through the process. The picture stylistically recalls director Paolo Sorrentino’s previous offering, the Oscar-winning best foreign language feature, “The Great Beauty” (“La grande bellezza”) (2013). With its gorgeous cinematography, its superb performances by Harvey Keitel and Jane Fonda, its diverse and emotive musical score, and its deftly nuanced, beautifully layered writing, the film is a feast for the senses and leaves viewers with much to think about in its wake. Despite a few slow passages in the first hour, “Youth” tends to grow on you the further you get into it, effectively wiping away any memories of that minor shortcoming. Allow yourself to be moved by the experience, and you’ll come away richly rewarded.
For its efforts, “Youth” has received a modest share of accolades thus far, including a Palme d’Or nomination earlier this year at the Cannes Film Festival, the event’s highest honor. In current contests, the film has earned two very deserving Golden Globe Award nominations for Fonda’s superb supporting actress performance and for the picture’s signature musical piece, Simple Song 3, an honor also bestowed on the composition in the Critics Choice Awards competition.
When we reach the end of the line, many of us would like to hope we come away from the experience having learned something about life and, more importantly, about ourselves. But doing so requires some effort on our part to assess how it all came into being, a process that, for what it’s worth, intrinsically begins with each of us and what we believe. By regularly taking stock of this, we increase the likelihood of getting the most out of the experience. To be sure, life truly is what we make of it, and films like this serve as valuable reminders of that. We can only hope we heed that advice while we still have the chance to do so.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
