Brent Marchant's Blog, page 125
December 17, 2015
Spread Some Holiday Cheer!
Why are these people smiling? They just got their copies of Get the Picture?!: Conscious Creation Goes to the Movies and Consciously Created Cinema: The Movie Lover’s Guide to the Law of Attraction!
Photo by David Castillo Dominici, courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net
These books, available in print and ebook formats, make ideal gifts for movie lovers and followers of conscious creation/law of attraction principles, so pick up copies for everyone on your holiday shopping list – including yourself if that’s you! For a sample of Get the Picture?!, click here, and for a sample of Consciously Created Cinema, click here.
To find our more about these titles, visit their dedicated web sites. For Get the Picture?!, click here, and for Consciously Created Cinema, click here. The books are available from all major online retailers, including Amazon, Barnes & Noble, iTunes and Kobo, among others. You can also keep up with the latest developments about these titles on Facebook, Pinterest and Google+, and be sure to follow me on Twitter (@Brent_Marchant).
Happy Holidays, everybody, and best of luck with your creations in the New Year!
For Get the Picture?! on Amazon, click here
For Get the Picture?! on Barnes & Noble, click here
For Get the Picture?! on iTunes, click here
For Get the Picture?! on Kobo Books, click here
For other Get the Picture?! retailers, click here
For Consciously Created Cinema on Amazon, click here
For Consciously Created Cinema on Barnes & Noble, click here
For Consciously Created Cinema on iTunes, click here
For Consciously Created Cinema on Kobo Books, click here
For other Consciously Created Cinema retailers, click here
Book cover designs by Paul L. Clark, Inspirtainment
Photo by David Castillo Dominici, courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.netThese books, available in print and ebook formats, make ideal gifts for movie lovers and followers of conscious creation/law of attraction principles, so pick up copies for everyone on your holiday shopping list – including yourself if that’s you! For a sample of Get the Picture?!, click here, and for a sample of Consciously Created Cinema, click here.
To find our more about these titles, visit their dedicated web sites. For Get the Picture?!, click here, and for Consciously Created Cinema, click here. The books are available from all major online retailers, including Amazon, Barnes & Noble, iTunes and Kobo, among others. You can also keep up with the latest developments about these titles on Facebook, Pinterest and Google+, and be sure to follow me on Twitter (@Brent_Marchant).
Happy Holidays, everybody, and best of luck with your creations in the New Year!
For Get the Picture?! on Amazon, click here
For Get the Picture?! on Barnes & Noble, click here
For Get the Picture?! on iTunes, click here
For Get the Picture?! on Kobo Books, click here
For other Get the Picture?! retailers, click here
For Consciously Created Cinema on Amazon, click here
For Consciously Created Cinema on Barnes & Noble, click here
For Consciously Created Cinema on iTunes, click here
For Consciously Created Cinema on Kobo Books, click here
For other Consciously Created Cinema retailers, click here
Book cover designs by Paul L. Clark, Inspirtainment
Project Bring Me To Life Radio Show Now Available on Multiple Web Sites
In case you missed last week's broadcast of my interview on the Project Bring Me To Life radio show with host Christopher Closson, you can now hear it in podcast format for on-demand listening from the following sources: iTunes, Stitcher, Spreaker, Reality Sandwich and Disinfo. And, while you're at it, check out the show's YouTube preview and my PBMTL profile on the web site's home page. Tune in for a lively discussion about conscious creation/law of attraction principles in the movies.
December 15, 2015
Another Holiday Gift
If once is fun, twice is nice, so, to say thank you again to my loyal readers who have supported me and my writing over the years (and to share my gratitude with those who are still learning about it), I’d like to present everyone a second gift for the holidays – an excerpt from my book, Consciously Created Cinema: The Movie Lover’s Guide to the Law of Attraction, my review of the emerging Christmas favorite, “The Blind Side.”
* * *
What You Don’t See Coming
“The Blind Side”
Year of Release: 2009
Cast: Sandra Bullock, Tim McGraw, Quinton Aaron, Jae Head, Lily Collins,
Ray McKinnon, Kathy Bates, Adriane Lenox, Sharon Morris, Omar Dorsey
Director: John Lee Hancock
Screenplay: John Lee Hancock
Book: Michael Lewis, The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game
Often in life we think we know where our lives are headed, but then something happens that takes us down a completely unexpected path. What we don’t see coming, however, can be truly transformative, taking us places we might never have envisioned (despite having drawn the conditions to us that make such events possible). Such a remarkable set of circumstances provides the basis for the touching, fact-based comedy-drama, “The Blind Side.”
Based on the life story of professional football player Michael Oher (Quinton Aaron), the film recounts how this African-American teenager from the Memphis projects overcame gut-wrenchingly sad circumstances and wound up playing for the NFL’s Baltimore Ravens. It’s quite a moving and remarkable story indeed. But his personal metamorphosis was not the only one to take place in the film. His story touched others who underwent comparable transformations of their own.
When viewers first meet Michael, this soft-spoken gentle giant seems adrift, having been largely abandoned by his drug-addicted mother (Adriane Lenox). Yet Michael also has a strong survival instinct and a unique wisdom (despite apparent learning difficulties), qualities that ultimately prove to be his saving graces. With the help of a friend (Omar Dorsey), he first gets enrolled in an upscale private school. And then one night, through a seemingly chance encounter, he connects with an unlikely ally, one who would help him turn his life around in unimagined ways.
At first glance, Leigh Anne Tuohy (Sandra Bullock) might not seem like the type to take in a homeless kid from the poor side of town. As a successful designer happily married to her well-heeled college sweetheart (Tim McGraw) and the mother of two bright kids (Jae Head, Lily Collins), Leigh Anne has lived a charmed life of affluence and privilege; in fact, she openly admits to never having visited the part of Memphis where Michael grew up. However, something about Michael’s circumstances inexplicably compel Leigh Anne to welcome him into her home, giving him things he never had—security, a family and a future. She quickly becomes an impassioned advocate for his success, helping to open doors for him that were once previously closed.
One of the doors that opens widely for Michael involves football, a game for which his ample physique makes him an ideal candidate. But it’s also a sport about which he knows almost nothing. This is another way in which Leigh Anne’s influence comes into play. As a former college cheerleader who married a one-time basketball star, she has a long history of involvement in sports, so who better to introduce Michael to the game at which he was destined to excel? Thanks to the guidance and catalytic spark Leigh Anne provides, coupled with Michael’s considerable natural talent, the young man’s abilities as a football player soar, first at the high school level, then in the collegiate ranks and eventually in the pros. The kid from the streets transforms himself, materializing abilities he never knew he had. But, more than that, with Leigh Anne’s support and encouragement, Michael begins to believe in himself, manifesting a life that at one time he only could have dreamed of. And, in the process, he also gives Leigh Anne something to brag about.
By focusing on the magical, synergistic interaction between Michael and Leigh Anne, “The Blind Side” shows us how their connection allows each of them to grow and develop in ways neither of them thought possible. They were both “blindsided,” to use a football analogy, by the impact that they would have on one another, but that unanticipated contact enables personal transformation for both of them in ways beyond measure. And, in reaching that point, the protagonists demonstrate how to make effective use of a number of transformative conscious creation principles, including:
* how we can formulate (or change) our beliefs to create better-than-expected outcomes, thanks to the beliefs that we have in ourselves and that others have in us, thereby enabling transformation on a grand scale;
* how having the courage to live heroically—particularly by taking chances that have the potential to pay off handsomely—can yield rewards beyond our wildest expectations;
* how charting the evolution of our beliefs about ourselves over time can lead to the development of skills and expertise we never knew we had; and
* how all aspects of our individual and shared realities are intricately connected and how we can benefit from such connectedness, both personally and collectively, in countless transformative ways.
“The Blind Side” is also a thoughtful treatise on values, especially those having to do with qualities like kindness, compassion, charity and humanity. It sheds light on the results such ideals can yield, especially when we form suitable beliefs that enable those notions to come to fruition, providing benefits both to those who hold them and to those toward whom they’re directed.
Some viewers were critical of the film at the time of its release, claiming it to be a fundamentalist propaganda piece, given its candid portrayal of the Tuohys as a family of devout Christians who aren’t afraid to openly practice their religion or to allow their faith to permeate their everyday lives. As seen in the film, they attend church regularly, enroll their kids in a private Christian academy and attempt to live lives that reflect the noble values noted above. Leigh Anne and her family obviously have tremendous conviction behind these beliefs, too, as evidenced by the degree of success they achieve with them. Their power is so great that it truly works wonders, even miracles of transformation, both for practitioners and beneficiaries alike.
But the claims of the detractors raise an interesting question: Since when do authentically depicted acts of sincere kindness, compassion, charity and humanity automatically equate to self-serving missives of Christian propaganda? These are qualities we’d all be wise to emulate, no matter what religious affiliation (or lack thereof) we may have. Such values arise from the beliefs that the Tuohys hold, and they have merit in and of themselves, regardless of whether they’re enacted in a religious context or otherwise. Indeed, Christians have not cornered the market on kindness, so cynical attempts at characterizing the film in such a spurious way is patently unfair, to say the least. If more of us acted as charitably as the Tuohys do, even without any religious connotations in our efforts, we’d all be in a much better state these days.
“The Blind Side” is a thoroughly entertaining film. Its well-written script combines just the right amount of humor with a judiciously tempered sense of sentimentality that keeps the picture from becoming overly schmaltzy. The protagonists’ stories are well told, though Leigh Anne’s character development might have benefited from a little more back story (at the very least to the same degree afforded Michael’s character). Bullock and Aaron are terrific in their respective roles, and they have an unusual but affecting chemistry together. In fact, Bullock’s convincing performance earned her an Oscar and a Golden Globe for best lead actress, while the film itself received an Academy Award nomination for best picture.
“The Blind Side” initially appeared in theaters during the holiday season, so I tend to associate this picture with the timing of its release. Given the themes and values it promotes, the film makes a fine addition to the repertoire of holiday staples, joining the likes of such endearing classics as “It’s a Wonderful Life” (1946), “Miracle on 34th Street” (1947) and “A Christmas Carol” (1951). All in all, it makes for a very nice holiday package—even if it isn’t under your tree.
That which we least expect in life often provides us with the greatest degree of satisfaction, especially when it comes to exceeding our perceived limitations. Such revelations only occur, however, when we leave ourselves open to the possibilities, allowing ourselves to grow and develop in ways other than the tried and true. Indeed, letting ourselves get blindsided sometimes proves to be the best course of all.
If you doubt that, just ask Michael or Leigh Anne.
* * *
I hope you’ve enjoyed this little sample of Consciously Created Cinema. If you’d like to see the entire book, it’s available in print and ebook formats from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, iTunes and Kobo Books, as well as other fine online retailers (for a complete list, click here). And, if you want to check out my first gift, a review of “It’s a Wonderful Life” from Get the Picture?!, click here.
Happy Holidays, everybody!
* * *
What You Don’t See Coming
“The Blind Side”
Year of Release: 2009
Cast: Sandra Bullock, Tim McGraw, Quinton Aaron, Jae Head, Lily Collins,
Ray McKinnon, Kathy Bates, Adriane Lenox, Sharon Morris, Omar Dorsey
Director: John Lee Hancock
Screenplay: John Lee Hancock
Book: Michael Lewis, The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game
Often in life we think we know where our lives are headed, but then something happens that takes us down a completely unexpected path. What we don’t see coming, however, can be truly transformative, taking us places we might never have envisioned (despite having drawn the conditions to us that make such events possible). Such a remarkable set of circumstances provides the basis for the touching, fact-based comedy-drama, “The Blind Side.”
Based on the life story of professional football player Michael Oher (Quinton Aaron), the film recounts how this African-American teenager from the Memphis projects overcame gut-wrenchingly sad circumstances and wound up playing for the NFL’s Baltimore Ravens. It’s quite a moving and remarkable story indeed. But his personal metamorphosis was not the only one to take place in the film. His story touched others who underwent comparable transformations of their own.
When viewers first meet Michael, this soft-spoken gentle giant seems adrift, having been largely abandoned by his drug-addicted mother (Adriane Lenox). Yet Michael also has a strong survival instinct and a unique wisdom (despite apparent learning difficulties), qualities that ultimately prove to be his saving graces. With the help of a friend (Omar Dorsey), he first gets enrolled in an upscale private school. And then one night, through a seemingly chance encounter, he connects with an unlikely ally, one who would help him turn his life around in unimagined ways.
At first glance, Leigh Anne Tuohy (Sandra Bullock) might not seem like the type to take in a homeless kid from the poor side of town. As a successful designer happily married to her well-heeled college sweetheart (Tim McGraw) and the mother of two bright kids (Jae Head, Lily Collins), Leigh Anne has lived a charmed life of affluence and privilege; in fact, she openly admits to never having visited the part of Memphis where Michael grew up. However, something about Michael’s circumstances inexplicably compel Leigh Anne to welcome him into her home, giving him things he never had—security, a family and a future. She quickly becomes an impassioned advocate for his success, helping to open doors for him that were once previously closed.
One of the doors that opens widely for Michael involves football, a game for which his ample physique makes him an ideal candidate. But it’s also a sport about which he knows almost nothing. This is another way in which Leigh Anne’s influence comes into play. As a former college cheerleader who married a one-time basketball star, she has a long history of involvement in sports, so who better to introduce Michael to the game at which he was destined to excel? Thanks to the guidance and catalytic spark Leigh Anne provides, coupled with Michael’s considerable natural talent, the young man’s abilities as a football player soar, first at the high school level, then in the collegiate ranks and eventually in the pros. The kid from the streets transforms himself, materializing abilities he never knew he had. But, more than that, with Leigh Anne’s support and encouragement, Michael begins to believe in himself, manifesting a life that at one time he only could have dreamed of. And, in the process, he also gives Leigh Anne something to brag about.
By focusing on the magical, synergistic interaction between Michael and Leigh Anne, “The Blind Side” shows us how their connection allows each of them to grow and develop in ways neither of them thought possible. They were both “blindsided,” to use a football analogy, by the impact that they would have on one another, but that unanticipated contact enables personal transformation for both of them in ways beyond measure. And, in reaching that point, the protagonists demonstrate how to make effective use of a number of transformative conscious creation principles, including:
* how we can formulate (or change) our beliefs to create better-than-expected outcomes, thanks to the beliefs that we have in ourselves and that others have in us, thereby enabling transformation on a grand scale;
* how having the courage to live heroically—particularly by taking chances that have the potential to pay off handsomely—can yield rewards beyond our wildest expectations;
* how charting the evolution of our beliefs about ourselves over time can lead to the development of skills and expertise we never knew we had; and
* how all aspects of our individual and shared realities are intricately connected and how we can benefit from such connectedness, both personally and collectively, in countless transformative ways.
“The Blind Side” is also a thoughtful treatise on values, especially those having to do with qualities like kindness, compassion, charity and humanity. It sheds light on the results such ideals can yield, especially when we form suitable beliefs that enable those notions to come to fruition, providing benefits both to those who hold them and to those toward whom they’re directed.
Some viewers were critical of the film at the time of its release, claiming it to be a fundamentalist propaganda piece, given its candid portrayal of the Tuohys as a family of devout Christians who aren’t afraid to openly practice their religion or to allow their faith to permeate their everyday lives. As seen in the film, they attend church regularly, enroll their kids in a private Christian academy and attempt to live lives that reflect the noble values noted above. Leigh Anne and her family obviously have tremendous conviction behind these beliefs, too, as evidenced by the degree of success they achieve with them. Their power is so great that it truly works wonders, even miracles of transformation, both for practitioners and beneficiaries alike.
But the claims of the detractors raise an interesting question: Since when do authentically depicted acts of sincere kindness, compassion, charity and humanity automatically equate to self-serving missives of Christian propaganda? These are qualities we’d all be wise to emulate, no matter what religious affiliation (or lack thereof) we may have. Such values arise from the beliefs that the Tuohys hold, and they have merit in and of themselves, regardless of whether they’re enacted in a religious context or otherwise. Indeed, Christians have not cornered the market on kindness, so cynical attempts at characterizing the film in such a spurious way is patently unfair, to say the least. If more of us acted as charitably as the Tuohys do, even without any religious connotations in our efforts, we’d all be in a much better state these days.
“The Blind Side” is a thoroughly entertaining film. Its well-written script combines just the right amount of humor with a judiciously tempered sense of sentimentality that keeps the picture from becoming overly schmaltzy. The protagonists’ stories are well told, though Leigh Anne’s character development might have benefited from a little more back story (at the very least to the same degree afforded Michael’s character). Bullock and Aaron are terrific in their respective roles, and they have an unusual but affecting chemistry together. In fact, Bullock’s convincing performance earned her an Oscar and a Golden Globe for best lead actress, while the film itself received an Academy Award nomination for best picture.
“The Blind Side” initially appeared in theaters during the holiday season, so I tend to associate this picture with the timing of its release. Given the themes and values it promotes, the film makes a fine addition to the repertoire of holiday staples, joining the likes of such endearing classics as “It’s a Wonderful Life” (1946), “Miracle on 34th Street” (1947) and “A Christmas Carol” (1951). All in all, it makes for a very nice holiday package—even if it isn’t under your tree.
That which we least expect in life often provides us with the greatest degree of satisfaction, especially when it comes to exceeding our perceived limitations. Such revelations only occur, however, when we leave ourselves open to the possibilities, allowing ourselves to grow and develop in ways other than the tried and true. Indeed, letting ourselves get blindsided sometimes proves to be the best course of all.
If you doubt that, just ask Michael or Leigh Anne.
* * *
I hope you’ve enjoyed this little sample of Consciously Created Cinema. If you’d like to see the entire book, it’s available in print and ebook formats from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, iTunes and Kobo Books, as well as other fine online retailers (for a complete list, click here). And, if you want to check out my first gift, a review of “It’s a Wonderful Life” from Get the Picture?!, click here.
Happy Holidays, everybody!
December 14, 2015
Frankiesense & More on Podcast!
In case you missed my recent appearance on Frankiesense & More with host Frankie Picasso, the show is available in podcast form for on-demand listening by clicking here. Tune in for some lively chat about conscious creation/law of attraction principles in the movies!
December 13, 2015
A Holiday Gift
To say thank you to my loyal readers who have supported me and my writing over the years (and to share my gratitude with those who are still learning about it), I’d like to present everyone a little gift for the holidays – an excerpt from my book, Get the Picture?!: Conscious Creation Goes to the Movies, my review of the perennial Christmas classic, “It’s a Wonderful Life.”
* * *
Finding Happiness by Finding Oneself
“It’s a Wonderful Life”
Year of Release: 1946
Principal Cast: James Stewart, Donna Reed, Lionel Barrymore, Henry Travers,
Thomas Mitchell, Beulah Bondi, Frank Faylen, Ward Bond, Gloria Grahame,
H.B. Warner, Frank Albertson, Todd Karns, Samuel S. Hinds,
Bill Edmunds, Sheldon Leonard
Director: Frank Capra
Screenplay: Frances Goodrich, Albert Hackett, Frank Capra and Jo Swerling
Story: Philip Van Doren Stern
The search for happiness in life sometimes gets stymied by a lot of overwrought, self-induced frustration. We think we want something that never materializes, causing us to brood mercilessly, all the while overlooking the real joy we’ve created that’s right before our eyes. But, if we’re able to perceive things as they really are, we just might have a chance to discover true, unconditional happiness for ourselves. Such is the odyssey of the likable hero of the perennial Christmas classic, “It’s a Wonderful Life.”
This is another of those cinematic icons that’s so entrenched in popular culture that it’s hard to imagine anyone not knowing its fabled story line. But, for the few who haven’t had the good fortune to see it, here goes.
George Bailey (James Stewart) has big plans for his life. He wants to build things, travel the world and make a name for himself. If nothing else, he wants to flee the confines of Bedford Falls, the “crummy little town” (as he calls it) in Upstate New York where he grew up. But, each time he tries to make his escape, something happens that locks him into staying put. For example, when his father (Samuel S. Hinds) suffers a stroke, George puts off his own plans to manage the affairs of the family business, the Bailey Building & Loan. And, just when he thinks he can crawl out from under that responsibility, other setbacks arise that keep him from moving forward. Over time, his mounting sacrifices take their toll.
As if that weren’t enough, George is forced into regularly matching wits with the town’s curmudgeonly robber baron, Old Man Potter (Lionel Barrymore). He owns practically everything in Bedford Falls except the Building & Loan, a definite sore spot for the greedy old miser. He wiles away the hours counting his money and hatching schemes to take over the one business in town he can’t seem to get his hands on, thanks in large part to George’s intervention.
Of course, not everything goes against George. He courts and weds his adoring wife, Mary (Donna Reed), starts a family and builds many long-lasting friendships with the citizens of Bedford Falls, mainly by making decent, affordable housing available to them through the Building & Loan.
But, no matter how well George takes his misfortunes in stride, life seems to keep tossing curve balls his way. The worst of these comes one Christmas Eve morning, when he’s suddenly thrown into a severe financial crisis that threatens to ruin him, his business and his family, launching George into deep despair and anguished desperation. He even contemplates making the ultimate sacrifice so that a life insurance policy payout will save the day for his heirs. It’s when that ominous prospect looms that the time comes for divine intervention, and it arrives in the form of a good-natured, though oft-befuddled cherubic soul named Clarence (Henry Travers), George’s guardian angel.
Clarence has a vested stake in the outcome of George’s ordeal, too. As a second-class angel in search of his wings, he must successfully guide George through his turmoil and restore his sense of hope to receive them. But how?
After Clarence succeeds in preventing George’s suicide, George grouses over yet another set of failed plans, lamenting that he can’t even kill himself properly. With his financial woes still unresolved, he sputters rhetorically that perhaps everyone he believes he’s let down would be better off if he’d never been born. That statement gives Clarence the inspiration he needs to help show George the way out of his troubles. He then proceeds to give George a glimpse of what the lives of those he’s touched would have been like if he hadn’t been born. As George watches this dark alternate reality play out before him, one in which those he cares about suffer miserably in his absence, he comes to see the magnitude of his contributions to bettering their lives, which makes his current problems and his long-unrealized plans seem trivial by comparison. He realizes, as Clarence says to him with the utmost sincerity and compassion, “You see, George, you really had a wonderful life.” George is thus reborn, his perspective renewed, his life reaffirmed. But, as good as all that is, it’s just the beginning. Things are about to get even better, in ways beyond anything he could possibly imagine.
From a tender age, George always had a good grasp on the nature of his value fulfillment. He was right on target in recognizing that he’d carry out big plans someday. Unfortunately, he doesn’t acknowledge their manifestation when it happens. He’s so hung up on envisioning the physical form his plans should take that he fails to recognize the materialization of their underlying intents when they come into being, and, when his expectations of form aren’t fulfilled, he’s sorely disappointed. Yet his creations surely are big, if not in scope then at least in terms of impact.
For example, the countless Bedford Falls residents who have affordable housing because of George would be leading very different lives if it weren’t for him, but he downplays his role in this. What’s more, he even gets to live out his dream of being a builder through the homes he constructs. But he again discounts this, seeing the houses as small potatoes compared to the bridges and skyscrapers he’d much rather be building. Even from the standpoint of being a good, helpful friend, George fails to see the significance of his efforts, including in life-or-death situations. No matter how he tries to dismiss the influence of his contributions, George does more to meaningfully enrich the lives of his peers than anything his so-called big projects ever could have.
What George needs to realize and appreciate his accomplishments is the metaphysical equivalent of a good stiff poke in the ribs, which is where Clarence comes in. Clarence helps lift the self-imposed fog that’s obscured George’s view of things, helping to give him vision about his visions, a clarity of perspective that has long been lacking. He helps George get out of his own way, to value the meaningful outcomes of his labors and not just the tangible results. With such a clarified view, George can then see how his beliefs and value fulfillment have been realized. Their form may not be what he anticipated, but their impact lived up to the expectations he carried around with him since childhood. With a fresh perspective now in place, there’s no telling what George could do next. He can revel in being himself and all the resplendent glory that goes along with that.
The payoffs to George for his newfound awareness are tremendous. Besides the satisfaction of knowing he accomplished what he set out to do (at least from an underlying intent standpoint), as well as the tangible and intangible rewards that come with that (which vastly exceed his expectations), he can take pride in having given life to his value fulfillment. George lives up to the nature of the concept in its strictest sense, too, for his actions benefit both him and others around him. What joy there is in creation like that! To see it manifest as abundantly as it does, and then to witness it benefit so many, is indeed a blessing.
Of course, an outcome like this is not unexpected when we’re aligned with our value fulfillment, for life’s true purpose is given realization. The degree of success that results from such an alignment is not surprising, either, for the support of the Universe is behind us when we’re in line with our value fulfillment. As films like “The Secret” (see Chapter 3) show, the Universe gets behind those who follow their aspirations with gusto and sincerity. In George’s case, that support takes the form of direct intervention, personified through the appearance of Clarence in his life. But, no matter how divine assistance manifests itself, it’s an integral characteristic of our Universe. As Jane Roberts and Seth wrote in The Nature of the Psyche, it abundantly provides the aid we require, overlooking no one in doing so. Or, put another way, “the Universe leans in your direction.”1
It’s hard to imagine anyone not liking this movie, a contemporary fable presented with warmth, emotion, hopefulness and an overriding sense of compassion, magical in every respect. It seems like it should have been just the picture for battle-weary Americans to flock to in the wake of World War II. However, it received a tepid response when initially released, despite earning five Oscar nominations, including nods for best picture, best director and Stewart’s performance as lead actor. Amazingly, it went home empty-handed, and two of its strongest performances, those of Reed and Barrymore, were even overlooked as nominees. The only major recognition it received was a much-deserved Golden Globe Award for director Frank Capra.2
By finding ourselves, we find our happiness, as George discovers, albeit a little late but better than not at all. And that, as I’m sure we can all appreciate, truly has the makings for a wonderful life.
1 Jane Roberts, The Nature of the Psyche (San Rafael, CA: Amber-Allen Publishing, 1995), p. 220 (Seth Session 800, April 4, 1977) (emphasis in original). This quote, incidentally, served as the theme of the 2007 Colorado Seth Conference.
2 Thankfully, “It’s a Wonderful Life” has since gone on to receive the recognition it richly deserves. It has earned numerous accolades in the years since its release, most notably the top ranking in the American Film Institute’s “100 Years, 100 Cheers” salute to the most inspirational films of the previous century, presented in 2006.
* * *
I hope you’ve enjoyed this little sample of Get the Picture?!. If you’d like to see the entire book, it’s available in print and ebook formats from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, iTunes and Kobo Books, as well as other fine online retailers (for a complete list, click here).
Happy Holidays, everybody!
* * *
Finding Happiness by Finding Oneself
“It’s a Wonderful Life”
Year of Release: 1946
Principal Cast: James Stewart, Donna Reed, Lionel Barrymore, Henry Travers,
Thomas Mitchell, Beulah Bondi, Frank Faylen, Ward Bond, Gloria Grahame,
H.B. Warner, Frank Albertson, Todd Karns, Samuel S. Hinds,
Bill Edmunds, Sheldon Leonard
Director: Frank Capra
Screenplay: Frances Goodrich, Albert Hackett, Frank Capra and Jo Swerling
Story: Philip Van Doren Stern
The search for happiness in life sometimes gets stymied by a lot of overwrought, self-induced frustration. We think we want something that never materializes, causing us to brood mercilessly, all the while overlooking the real joy we’ve created that’s right before our eyes. But, if we’re able to perceive things as they really are, we just might have a chance to discover true, unconditional happiness for ourselves. Such is the odyssey of the likable hero of the perennial Christmas classic, “It’s a Wonderful Life.”
This is another of those cinematic icons that’s so entrenched in popular culture that it’s hard to imagine anyone not knowing its fabled story line. But, for the few who haven’t had the good fortune to see it, here goes.
George Bailey (James Stewart) has big plans for his life. He wants to build things, travel the world and make a name for himself. If nothing else, he wants to flee the confines of Bedford Falls, the “crummy little town” (as he calls it) in Upstate New York where he grew up. But, each time he tries to make his escape, something happens that locks him into staying put. For example, when his father (Samuel S. Hinds) suffers a stroke, George puts off his own plans to manage the affairs of the family business, the Bailey Building & Loan. And, just when he thinks he can crawl out from under that responsibility, other setbacks arise that keep him from moving forward. Over time, his mounting sacrifices take their toll.
As if that weren’t enough, George is forced into regularly matching wits with the town’s curmudgeonly robber baron, Old Man Potter (Lionel Barrymore). He owns practically everything in Bedford Falls except the Building & Loan, a definite sore spot for the greedy old miser. He wiles away the hours counting his money and hatching schemes to take over the one business in town he can’t seem to get his hands on, thanks in large part to George’s intervention.
Of course, not everything goes against George. He courts and weds his adoring wife, Mary (Donna Reed), starts a family and builds many long-lasting friendships with the citizens of Bedford Falls, mainly by making decent, affordable housing available to them through the Building & Loan.
But, no matter how well George takes his misfortunes in stride, life seems to keep tossing curve balls his way. The worst of these comes one Christmas Eve morning, when he’s suddenly thrown into a severe financial crisis that threatens to ruin him, his business and his family, launching George into deep despair and anguished desperation. He even contemplates making the ultimate sacrifice so that a life insurance policy payout will save the day for his heirs. It’s when that ominous prospect looms that the time comes for divine intervention, and it arrives in the form of a good-natured, though oft-befuddled cherubic soul named Clarence (Henry Travers), George’s guardian angel.
Clarence has a vested stake in the outcome of George’s ordeal, too. As a second-class angel in search of his wings, he must successfully guide George through his turmoil and restore his sense of hope to receive them. But how?
After Clarence succeeds in preventing George’s suicide, George grouses over yet another set of failed plans, lamenting that he can’t even kill himself properly. With his financial woes still unresolved, he sputters rhetorically that perhaps everyone he believes he’s let down would be better off if he’d never been born. That statement gives Clarence the inspiration he needs to help show George the way out of his troubles. He then proceeds to give George a glimpse of what the lives of those he’s touched would have been like if he hadn’t been born. As George watches this dark alternate reality play out before him, one in which those he cares about suffer miserably in his absence, he comes to see the magnitude of his contributions to bettering their lives, which makes his current problems and his long-unrealized plans seem trivial by comparison. He realizes, as Clarence says to him with the utmost sincerity and compassion, “You see, George, you really had a wonderful life.” George is thus reborn, his perspective renewed, his life reaffirmed. But, as good as all that is, it’s just the beginning. Things are about to get even better, in ways beyond anything he could possibly imagine.
From a tender age, George always had a good grasp on the nature of his value fulfillment. He was right on target in recognizing that he’d carry out big plans someday. Unfortunately, he doesn’t acknowledge their manifestation when it happens. He’s so hung up on envisioning the physical form his plans should take that he fails to recognize the materialization of their underlying intents when they come into being, and, when his expectations of form aren’t fulfilled, he’s sorely disappointed. Yet his creations surely are big, if not in scope then at least in terms of impact.
For example, the countless Bedford Falls residents who have affordable housing because of George would be leading very different lives if it weren’t for him, but he downplays his role in this. What’s more, he even gets to live out his dream of being a builder through the homes he constructs. But he again discounts this, seeing the houses as small potatoes compared to the bridges and skyscrapers he’d much rather be building. Even from the standpoint of being a good, helpful friend, George fails to see the significance of his efforts, including in life-or-death situations. No matter how he tries to dismiss the influence of his contributions, George does more to meaningfully enrich the lives of his peers than anything his so-called big projects ever could have.
What George needs to realize and appreciate his accomplishments is the metaphysical equivalent of a good stiff poke in the ribs, which is where Clarence comes in. Clarence helps lift the self-imposed fog that’s obscured George’s view of things, helping to give him vision about his visions, a clarity of perspective that has long been lacking. He helps George get out of his own way, to value the meaningful outcomes of his labors and not just the tangible results. With such a clarified view, George can then see how his beliefs and value fulfillment have been realized. Their form may not be what he anticipated, but their impact lived up to the expectations he carried around with him since childhood. With a fresh perspective now in place, there’s no telling what George could do next. He can revel in being himself and all the resplendent glory that goes along with that.
The payoffs to George for his newfound awareness are tremendous. Besides the satisfaction of knowing he accomplished what he set out to do (at least from an underlying intent standpoint), as well as the tangible and intangible rewards that come with that (which vastly exceed his expectations), he can take pride in having given life to his value fulfillment. George lives up to the nature of the concept in its strictest sense, too, for his actions benefit both him and others around him. What joy there is in creation like that! To see it manifest as abundantly as it does, and then to witness it benefit so many, is indeed a blessing.
Of course, an outcome like this is not unexpected when we’re aligned with our value fulfillment, for life’s true purpose is given realization. The degree of success that results from such an alignment is not surprising, either, for the support of the Universe is behind us when we’re in line with our value fulfillment. As films like “The Secret” (see Chapter 3) show, the Universe gets behind those who follow their aspirations with gusto and sincerity. In George’s case, that support takes the form of direct intervention, personified through the appearance of Clarence in his life. But, no matter how divine assistance manifests itself, it’s an integral characteristic of our Universe. As Jane Roberts and Seth wrote in The Nature of the Psyche, it abundantly provides the aid we require, overlooking no one in doing so. Or, put another way, “the Universe leans in your direction.”1
It’s hard to imagine anyone not liking this movie, a contemporary fable presented with warmth, emotion, hopefulness and an overriding sense of compassion, magical in every respect. It seems like it should have been just the picture for battle-weary Americans to flock to in the wake of World War II. However, it received a tepid response when initially released, despite earning five Oscar nominations, including nods for best picture, best director and Stewart’s performance as lead actor. Amazingly, it went home empty-handed, and two of its strongest performances, those of Reed and Barrymore, were even overlooked as nominees. The only major recognition it received was a much-deserved Golden Globe Award for director Frank Capra.2
By finding ourselves, we find our happiness, as George discovers, albeit a little late but better than not at all. And that, as I’m sure we can all appreciate, truly has the makings for a wonderful life.
1 Jane Roberts, The Nature of the Psyche (San Rafael, CA: Amber-Allen Publishing, 1995), p. 220 (Seth Session 800, April 4, 1977) (emphasis in original). This quote, incidentally, served as the theme of the 2007 Colorado Seth Conference.
2 Thankfully, “It’s a Wonderful Life” has since gone on to receive the recognition it richly deserves. It has earned numerous accolades in the years since its release, most notably the top ranking in the American Film Institute’s “100 Years, 100 Cheers” salute to the most inspirational films of the previous century, presented in 2006.
* * *
I hope you’ve enjoyed this little sample of Get the Picture?!. If you’d like to see the entire book, it’s available in print and ebook formats from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, iTunes and Kobo Books, as well as other fine online retailers (for a complete list, click here).
Happy Holidays, everybody!
December 10, 2015
‘Spotlight’ exalts the courage to crusade
“Spotlight” (2015). Cast: Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Liev Schreiber, John Slattery, Brian d’Arcy James, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, Jamey Sheridan, Len Cariou, Neal Huff, Michael Cyril Creighton, Jimmy LeBlanc, Richard O’Rourke, Gene Amoroso, Richard Jenkins (voice, uncredited). Director: Tom McCarthy. Screenplay: Tom McCarthy and Josh Singer. Web site. Trailer.
Crusaders come in many forms. Some are obvious, like those who fearlessly take up arms in the pursuit of justice. Those who rely on other tools, like the power of the press, are probably less known, though their contributions are certainly no less noteworthy. Such is the case for a group of courageous journalists whose investigative efforts helped bring about groundbreaking change, as depicted in the new highly acclaimed historical drama, “Spotlight.”
For many years, troubling rumors about sexual abuse involving Roman Catholic priests and underage parishioners had been bubbling to the surface of public awareness, but few, if any, details were substantiated. That all changed in 2001, however, when an intrepid team of reporters from The Boston Globe took on the story.
When newly arrived editor Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber) assumed the reins at the Globe, he suggested that the paper’s Spotlight team – the nation’s oldest continuously operating investigative reporting unit – look into the matter. But the idea initially received a somewhat guarded response. In part this was because Spotlight was accustomed to operating autonomously in picking the stories it covered. There was also genuine apprehension how the paper’s predominantly Irish Catholic readership would react to such potentially inflammatory reporting, an unsettling prospect for the publication’s bottom line at a time when newspaper subscription revenues were already in decline. And then there was concern about Baron himself, whose Jewish heritage led some to question whether his suggestion to purposely butt heads with the Church had some kind of agenda attached to it.
However, with Baron’s reassurances that the story would make for good, responsible journalism, the investigative team decided to proceed. Under the auspices of Spotlight editor Walter “Robby” Robinson (Michael Keaton), reporters Mike Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo), Sacha Pfeiffer (Rachel McAdams) and Matt Carroll (Brian d’Arcy James) began looking into the matter. Initial progress was slow, but, once doors began to open, the investigation exploded, becoming something much larger than anyone expected.
The team got one of its biggest breaks from attorney Mitchell Garabedian (Stanley Tucci), a flamboyant, outspoken but doggedly committed victims’ rights advocate, who helped connect the Spotlight reporters with sources who were willing to go on the record about their experiences. And the closer the journalists looked, the more they found. In fact, the Spotlight team quickly discovered a widespread pattern of abuse – and an even more disturbing intentional campaign to cover it up.
Through the reluctant admissions of sources like attorneys Eric Macleish (Billy Crudup) and Jim Sullivan (Jamey Sheridan), who quietly helped facilitate the settlement of numerous abuse cases involving priests, the Spotlight team found that the conspiracy permeated the Boston Archdiocese. And, given the breadth of this matter, it became obvious that there was no way those at the top, including Cardinal Bernard Law (Len Cariou), could have been in the dark about it.
With the publication of a series of articles in early 2002, the Globe exposed the scandal, shaking the Boston Archdiocese to its core and leading to Cardinal Law’s resignation. Revelation of this news sent shockwaves through the Roman Catholic Church worldwide, leading to the subsequent exposure of comparable cover-ups around the globe. And, for its efforts, the paper won the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. That’s quite an impressive legacy for an investigation that almost didn’t get off the ground.
When a bombshell story like this finally gets told, many are not only astonished at the nature of the disclosures, but also at why it took so long for such news to come to light. So why did this happen? To look for an explanation, we must examine the beliefs of those involved, because, as the basis of the conscious creation process – the means by which our reality materializes – they determine how matters ultimately unfold.
For instance, as becomes apparent in the film, many of the faithful willingly turned a blind eye to the indiscretions. Some feared the power wielded by the Church and its representatives, while others believed that the Archdiocese and its minions – as the bestowers of God’s will – could do no wrong. This was even true for some of the victims (Michael Cyril Creighton, Jimmy LeBlanc), many of whom came from broken homes and trusted their parish clerics implicitly. When the priests showed them the kind of compassion they didn’t receive from their own families, they freely expressed their gratitude by complying with whatever was asked of them, no matter how questionable they may have found the requests.
When no one is willing to talk about such incidents, however, stories like this tend to stay buried. That’s where the value of the reporters’ efforts becomes so important. As firm believers in uncovering the truth, investigative journalists are willing to pursue it, no matter how unseemly it may be. They have the courage to dig up the facts, go on the record and state explicitly what happened.
Of course, to be able to do their jobs effectively, reporters require the assistance of sources who share their values regarding the truth and who possess the courage to reveal it. For the victims who came forward and provided information for the Globe articles, their ability to overcome their fears and speak their truth is undeniably heroic. Their efforts often necessitated a fundamental shift in their beliefs, but their candor was rewarded with an even more profound change in the nature of the prevailing reality.
In addition to courage, discernment plays an equally important role in scenarios like this. For members of the press, this figures largely in the beliefs they employ in their work, especially when it comes to knowing where to look and what to look for. And, because of that, this is where the influence of intuition is felt strongest, for it aids significantly in belief formation, particularly when it comes to separating the credible from the implausible. Unfortunately, we don’t always heed it, which can seriously dilute the effectiveness of our powers of discernment. Indeed, even the most seasoned investigators sometimes fail on this point, as one Globe staffer is forced into reluctantly admitting in hindsight during the course of the investigation; had that error in judgment been previously avoided, the story may have been uncovered long before it finally was, potentially sparing numerous victims years of abuse.
Discernment tends to function best when employed in conjunction with integrity. Without the influence of this additional component, it’s possible to twist what we believe to be judicious discernment into erroneous assumptions, leading to potentially questionable actions and distressing outcomes. This explains, for example, why one priest in the film sincerely believes he didn’t do anything wrong because his indiscretions didn’t involve engaging in particular types of sex acts, activities that he considered essential for his behavior to legitimately constitute abuse. Likewise, foggy discernment also sheds light on the rationalization behind the victims’ capitulation to their abusers’ whims; beliefs that their unconditional compliance would somehow translate into unqualified salvation sadly leads to profoundly painful experiences, not to mention the lingering anxiety that follows them.
Being honest with ourselves, then, is crucial if we’re to manifest the reality we truly desire, not one in which we blindly conform (or in which we willingly give away our personal power). Beliefs are incredible sources of empowerment, for they shape what materializes in our existence. We should never lose sight of that, even when confronted with those who would attempt to coerce us – or even if there are champions like the Spotlight reporters to come to our rescue.
“Spotlight” is a meticulous chronicle of the Globe’s heroic efforts, recalling such classic newspaper movies as “All the President’s Men” (1976) and “Zodiac” (2007). Its solid though occasionally plodding narrative methodically details the team’s exploits, including the challenges associated with carrying on when faced with stonewalling sources and the need to juggle reporting resources for covering breaking news stories (like the 9/11 attacks, which came in the midst of Spotlight’s investigation). After a somewhat slow opening 30 minutes, the film takes off, working best when the reporting team is out in the field, interviewing sources and uncovering leads. The picture’s capable ensemble delivers with earnest, committed sincerity, despite a dearth of meaningful character development outside the workplace.
Because of the film’s powerful message, it’s bound to be a strong awards season contender, with some calling it the early favorite for best picture honors. “Spotlight” has already earned three Golden Globe Award nominations (best dramatic feature, director and screenplay) and two Screen Actors Guild Award nods for best cast and for Rachel McAdams’s supporting actress performance. In addition, the film has captured four Independent Spirit Award nominations (best feature, director, editing and screenplay) and has been named winner of the competition’s Robert Altman Award, presented to the picture’s director, casting director and ensemble cast. More accolades in other contests are sure to follow.
Knights in shining armor – be they dressed in traditional garb or more contemporary apparel – are undoubtedly valuable allies to have in our corner, as the work of the Spotlight team proves. But, to protect ourselves in the absence of such heroic figures, we would be wise to examine our beliefs (especially those associated with fear, courage, discernment and integrity), for they will loom largely in the reality we ultimately experience. Making it a practice to purposely become our own crusaders could serve us well when faced with circumstances that could potentially cause us great harm, allowing us to rise above the fray and flourish.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Crusaders come in many forms. Some are obvious, like those who fearlessly take up arms in the pursuit of justice. Those who rely on other tools, like the power of the press, are probably less known, though their contributions are certainly no less noteworthy. Such is the case for a group of courageous journalists whose investigative efforts helped bring about groundbreaking change, as depicted in the new highly acclaimed historical drama, “Spotlight.”
For many years, troubling rumors about sexual abuse involving Roman Catholic priests and underage parishioners had been bubbling to the surface of public awareness, but few, if any, details were substantiated. That all changed in 2001, however, when an intrepid team of reporters from The Boston Globe took on the story.
When newly arrived editor Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber) assumed the reins at the Globe, he suggested that the paper’s Spotlight team – the nation’s oldest continuously operating investigative reporting unit – look into the matter. But the idea initially received a somewhat guarded response. In part this was because Spotlight was accustomed to operating autonomously in picking the stories it covered. There was also genuine apprehension how the paper’s predominantly Irish Catholic readership would react to such potentially inflammatory reporting, an unsettling prospect for the publication’s bottom line at a time when newspaper subscription revenues were already in decline. And then there was concern about Baron himself, whose Jewish heritage led some to question whether his suggestion to purposely butt heads with the Church had some kind of agenda attached to it.
However, with Baron’s reassurances that the story would make for good, responsible journalism, the investigative team decided to proceed. Under the auspices of Spotlight editor Walter “Robby” Robinson (Michael Keaton), reporters Mike Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo), Sacha Pfeiffer (Rachel McAdams) and Matt Carroll (Brian d’Arcy James) began looking into the matter. Initial progress was slow, but, once doors began to open, the investigation exploded, becoming something much larger than anyone expected.
The team got one of its biggest breaks from attorney Mitchell Garabedian (Stanley Tucci), a flamboyant, outspoken but doggedly committed victims’ rights advocate, who helped connect the Spotlight reporters with sources who were willing to go on the record about their experiences. And the closer the journalists looked, the more they found. In fact, the Spotlight team quickly discovered a widespread pattern of abuse – and an even more disturbing intentional campaign to cover it up.
Through the reluctant admissions of sources like attorneys Eric Macleish (Billy Crudup) and Jim Sullivan (Jamey Sheridan), who quietly helped facilitate the settlement of numerous abuse cases involving priests, the Spotlight team found that the conspiracy permeated the Boston Archdiocese. And, given the breadth of this matter, it became obvious that there was no way those at the top, including Cardinal Bernard Law (Len Cariou), could have been in the dark about it.
With the publication of a series of articles in early 2002, the Globe exposed the scandal, shaking the Boston Archdiocese to its core and leading to Cardinal Law’s resignation. Revelation of this news sent shockwaves through the Roman Catholic Church worldwide, leading to the subsequent exposure of comparable cover-ups around the globe. And, for its efforts, the paper won the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. That’s quite an impressive legacy for an investigation that almost didn’t get off the ground.
When a bombshell story like this finally gets told, many are not only astonished at the nature of the disclosures, but also at why it took so long for such news to come to light. So why did this happen? To look for an explanation, we must examine the beliefs of those involved, because, as the basis of the conscious creation process – the means by which our reality materializes – they determine how matters ultimately unfold.
For instance, as becomes apparent in the film, many of the faithful willingly turned a blind eye to the indiscretions. Some feared the power wielded by the Church and its representatives, while others believed that the Archdiocese and its minions – as the bestowers of God’s will – could do no wrong. This was even true for some of the victims (Michael Cyril Creighton, Jimmy LeBlanc), many of whom came from broken homes and trusted their parish clerics implicitly. When the priests showed them the kind of compassion they didn’t receive from their own families, they freely expressed their gratitude by complying with whatever was asked of them, no matter how questionable they may have found the requests.
When no one is willing to talk about such incidents, however, stories like this tend to stay buried. That’s where the value of the reporters’ efforts becomes so important. As firm believers in uncovering the truth, investigative journalists are willing to pursue it, no matter how unseemly it may be. They have the courage to dig up the facts, go on the record and state explicitly what happened.
Of course, to be able to do their jobs effectively, reporters require the assistance of sources who share their values regarding the truth and who possess the courage to reveal it. For the victims who came forward and provided information for the Globe articles, their ability to overcome their fears and speak their truth is undeniably heroic. Their efforts often necessitated a fundamental shift in their beliefs, but their candor was rewarded with an even more profound change in the nature of the prevailing reality.
In addition to courage, discernment plays an equally important role in scenarios like this. For members of the press, this figures largely in the beliefs they employ in their work, especially when it comes to knowing where to look and what to look for. And, because of that, this is where the influence of intuition is felt strongest, for it aids significantly in belief formation, particularly when it comes to separating the credible from the implausible. Unfortunately, we don’t always heed it, which can seriously dilute the effectiveness of our powers of discernment. Indeed, even the most seasoned investigators sometimes fail on this point, as one Globe staffer is forced into reluctantly admitting in hindsight during the course of the investigation; had that error in judgment been previously avoided, the story may have been uncovered long before it finally was, potentially sparing numerous victims years of abuse.
Discernment tends to function best when employed in conjunction with integrity. Without the influence of this additional component, it’s possible to twist what we believe to be judicious discernment into erroneous assumptions, leading to potentially questionable actions and distressing outcomes. This explains, for example, why one priest in the film sincerely believes he didn’t do anything wrong because his indiscretions didn’t involve engaging in particular types of sex acts, activities that he considered essential for his behavior to legitimately constitute abuse. Likewise, foggy discernment also sheds light on the rationalization behind the victims’ capitulation to their abusers’ whims; beliefs that their unconditional compliance would somehow translate into unqualified salvation sadly leads to profoundly painful experiences, not to mention the lingering anxiety that follows them.
Being honest with ourselves, then, is crucial if we’re to manifest the reality we truly desire, not one in which we blindly conform (or in which we willingly give away our personal power). Beliefs are incredible sources of empowerment, for they shape what materializes in our existence. We should never lose sight of that, even when confronted with those who would attempt to coerce us – or even if there are champions like the Spotlight reporters to come to our rescue.
“Spotlight” is a meticulous chronicle of the Globe’s heroic efforts, recalling such classic newspaper movies as “All the President’s Men” (1976) and “Zodiac” (2007). Its solid though occasionally plodding narrative methodically details the team’s exploits, including the challenges associated with carrying on when faced with stonewalling sources and the need to juggle reporting resources for covering breaking news stories (like the 9/11 attacks, which came in the midst of Spotlight’s investigation). After a somewhat slow opening 30 minutes, the film takes off, working best when the reporting team is out in the field, interviewing sources and uncovering leads. The picture’s capable ensemble delivers with earnest, committed sincerity, despite a dearth of meaningful character development outside the workplace.
Because of the film’s powerful message, it’s bound to be a strong awards season contender, with some calling it the early favorite for best picture honors. “Spotlight” has already earned three Golden Globe Award nominations (best dramatic feature, director and screenplay) and two Screen Actors Guild Award nods for best cast and for Rachel McAdams’s supporting actress performance. In addition, the film has captured four Independent Spirit Award nominations (best feature, director, editing and screenplay) and has been named winner of the competition’s Robert Altman Award, presented to the picture’s director, casting director and ensemble cast. More accolades in other contests are sure to follow.
Knights in shining armor – be they dressed in traditional garb or more contemporary apparel – are undoubtedly valuable allies to have in our corner, as the work of the Spotlight team proves. But, to protect ourselves in the absence of such heroic figures, we would be wise to examine our beliefs (especially those associated with fear, courage, discernment and integrity), for they will loom largely in the reality we ultimately experience. Making it a practice to purposely become our own crusaders could serve us well when faced with circumstances that could potentially cause us great harm, allowing us to rise above the fray and flourish.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
December 6, 2015
Tune in for Project Bring Me to Life
Join me and host Christopher Closson for the Project Bring Me to Life podcast, premiering this Tuesday, December 8, at 8 pm Eastern, by clicking here. Tune in for a lively conversation about conscious creation and the movies accompanied by a live chat session on the topic.
December 3, 2015
‘Room’ assesses our perceptions of reality
“Room” (2015). Cast: Brie Larson, Jason Tremblay, Sean Bridgers, Joan Allen, William H. Macy, Tom McCamus, Wendy Crewson, Amanda Brugel, Joe Pingue, Cas Anvar, Randal Edwards. Director: Lenny Abrahamson. Screenplay: Emma Donoghue. Book: Emma Donoghue, Room. Web site. Trailer.
When it comes to understanding our existence, most of us probably believe we have a good handle on the subject. But do we? Are our perceptions of reality on target, or are they skewed by faulty or incomplete beliefs? And how do we correct such misperceptions (or would we even want to)? Those are among the thorny philosophical questions raised in the new suspenseful thriller, “Room.”
Joy Newsome (Brie Larson) and her five-year-old son, Jack (Jason Tremblay), lead a rather unconventional existence. Their world is considerably smaller than what most of us are accustomed to, living their lives within the confines of a 10-foot by 10-foot backyard garden shed, a “home” Joy has generically designated “Room.” Their only view of the outside is through an overhead skylight, one that provides little illumination – and an even more limited glimpse of what lies beyond.
Despite her confinement, Joy is aware of the wider reality outside, having been part of it for the first 17 years of her life. But Jack is totally unaware of it, having been born into the captivity of Room, spending his entire life within its confines. All he knows about existence is what he has experienced firsthand, what his mother has told him and what he has seen on a television with spotty reception.
So how have Joy and Jack come to live this life? Seven years ago, while Joy was walking home, she met a middle-aged man who claimed he needed assistance with his sick dog. Ever the Samaritan, the cheery, eager teenager agreed to help him, not realizing that she was about to be kidnapped, taken hostage by a captor whom she would come to know as Old Nick (Sean Bridgers). Joy’s abductor proceeded to lock her in the shed, which had been fitted with such basics as running water, heat and a kitchenette. But, despite these minimal accommodations, Joy was essentially caged, confined behind an electronically coded door that only her captor knew how to open. Thus began her harrowing imprisonment, a traumatic experience that would lead to Jack’s birth two years later.
Strange as it might sound, though, Joy does all she can to give Jack as “normal” an existence as possible. She endeavors to remain upbeat, striving to be the best mother she can be to her young son. In fact, Joy’s love for Jack is one of the few things that keeps her going under such trying circumstances.
But spending all of one’s time in close quarters with an inquisitive youngster in his formative years can be challenging. When confronted with endless questions about the nature of existence, Joy makes up stories to address Jack’s inquiries, partly to appease him and partly to make life sound magical enough to give him a positive outlook about it. These fantastic yarns may not be entirely truthful, but she hopes they’re sufficient to satisfy Jack’s curiosity under such trying and unusual circumstances. That’s quite a tall order. After all, how realistic is it to expect someone to be able to accurately describe the nature of the world at large to someone who only knows about existence based on his experience of the limitations of Room?
Besides caring for Jack and giving him as good an upbringing as possible, Joy has another equally important item on her agenda – figuring out how to escape. However, given the degree of control Old Nick wields over Joy and Jack, combined with the meticulous thoroughness of his plans for keeping them captive, that’s easier said than done.
To find a way out of these circumstances, Joy will need to get creative. But, even if she manages to devise a successful escape plan, then what? Will she be able to liberate both herself and her son, or will she be forced into making a difficult choice? Moreover, even if she and/or Jack manage to escape, will they be able to deal with their newfound emancipation? Given that Joy has not experienced such freedom for a long time – and that Jack never has – will they be able to cope with their liberation? Indeed, will their release live up to hoped-for expectations?
In that regard, this film provides viewers with an insightful look at how our beliefs about the world ultimately come to shape it. This is the fundamental essence of the conscious creation process, the means by which we manifest the existence we experience, no matter how extensive or limited it may be. And this is just as true for Joy and Jack in their experiences as it is for the rest of us.
This is particularly intriguing where Jack is concerned, given that his entire experience of the world is based on the confines of Room. His reality springs forth from his perceptions of, and his beliefs about, that very limited space, essentially the totality of what he considers to constitute existence. His ability to envision a reality that goes beyond the manifestation of Room is effectively constrained by his beliefs. The prospect of there being something more to the world is almost impossible for him to fathom, particularly when Joy tries speaking to him about the existence of what lies beyond the shed’s walls.
In many ways, Jack’s experience parallels that of a group of prisoners in Plato’s famous cave story. According to this legendary allegory, the prisoners have lived their entire lives chained inside a cave, effectively unable to move. They face a blank cave wall, watching shadows projected onto it from people and objects that pass in front of a fire located behind them. These shadowy images are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality, providing them with a fundamentally incomplete depiction of existence. Plato observes that this distorted view does not present the entire picture, that there’s more to reality than the limited impressions provided by the shadows. Thus someone who is able to see beyond this limitation, to see the broader spectrum of the nature of reality, is able to gain a fuller appreciation of the true character of existence.
In the cave scenario, the prisoners’ perceptions of the shadows temper their beliefs, which, in turn, govern what they consider constitutes reality. So it is with Jack, too (and for all of us, for that matter). Thus, if we suspect that our view of existence is somehow incomplete, we should examine the beliefs we hold about our reality, for it may expose an inherent limitation that prevents us from seeing the bigger picture.
This is a key challenge for Joy in her efforts to prepare Jack for what to expect about the outside world if they successfully manage to escape their captivity. Based on his experience, Jack has become galvanized in his beliefs about what constitutes existence, especially in light of the stories his mother has told him, which effectively solidified the character of his prevailing outlook. If Jack is to cope with emancipation, he’ll have to address something as potentially limiting as the confines of Room – the limitations of his own beliefs.
This is something we all often wrestle with when looking to change the character of our existence. Our beliefs can become stubbornly entrenched, frequently enduring even when they no longer effectively serve us. Such persistence is in many ways what makes the “certainty” and “continuity” of physical existence possible, but it’s also what might prevent it from changing, something we should be aware of when we look to alter our reality.
The removal of belief limitations is also crucial for Joy in formulating her escape plans. Considering the obstacles she faces, she’ll need to get creative to intentionally deceive and/or overpower her captor. This requires pushing the envelope of possibilities, something that may become particularly difficult under the prevailing atmosphere of limitation under which she lives.
But, as noted earlier, even if Joy’s escape plans were to succeed, what would happen when she and/or Jack found themselves on the outside? Having spent so much time in an existence inherently characterized by extreme limitation, would they be able to handle a reality with endless possibilities open to them?
One might think that having seemingly limitless choices available to us would be highly desirable. However, some might readily view this prospect as patently overwhelming. When we’re accustomed to having our routines and accommodations clearly spelled out for us, we can take comfort in that familiarity. But, if that certainty were suddenly replaced by a broad palette of undefined options, we might easily find such ambiguity daunting. In many ways, some might even long for what they left behind, a prospect essentially embodying the notion of “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.”
In light of that, then, reintegrating into a world of choice may necessitate making some significant adjustments, especially where our beliefs are concerned. It would require becoming aware of the potential benefits afforded by having a range of possibilities available to us, especially in terms of how preferable it is to not having such options open. Such a realization could allow us to discard our outmoded mindset, enabling us to adopt a new outlook for reinventing ourselves and materializing a new reality. For those who have experienced painful physical and psychological ordeals like Joy and Jack, such a metamorphosis might be just what’s required for promoting the much-needed healing for overcoming those traumas. But, if such a positive transformation is to occur, we must always bear in mind that the change begins with us, particularly when it comes to the beliefs we use to manifest our experience.
“Room” is an engaging, suspenseful thriller about coping with trying circumstances, especially when it comes to the bond between mother and child and the lengths she’ll go to in protecting him. The film’s outstanding lead performances by Brie Larson and Jacob Tremblay captivate throughout, despite some occasionally uneven pacing (especially in the picture’s sometimes-meandering second hour). As one of the more unusual releases in recent years, this offering won’t appeal to everyone, but, for those who appreciate cinematic experiences outside the mainstream, this is one worth screening.
The film has already netted three award nominations, earning accolades for best lead actress, best editing and best first screenplay in the Independent Spirit Awards competition, with more almost assuredly to come. Look for Larson, in particular, to capture more honors for her efforts, as she has become a leading contender in this year’s awards competitions.
Our freedom of choice is one of our fundamental metaphysical birthrights, as well as a precious commodity to be carefully protected. Unfortunately, our awareness and appreciation of that capacity might not become apparent until it’s seemingly no longer available to us, and restoring our faith in and reliance on it may not happen as readily as we might think it would. By establishing, monitoring and preserving beliefs that support such awareness and appreciation, we increase the likelihood that we’ll be able to successfully tap into, and make use of, this power when we need it most.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
When it comes to understanding our existence, most of us probably believe we have a good handle on the subject. But do we? Are our perceptions of reality on target, or are they skewed by faulty or incomplete beliefs? And how do we correct such misperceptions (or would we even want to)? Those are among the thorny philosophical questions raised in the new suspenseful thriller, “Room.”
Joy Newsome (Brie Larson) and her five-year-old son, Jack (Jason Tremblay), lead a rather unconventional existence. Their world is considerably smaller than what most of us are accustomed to, living their lives within the confines of a 10-foot by 10-foot backyard garden shed, a “home” Joy has generically designated “Room.” Their only view of the outside is through an overhead skylight, one that provides little illumination – and an even more limited glimpse of what lies beyond.
Despite her confinement, Joy is aware of the wider reality outside, having been part of it for the first 17 years of her life. But Jack is totally unaware of it, having been born into the captivity of Room, spending his entire life within its confines. All he knows about existence is what he has experienced firsthand, what his mother has told him and what he has seen on a television with spotty reception.
So how have Joy and Jack come to live this life? Seven years ago, while Joy was walking home, she met a middle-aged man who claimed he needed assistance with his sick dog. Ever the Samaritan, the cheery, eager teenager agreed to help him, not realizing that she was about to be kidnapped, taken hostage by a captor whom she would come to know as Old Nick (Sean Bridgers). Joy’s abductor proceeded to lock her in the shed, which had been fitted with such basics as running water, heat and a kitchenette. But, despite these minimal accommodations, Joy was essentially caged, confined behind an electronically coded door that only her captor knew how to open. Thus began her harrowing imprisonment, a traumatic experience that would lead to Jack’s birth two years later.
Strange as it might sound, though, Joy does all she can to give Jack as “normal” an existence as possible. She endeavors to remain upbeat, striving to be the best mother she can be to her young son. In fact, Joy’s love for Jack is one of the few things that keeps her going under such trying circumstances.
But spending all of one’s time in close quarters with an inquisitive youngster in his formative years can be challenging. When confronted with endless questions about the nature of existence, Joy makes up stories to address Jack’s inquiries, partly to appease him and partly to make life sound magical enough to give him a positive outlook about it. These fantastic yarns may not be entirely truthful, but she hopes they’re sufficient to satisfy Jack’s curiosity under such trying and unusual circumstances. That’s quite a tall order. After all, how realistic is it to expect someone to be able to accurately describe the nature of the world at large to someone who only knows about existence based on his experience of the limitations of Room?
Besides caring for Jack and giving him as good an upbringing as possible, Joy has another equally important item on her agenda – figuring out how to escape. However, given the degree of control Old Nick wields over Joy and Jack, combined with the meticulous thoroughness of his plans for keeping them captive, that’s easier said than done.
To find a way out of these circumstances, Joy will need to get creative. But, even if she manages to devise a successful escape plan, then what? Will she be able to liberate both herself and her son, or will she be forced into making a difficult choice? Moreover, even if she and/or Jack manage to escape, will they be able to deal with their newfound emancipation? Given that Joy has not experienced such freedom for a long time – and that Jack never has – will they be able to cope with their liberation? Indeed, will their release live up to hoped-for expectations?
In that regard, this film provides viewers with an insightful look at how our beliefs about the world ultimately come to shape it. This is the fundamental essence of the conscious creation process, the means by which we manifest the existence we experience, no matter how extensive or limited it may be. And this is just as true for Joy and Jack in their experiences as it is for the rest of us.
This is particularly intriguing where Jack is concerned, given that his entire experience of the world is based on the confines of Room. His reality springs forth from his perceptions of, and his beliefs about, that very limited space, essentially the totality of what he considers to constitute existence. His ability to envision a reality that goes beyond the manifestation of Room is effectively constrained by his beliefs. The prospect of there being something more to the world is almost impossible for him to fathom, particularly when Joy tries speaking to him about the existence of what lies beyond the shed’s walls.
In many ways, Jack’s experience parallels that of a group of prisoners in Plato’s famous cave story. According to this legendary allegory, the prisoners have lived their entire lives chained inside a cave, effectively unable to move. They face a blank cave wall, watching shadows projected onto it from people and objects that pass in front of a fire located behind them. These shadowy images are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality, providing them with a fundamentally incomplete depiction of existence. Plato observes that this distorted view does not present the entire picture, that there’s more to reality than the limited impressions provided by the shadows. Thus someone who is able to see beyond this limitation, to see the broader spectrum of the nature of reality, is able to gain a fuller appreciation of the true character of existence.
In the cave scenario, the prisoners’ perceptions of the shadows temper their beliefs, which, in turn, govern what they consider constitutes reality. So it is with Jack, too (and for all of us, for that matter). Thus, if we suspect that our view of existence is somehow incomplete, we should examine the beliefs we hold about our reality, for it may expose an inherent limitation that prevents us from seeing the bigger picture.
This is a key challenge for Joy in her efforts to prepare Jack for what to expect about the outside world if they successfully manage to escape their captivity. Based on his experience, Jack has become galvanized in his beliefs about what constitutes existence, especially in light of the stories his mother has told him, which effectively solidified the character of his prevailing outlook. If Jack is to cope with emancipation, he’ll have to address something as potentially limiting as the confines of Room – the limitations of his own beliefs.
This is something we all often wrestle with when looking to change the character of our existence. Our beliefs can become stubbornly entrenched, frequently enduring even when they no longer effectively serve us. Such persistence is in many ways what makes the “certainty” and “continuity” of physical existence possible, but it’s also what might prevent it from changing, something we should be aware of when we look to alter our reality.
The removal of belief limitations is also crucial for Joy in formulating her escape plans. Considering the obstacles she faces, she’ll need to get creative to intentionally deceive and/or overpower her captor. This requires pushing the envelope of possibilities, something that may become particularly difficult under the prevailing atmosphere of limitation under which she lives.
But, as noted earlier, even if Joy’s escape plans were to succeed, what would happen when she and/or Jack found themselves on the outside? Having spent so much time in an existence inherently characterized by extreme limitation, would they be able to handle a reality with endless possibilities open to them?
One might think that having seemingly limitless choices available to us would be highly desirable. However, some might readily view this prospect as patently overwhelming. When we’re accustomed to having our routines and accommodations clearly spelled out for us, we can take comfort in that familiarity. But, if that certainty were suddenly replaced by a broad palette of undefined options, we might easily find such ambiguity daunting. In many ways, some might even long for what they left behind, a prospect essentially embodying the notion of “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.”
In light of that, then, reintegrating into a world of choice may necessitate making some significant adjustments, especially where our beliefs are concerned. It would require becoming aware of the potential benefits afforded by having a range of possibilities available to us, especially in terms of how preferable it is to not having such options open. Such a realization could allow us to discard our outmoded mindset, enabling us to adopt a new outlook for reinventing ourselves and materializing a new reality. For those who have experienced painful physical and psychological ordeals like Joy and Jack, such a metamorphosis might be just what’s required for promoting the much-needed healing for overcoming those traumas. But, if such a positive transformation is to occur, we must always bear in mind that the change begins with us, particularly when it comes to the beliefs we use to manifest our experience.
“Room” is an engaging, suspenseful thriller about coping with trying circumstances, especially when it comes to the bond between mother and child and the lengths she’ll go to in protecting him. The film’s outstanding lead performances by Brie Larson and Jacob Tremblay captivate throughout, despite some occasionally uneven pacing (especially in the picture’s sometimes-meandering second hour). As one of the more unusual releases in recent years, this offering won’t appeal to everyone, but, for those who appreciate cinematic experiences outside the mainstream, this is one worth screening.
The film has already netted three award nominations, earning accolades for best lead actress, best editing and best first screenplay in the Independent Spirit Awards competition, with more almost assuredly to come. Look for Larson, in particular, to capture more honors for her efforts, as she has become a leading contender in this year’s awards competitions.
Our freedom of choice is one of our fundamental metaphysical birthrights, as well as a precious commodity to be carefully protected. Unfortunately, our awareness and appreciation of that capacity might not become apparent until it’s seemingly no longer available to us, and restoring our faith in and reliance on it may not happen as readily as we might think it would. By establishing, monitoring and preserving beliefs that support such awareness and appreciation, we increase the likelihood that we’ll be able to successfully tap into, and make use of, this power when we need it most.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Tune in to Frankiesense & More
How can movies help you create the life you want? Find out by listening to my interview on the Internet radio show Frankiesense & More with host Frankie Picasso. The show airs today at 1 pm Eastern. Visit the show's web site or download the podcast. Tune in for some fun, lively chat!
November 29, 2015
‘Suffragette’ celebrates the courage to effect change
“Suffragette” (2015) Cast: Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter, Meryl Streep, Anne-Marie Duff, Brendan Gleeson, Ben Whishaw, Natalie Press, Romola Garai, Grace Stottor, Finbar Lynch, Geoff Bell, Adam Michael Dodd, Adrian Schiller, Simon Gifford. Director: Sarah Gavron. Screenplay: Abi Morgan. Web site. Trailer.
Leading the charge for change – especially on a mass scale – requires tremendous courage and bold actions. However, mustering the nerve to live up to those requirements may be more than many of us can handle. But, for those who can see the intrinsic need to bring about reform, calling upon one’s inner strength and fortitude may prove to be an inevitable eventuality, as a group of resolute women find out for themselves in the new historical drama, “Suffragette.”
In 1912 London, a smoldering movement was about to catch fire. For more than a half-century, the women of England had been lobbying to secure the right to vote, all to no avail. Their growing frustration over this lack of results prompted groups of suffragettes to step up their efforts. Under the auspices of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), founder Emmeline Pankhurst (Meryl Streep) fervently urged her followers to actively take up the cause, zealously encouraging them to embrace the concept of “deeds not words” to reach their goal.
One of the groups that heeded Pankhurst’s rallying cry emerged among the workers in a London industrial laundry. Through the covert recruitment efforts of laundress Violet Miller (Anne-Marie Duff) and her daughter, Maggie (Grace Stottor), a suffragette circle slowly formed. And, thanks to the support of a sympathetic pharmacist, Edith Ellyn (Helena Bonham Carter), the activists had access to a meeting place to discuss their plans in secret.
However, as quietly compelling as Mrs. Miller’s arguments were, not everyone willingly signed on. Such was the case with Maud Watts (Carey Mulligan), a longtime laundry employee who could readily see the injustices and inequalities inflicted upon women in the workplace and other aspects of English society but who was reluctant to do anything that might stir up trouble. As a wife and working mother, Maud was particularly concerned with keeping the peace with the men in her life, most notably her husband and co-worker, Sonny (Ben Whishaw), and her boss, Mr. Taylor (Geoff Bell). That all changed, though, when events transpired that prompted Maud to become involved – and to take action.
Before long, Maud, Edith and Violet found themselves in the midst of increasingly contentious circumstances. But their activism did not go unnoticed; English men – especially those in official capacities, such as the police and members of Parliament – took a rather dim view of the actions of these female upstarts. Even government sympathizers like David Lloyd George (Adrian Schiller) were unable to be of much help.
In the wake of these developments, the women became targets of heightened scrutiny. Their activities were closely monitored by authorities like Inspector Arthur Steed (Brendan Gleeson). And the more militant the suffragettes became, the greater the price they paid for their efforts, resulting in such consequences as jail time and loss of child custody. However, considering the stakes involved, the activists carried forth with their activities, some of which involved paying the ultimate price. Their colleagues could only hope that their actions would not prove futile.
For the women in the suffrage movement, participation in the cause often served dual purposes. Not only were they helping to further an initiative of the masses, but they were also frequently fostering their own personal evolution. Many, like Maud, came to discover aspects of themselves that they never knew about. And the effects of this awakening took root in many ways.
All of these changes came about as a result of the suffragettes’ employment of the conscious creation process, the means by which we manifest our reality through our thoughts, beliefs and intents. Some of these changes emerged from beliefs in such notions as living with integrity, facing down one’s fears and practicing value fulfillment, the conscious creation concept related to each of us being our best, truest selves for the benefit and betterment of ourselves and those around us. The emergence of these qualities empowered the women in the movement, further strengthening their resolve to succeed on both public and personal levels.
The impact of this was perhaps greatest for those – again, like Maud – who initially believed they were being “unwittingly” drawn into the fray. On some level, these women recognized the inherent unfairness and injustice involved and believed that it needed to be changed, even if they were initially reluctant to participate. Ultimately they followed their intuition and made use of its power to seek and implement reform.
With that said, however, some may question some of the tactics the suffragettes used in making their case, no matter how noble the cause. Indeed, by today’s standards, those actions could easily be construed as terrorism. But, as noted on several occasions in the film, 50 years of polite protest got the women nowhere. So, given that the suffragettes had to rely on changing the minds of the men to win the vote, they felt compelled to make their case using means and methods that they knew the men would understand. By engaging in acts of violence, the women began “speaking the language” their adversaries would understand. It ultimately got their attention – and helped secure the vote for women, a trend that would spread around the globe and give birth to the larger women’s rights movement.
“Suffragette” is a capably made period piece chronicling the themes of this historic fight, with excellent production values and fine performances, though it certainly would have been nice if Meryl Streep’s highly billed performance amounted to more than just a scant cameo appearance. The film’s intentionally grainy cinematography lends an air of gritty realism in its depiction of the conditions at the time (even if its jittery hand-held camera work sometimes gets a tad tiresome). The script and story tell the suffragettes’ story well, though the mix of real and fictitious characters tends to skew the picture’s authenticity somewhat. This certainly isn’t epic filmmaking, but it does make for an effective history lesson (especially for younger audiences) or a good viewing option for a rainy Saturday afternoon.
Taking up arms in the quest of a just cause is perhaps one of the most important ventures we can pursue as conscious creators. But, when we consider the rewards involved, whatever effort is required generally seems more than worth it. The suffragettes learned that, and their shining example inspired generations of women who followed. We could all learn a lot from their experience.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Leading the charge for change – especially on a mass scale – requires tremendous courage and bold actions. However, mustering the nerve to live up to those requirements may be more than many of us can handle. But, for those who can see the intrinsic need to bring about reform, calling upon one’s inner strength and fortitude may prove to be an inevitable eventuality, as a group of resolute women find out for themselves in the new historical drama, “Suffragette.”
In 1912 London, a smoldering movement was about to catch fire. For more than a half-century, the women of England had been lobbying to secure the right to vote, all to no avail. Their growing frustration over this lack of results prompted groups of suffragettes to step up their efforts. Under the auspices of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), founder Emmeline Pankhurst (Meryl Streep) fervently urged her followers to actively take up the cause, zealously encouraging them to embrace the concept of “deeds not words” to reach their goal.
One of the groups that heeded Pankhurst’s rallying cry emerged among the workers in a London industrial laundry. Through the covert recruitment efforts of laundress Violet Miller (Anne-Marie Duff) and her daughter, Maggie (Grace Stottor), a suffragette circle slowly formed. And, thanks to the support of a sympathetic pharmacist, Edith Ellyn (Helena Bonham Carter), the activists had access to a meeting place to discuss their plans in secret.
However, as quietly compelling as Mrs. Miller’s arguments were, not everyone willingly signed on. Such was the case with Maud Watts (Carey Mulligan), a longtime laundry employee who could readily see the injustices and inequalities inflicted upon women in the workplace and other aspects of English society but who was reluctant to do anything that might stir up trouble. As a wife and working mother, Maud was particularly concerned with keeping the peace with the men in her life, most notably her husband and co-worker, Sonny (Ben Whishaw), and her boss, Mr. Taylor (Geoff Bell). That all changed, though, when events transpired that prompted Maud to become involved – and to take action.
Before long, Maud, Edith and Violet found themselves in the midst of increasingly contentious circumstances. But their activism did not go unnoticed; English men – especially those in official capacities, such as the police and members of Parliament – took a rather dim view of the actions of these female upstarts. Even government sympathizers like David Lloyd George (Adrian Schiller) were unable to be of much help.
In the wake of these developments, the women became targets of heightened scrutiny. Their activities were closely monitored by authorities like Inspector Arthur Steed (Brendan Gleeson). And the more militant the suffragettes became, the greater the price they paid for their efforts, resulting in such consequences as jail time and loss of child custody. However, considering the stakes involved, the activists carried forth with their activities, some of which involved paying the ultimate price. Their colleagues could only hope that their actions would not prove futile.
For the women in the suffrage movement, participation in the cause often served dual purposes. Not only were they helping to further an initiative of the masses, but they were also frequently fostering their own personal evolution. Many, like Maud, came to discover aspects of themselves that they never knew about. And the effects of this awakening took root in many ways.
All of these changes came about as a result of the suffragettes’ employment of the conscious creation process, the means by which we manifest our reality through our thoughts, beliefs and intents. Some of these changes emerged from beliefs in such notions as living with integrity, facing down one’s fears and practicing value fulfillment, the conscious creation concept related to each of us being our best, truest selves for the benefit and betterment of ourselves and those around us. The emergence of these qualities empowered the women in the movement, further strengthening their resolve to succeed on both public and personal levels.
The impact of this was perhaps greatest for those – again, like Maud – who initially believed they were being “unwittingly” drawn into the fray. On some level, these women recognized the inherent unfairness and injustice involved and believed that it needed to be changed, even if they were initially reluctant to participate. Ultimately they followed their intuition and made use of its power to seek and implement reform.
With that said, however, some may question some of the tactics the suffragettes used in making their case, no matter how noble the cause. Indeed, by today’s standards, those actions could easily be construed as terrorism. But, as noted on several occasions in the film, 50 years of polite protest got the women nowhere. So, given that the suffragettes had to rely on changing the minds of the men to win the vote, they felt compelled to make their case using means and methods that they knew the men would understand. By engaging in acts of violence, the women began “speaking the language” their adversaries would understand. It ultimately got their attention – and helped secure the vote for women, a trend that would spread around the globe and give birth to the larger women’s rights movement.
“Suffragette” is a capably made period piece chronicling the themes of this historic fight, with excellent production values and fine performances, though it certainly would have been nice if Meryl Streep’s highly billed performance amounted to more than just a scant cameo appearance. The film’s intentionally grainy cinematography lends an air of gritty realism in its depiction of the conditions at the time (even if its jittery hand-held camera work sometimes gets a tad tiresome). The script and story tell the suffragettes’ story well, though the mix of real and fictitious characters tends to skew the picture’s authenticity somewhat. This certainly isn’t epic filmmaking, but it does make for an effective history lesson (especially for younger audiences) or a good viewing option for a rainy Saturday afternoon.
Taking up arms in the quest of a just cause is perhaps one of the most important ventures we can pursue as conscious creators. But, when we consider the rewards involved, whatever effort is required generally seems more than worth it. The suffragettes learned that, and their shining example inspired generations of women who followed. We could all learn a lot from their experience.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
