Brent Marchant's Blog, page 133

‘Timbuktu’ explores the challenges of managing our personal power

“Timbuktu” (2014). Cast: Ibrahim Ahmed, Toulou Kiki, Layla Walet Mohamed, Abel Jafri, Mehdi A.G. Mohamed, Kettly Noël, Adel Mahmoud Cherif, Cheik A.G. Emakni, Damien Ndjie, Weli Cleib, Djié Sidi, Salem Dendou, Fatoumata Diawara, Amadou Haidara. Director: Abderrahmane Sissako. Screenplay: Abderrahmane Sissako and Kessen Tall. Web site. Trailer.

Personal power – it’s something we all wield in manifesting and managing our daily lives. It’s a force that can be used beneficially for the betterment of ourselves and those around us. It can also be used to subvert and dominate others for our own gain. It’s even something we can give away, for better or worse. Whichever course we choose, however, depends on us and how we handle the power we each possess, ideas explored individually and collectively in the dramatic new release, “Timbuktu.”

Life in the ancient and fabled Malian city of Timbuktu undergoes a radical change with the arrival of a band of oppressive outsiders. The northwest African community on the edge of the Sahara Desert, long home to a population of spiritually focused, peace-loving Muslims, is disrupted by the appearance of the Islamic Police, a self-proclaimed posse of fundamentalist jihadists seeking to implement Sharia law – mostly by imposing it on the locals at the end of a gun barrel. And, in doing so, the foreign militia force goes beyond the already-strict tenets of the long-established Muslim legal and moral code by enacting such additional measures as prohibitions against smoking, music and soccer and by instituting dress code requirements calling for men to wear trousers of a certain length and for women to wear gloves when in public. It’s a change the locals abhor but feel powerless to change. Even the resident Imam (Adel Mahmoud Cherif) has difficulty dealing with the spiritually posturing interlopers, his heartfelt, peaceful ways often summarily dismissed by rationalized interpretations of Sharia law handed down by the jihadists.

While those in Timbuktu itself are most directly impacted by the change (as seen in a series of incidents involving perpetrators accused of violating the new dictates), residents who live in nearby outlying areas aren’t affected quite as strongly. Despite this lesser degree of impact, however, many of those living on the city’s fringes flee in anticipation of what might happen. But, risks aside, one family remains determined to hold steadfast. Kidane, a local shepherd (Ibrahim Ahmed), is committed to living his life as he always has with his loving wife, Satima (Toulou Kiki), his adoring daughter, Toya (Layla Walet Mohamed), and his young orphaned herdsman, Issan (Mehdi A.G. Mohamed). Even intimidating visits by one of the principal jihadists, Abdelkerim (Abel Jafri), who comes by uninvited when Kidane is absent to leer suggestively at Satima, don’t faze the family. But that all changes when an incident occurs that brings them squarely under the authorities’ jurisdiction.

Life is good for a family living on the outskirts of the ancient and fabled Malian city of Timbuktu. But that domestic tranquility gets put to the test for a kind-hearted shepherd, Kidane (Ibrahim Ahmed, center), his wife, Satima (Toulou Kiki, left), and his daughter, Toya (Layla Walet Mohamed, right), when a fundamentalist police force moves into the area, a saga that plays out in the powerful new dramatic release, “Timbuktu.” Photo courtesy of Cohen Media Group.

When a local fisherman, Amadou (Amadou Haidara), kills one of Kidane’s cattle for becoming entangled in his nets, the shepherd retaliates. Kidane confronts his cow’s slayer, but what begins as an argument soon turns deadly, with Amadou suffering the same fate as the animal he killed. Shortly thereafter, Kidane is taken into custody to await his fate – one that’s not too difficult to envision, either, given the authorities in charge. But, as horrific as Kidane’s impending sentence is, the potential for circumstances escalating even further looms large, threatening to make an already-trying situation much worse. With the community at large and Kidane’s family in particular on the verge of a tragic future, the tension for all concerned becomes virtually unbearable.

“Timbuktu” is a poignant cautionary tale in several respects. In one regard, it painfully shows what can happen when we give away our power, when we allow others to overrun our lives with impunity. The fundamentalist jihadists in this film are portrayed for exactly who they are – unrepentant bullies who get away with whatever they want by virtue of their rhetoric, weaponry and unmitigated gall. They intimidate at will, wantonly imposing their decisions on others and justifying their actions through stretched, convoluted interpretations of the Sharia code.

One might wonder why the subjugated are letting this happen to them. Indeed, why would they give their power away so readily? In part, it no doubt has something to do with the sheer firepower of the jihadists, their arsenal and tactics evoking and spreading fear throughout the city. But that only addresses the question at the “surface” level of their existence. What’s more important to understand is why they would do so on the deeper consciousness level, the internal realm from which our reality springs forth into being – the place where our beliefs reside, the means by which we manifest our world through the process of conscious creation.

This is where understanding the nature of our beliefs becomes so important. For instance, as the Imam acknowledges in a discussion with the occupiers, he and his devout followers believe that jihad is a concept symbolic of an internal struggle, a metaphorical means for doing battle with (and ultimately bettering) oneself, not an externalized extrapolation of a notion intended to be used for browbeating others into obedient submission. The religious leader and his flock also seem to believe they can convey their wisdom on the subject to their adversaries merely with their words. But, as quickly becomes apparent, they’re unable to do so, because the conviction their foes have in their beliefs is so powerful that it squelches any attempts at enlightenment they might wish to impart.

Likewise, the locals profoundly place their faith in the power of love and their belief in its ability to conquer adversity. For example, when Kidane acknowledges his acceptance of his circumstances, he seeks to sway the hearts and minds of his captors and accusers by speaking of his love for his family and what the execution of his sentence will mean for him and them emotionally. He draws upon his situation to try to get them to see what it would be like if they faced a similar fate. But the chief jihadist processing Kidane’s case (Salem Dendou) and the presiding judges overseeing his trial (Weli Cleib, Djié Sidi) are unmoved, firmly entrenched in their own beliefs and personal power for realizing the results they want.

The arrival of a jihadist ruling authority raises uncertainty for the lives of a young desert girl, Toya (Layla Walet Mohamed, right), and a hard-working young herdsman, Issan (Mehdi A.G. Mohamed, left), in director Abderrahmane Sissako’s powerful new release, “Timbuktu.” Photo courtesy of Cohen Media Group.

So how does one overcome such daunting circumstances? How do we take our power back? For starters, it begins with acknowledging the possibility that it can be done, for that notion, like anything else capable of being made manifest, originates with our beliefs. Timbuktu’s residents are clearly fed up with the brutality and intimidation of those who have suppressed them, but, if ever they hope to vanquish their conquerors, they must first believe it’s possible.

Second, and perhaps even more importantly, the locals need to get creative with their beliefs and what they seek to materialize through them. If conventional approaches to sway their oppressors don’t work, no matter how noble or well-intentioned they might be, then it’s time to employ new tactics – and new manifesting beliefs. For instance, given the jihadists’ ban on soccer, local fans of the game are unable to partake in it when the authorities confiscate their equipment. However, Timbuktu’s young footballers won’t allow this to deter them; they thus defy authorities by engaging in games of virtual soccer, taking to the playing field and acting out their sport, even when they don’t have a ball for their “matches.” Their actions don’t technically violate the law, so there’s nothing the authorities can do. Yet such “subversive” tactics work to undermine those in charge, gradually whittling away at their control. At the same time, these measures also help to restore the power that their instigators had previously given away.

Part of the reason why such inventive tactics work is that their originators have overcome their fear of implementing them. This is apparent, for example, in the virtual soccer games. But it’s also visible in an array of simple, everyday acts, such as the refusal of a fishmonger to wear the gloves required of her and the uninhibited public conduct of Zabou (Kettly Noël), an unabashed free spirit who dresses flamboyantly and speaks openly of forbidden topics, often in full view of the powers that be, all in violation of the fundamentalists’ dictates. All of these actions, again, further serve to undermine public authority.

Zabou (Kettly Noël), an uninhibited free spirit, routinely defies the strict dictates of local jihadist rulers in the powerful new drama, “Timbuktu.” Photo courtesy of Cohen Media Group.

Another tactic with potential to take down the bullies is to expose their hypocrisy, a symptom of their inherent lack of personal integrity (and often a key element in undoing one’s conscious creation efforts). For example, Abdelkerim’s two-faced nature becomes all too obvious on many occasions, such as when he speaks to Satima, a married woman, without her husband present, or when he quietly shuffles off to sneak cigarettes, both violations of the Sharia code and the locally implemented regulations to which he supposedly adheres. Were it not for the discretion of his driver and associate, Omar (Cheik A.G. Emakni), Abdelkerim’s actions could easily be exposed, jeopardizing his position and undermining his authority – something that just might happen, too, given Omar’s wavering, sometimes-uncertain view of the occupation and those in charge of it.

But, even if the jihadists’ house of cards doesn’t fall as a result of the efforts of others, their own actions might be their eventual downfall. In addition to the potential problems posed by the aforementioned integrity issues, they could easily fall prey to the detrimental effects that can come from pushing the Universe. As conscious creators know, we work with our divine collaborator to bring our reality into being; we don’t coerce it into cooperation. But, if we attempt to unduly force matters, questions of “create vs. control” soon emerge, presenting us with choices and consequences that often spawn outcomes far from what we hope for. Such was the case for a group of jihadists who overran Timbuktu in 2012; their attempt at seeking to achieve and maintain control, an act that inspired this film, ultimately led to a rude awakening at the hands of French liberators.

“Timbuktu” is an excellent film that effectively exposes the heinous nature of fundamentalist bullies, providing uncompromising (but by no means gratuitous or grotesque) images of their capabilities. Yet, as ugly as some of the depictions are, the film is also full of great beauty, with stunning portrayals of the African landscape, elegantly showcased through the picture’s excellent cinematography. The solid cast and sound writing bring the story to life with heartfelt feeling, along with occasional touches of biting satire, all wrapped up in a powerful and moving cinematic experience. Admittedly, it’s sometimes a little difficult to see how all the ancillary story lines relate to the central narrative (especially early on), but, as viewers make their way through the film, it becomes apparent how they’re all integrated and how pervasive the effects of the occupation are on the local population – something we should all hope we never have to experience firsthand.

“Timbuktu” is also the kind of film that devoted religious followers who believe that their faiths have been hijacked and misrepresented by dogma-spouting fundamentalists should eagerly get behind. By supporting and promoting this film and its message, they can help the world see the true nature of the bullies behind these coercive efforts, thereby clarifying public perceptions of their faiths. In doing so, they would thus make it more difficult for those who would lazily paint the followers of these faiths with broad brushstrokes instead of carefully measured marks.

Even though “Timbuktu” may only now be gaining notoriety with the moviegoing public, it has been well respected in cinematic circles for some time. The picture received a nomination for best foreign language film as Mauritania’s official entry in this year’s Academy Awards program. Prior to receiving its Oscar nod, the film won the Prize of the Ecumenical Jury and the François Chalais Award (named for the famed French journalist and film historian) at the Cannes Film Festival, where it also earned a Palme d’Or nomination, the event’s highest honor. The picture is currently playing in theaters specializing in independent and foreign films.

The responsibility that accompanies the management of our personal power is something to be reckoned with. When that force is left unchecked, it can easily get out of hand, especially if we approach the task casually, indifferently or irresponsibly. But, when we employ our power judiciously, we can make use of it in ways where everyone wins, perhaps even becoming better people for having done so. The choice ultimately rests with us – and the hope that we make the right one.

Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

Join me for some 'Smart Talk'

Join me Tuesday February 17 at 11 am ET when I'll be a guest on Smart Women Talk Radio with host Katana Abbott. We'll discuss conscious creation in the movies, with a look at entries from the newly rereleased edition of my first book, Get the Picture?!, as well as this year's Oscar contenders. Tune in for some lively chat by clicking here, or catch the podcast afterward for on-demand listening. For more information about the show, click here.

‘Two Days, One Night’ implores ‘just ask’

“Two Days, One Night” (“Deux jours, une nuit”) (2014). Cast: Marion Cotillard, Fabrizio Rongione, Catherine Salée, Baptiste Sornin, Timur Magomedgadzhiev, Christelle Cornil, Serge Koto, Olivier Gourmet, Yoann Zimmer, Philippe Jeusette. Directors: Jean-Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne. Screenplay: Jean-Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne. Web site. Trailer.

We’re all no doubt familiar with the expression “nothing ventured, nothing gained.” Meritorious ideas, as good as they might be, unfortunately often languish as untapped, unmaterialized potential, simply because no steps are taken to bring them into being. And, ironically enough, in many cases, those undertakings could easily get their starts through the simple act of asking to make them manifest. Such is the focus of the dramatic new release, “Two Days, One Night” (“Deux jours, une nuit”).

Sandra Bya (Marion Cotillard) feels like giving up. Having recently returned to her job at a Belgian solar panel manufacturer after being on medical leave to treat depression, Sandra learns that company management discovered during her absence that the business could get along without her. So, faced with the need to cut operating costs, the owner, Monsieur Dumont (Baptiste Sornin), gives his employees a choice – allow Sandra to stay on as an employee or be willing to forfeit their annual bonuses. The choice is put to a vote, and the employees overwhelmingly opt in favor of their bonuses. Given her fragile state of mind, Sandra is devastated by the news, especially since she and her husband, Manu (Fabrizio Rongione), desperately need the money from her job to keep their home. With the announcement coming late on a Friday afternoon, it’s a rather demoralizing end to the workweek.

But all may not be lost. Sandra soon learns from one of her supportive co-workers, Juliette (Catherine Salée), that the vote was unfairly influenced by one of the company’s managers, Jean-Marc (Olivier Gourmet). With that revelation, Sandra and Juliette hastily meet with M. Dumont to plead their case. When he learns that his manager may have mischaracterized the nature of the choice being presented to his employees, M. Dumont agrees to allow a new vote the following Monday morning. That decision thus provides Sandra with an opportunity to hold on to her job, but she has something important to do first: Over the upcoming weekend, she must convince her co-workers to vote in favor of her retention, a plan enthusiastically encouraged by Juliette and Manu. However, given Sandra’s emotional state, coupled with the realization that she’ll need to sway at least 9 of her 16 colleagues, the task seems overwhelming.

Sandra reluctantly agrees to take up the challenge. She thus embarks on a weekend of campaigning for her job, meeting with each of her co-workers one on one. It’s an undertaking full of highs and lows, depending on what her peers say they’ll do. At times she feels like giving up, especially when her request is turned down or when she’s unable to contact her co-workers at home. But then there are pleasant surprises as well, such as when she receives unexpected support from peers who initially voted against her. How everything turns out ultimately depends on how effectively she makes her case before that fateful Monday morning ballot. And, even then, the outcome holds the potential to defy expectations, with more surprises surfacing that present additional new choices – for Sandra herself.

As those who practice conscious creation know, our beliefs determine the outcomes we experience, and that’s just as true for Sandra as it is for anyone else. When she initially considers the task of lobbying her co-workers, she believes the venture is hopeless, that she won’t be able to convince enough of her peers to vote in her favor. So is it any wonder, then, that the first few contacts she makes are met with disappointment? The expectation she puts forth, based on the beliefs she holds, gets fulfilled with remarkable fidelity. Clearly, if she wants a different result, she’ll have to change the intents involved.

Sandra’s negative outlook regarding this particular task most likely has its roots in the core beliefs she holds about the nature of her prevailing reality. To use a computer metaphor, this endeavor is just one of many “applications” running on the underlying “operating system” of her consciousness. As someone with a tendency to hold a depressed view of life, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that the existence she experiences is right in line with such thinking. This is apparent not only in her attitude toward the task of vying for her job, but, in some respects, it’s also visible in her relationship with Manu, which has clearly been strained by her emotional state in recent months. Again, if she wishes to alter the tenor of her reality – in all its permutations – she’ll need to adjust her beliefs, and this time she’ll need to do it at the core level, not just with regard to any of the particular milieus of her life.

So why is Sandra depressed at the core level? And why does she believe her cause is hopeless? That’s hard to say. While the specifics of Sandra’s situation and background are never really discussed in the film, in many instances, those who embrace this state of mind often do so as a result of previous disappointing experiences. The impact of those incidents can be so strong that it causes the formation of beliefs that become ingrained in our consciousness, setting up an internal paradigm that becomes self-perpetuating. The more experiences we create that validate those beliefs, the more galvanized we become in them, leading to the manifestation of ever more experiences in line with such notions. It’s almost a sort of metaphysical tape loop that becomes established and replays continually – that is, until we intentionally click the “stop” button and put in a new tape. That’s the task that Sandra – or anyone else similarly situated – is faced with if she (or they) ever hope for things to change.

In changing her circumstances, one of the significant hurdles Sandra needs to overcome is being willing to ask for what she wants. Her reluctance to do so, again, may be based on previous experience; if she’s been disappointed on this front in the past, she might be tempted to say to herself, “Why bother making the effort?” Her beliefs regarding fear of rejection may be significant enough to keep her from pursuing any of her requests. And this could be especially true in light of the perceived magnitude of the task at hand.

However, as conscious creation maintains, all probabilities are available to us for potential materialization at any given moment, including those that we have historically viewed as improbable. So, to counter what we may have traditionally seen as unlikely, we might be able to achieve success by first envisioning the result we have in mind and then taking action to bring it into being through the simple act of just asking for it.

The act of asking can occur by merely putting the thought out to the Universe or, preferably, by actually verbalizing the request, particularly to those in a position to help make it possible. Giving life to the intent in this way significantly promotes its likelihood of manifestation, a gesture that can prove highly beneficial when charting a new course. Sandra gets her shot at this by embarking on her weekend campaign effort; we can only hope she has enough confidence in her request (and in the beliefs underlying it) to bring about the result she desires.

Interestingly, though, as we wend our way through such ambitious undertakings, we may find that the originally desired outcomes change over time. Somewhat surprisingly, when we reach the end of the road of a particular journey, we may very well ask ourselves, “Do we still want this?” That’s because such personal odysseys can reveal new things to us about our hopes, dreams and aspirations, as well as previously unknown aspects of ourselves, all of which lead to redefining the expectations we seek to realize.

This kind of personal evolution is part and parcel of the conscious creation process, which maintains that we’re all in a constant state of becoming. When such instances occur, we would be wise to honor those changes of heart, for they reflect our true inner being, the qualities that characterize us as the new individuals we have become through the growth and change of our beliefs and consciousness. The question, of course, is, “Will we?” Those are just the sorts of choices Sandra may face for herself after her own extraordinary journey.

Unfortunately, as effectively as this film addresses the foregoing sentiments, as a work of cinema, the production is hampered by execution issues that prevent it from measuring up as well as it might have. Given the nature of Sandra’s task, the narrative becomes somewhat repetitive (and a little dull) at times; the same essential scenario recurs in each of Sandra’s encounters with co-workers, and, even though the outcomes of those meetings differ, the setup is more or less identical in each case. The film also includes a lot of inconsequential filler between these sequences, material that amounts to little more than cinematic padding to fill out a story that, even with such celluloid ballast, still has a relatively short runtime of 95 minutes. What’s more, some of the plot developments are fairly implausible, raising credibility issues about the validity of the overall story line.

For her efforts, Marion Cotillard earned an Oscar nod and a Critics Choice Award nomination for best lead actress, honors that I believe are somewhat ill considered. While the protagonist turns in a capable performance, I believe the accolades she’s received are overrated. The performances by most of the supporting cast are rather underwhelming, too, with many characters coming off as fairly wooden.

Still, despite these shortcomings, the film seems to have resonated with voters in this year’s awards competitions. In addition to the recognition Cotillard has received, the film itself was named a Critics Choice Award nominee as best foreign language film and a Palme d’Or candidate at the Cannes Film Festival, the event’s highest honor. The picture is currently playing in limited run, primarily at theaters specializing in independent and foreign films.

The act of asking may seem intimidating, perhaps even “unnatural,” to some of us. However, if we never avail ourselves of it and what it affords, we may miss out on opportunities to realize dreams and even to further our own personal growth. With that in mind, then, we should look to make friends with this practice and pursue it whenever necessary, especially in those circumstances where it seems particularly difficult. Only by pushing our personal envelopes will we see seemingly unattainable outcomes being reached.

And to think those results might arise from something as simple as posing a question.

Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

Who Will Win This Year’s Oscars

It’s that time of year again – time for my predictions of the winners at the annual Academy Awards. Most of the major honors appear fairly clear-cut at this point, but, even with that said, here are my picks for who will take home statues this year:

Best Actor

The Field: Michael Keaton, “Birdman”; Eddie Redmayne, “The Theory of Everything”; Benedict Cumberbatch, “The Imitation Game”; Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher”; Bradley Cooper, “American Sniper”
Who Will Likely Win: Eddie Redmayne. In this talent-packed category, it wasn’t entirely clear at the start of awards season who would end up prevailing. However, Redmayne has gradually emerged as the favorite in light of his wins in the Golden Globe, Screen Actors Guild and BAFTA Awards competitions. While I don’t believe he has a solid lock on the statue at this point, I would say that his position is looking fairly strong, and anyone else grabbing it away from him would have to be considered an upset.
Who Should Win: Eddie Redmayne. Among 2014 releases, the list of potential honorees in this category was quite long, and those in the running – including those who didn’t get nominated – were all deserving of their accolades. That made picking the most worthy recipient difficult. However, given the magnitude of Redmayne’s phenomenal portrayal of cosmologist Stephen Hawking, it would be difficult justifying not giving him the Oscar.
Possible Dark Horse(s): Michael Keaton. Actually, calling Keaton a dark horse is something of a misnomer, given that he’s the only performer to have beaten Redmayne in any of the awards competitions leading up to the Oscars, having bested the front runner for the Critics Choice Award. That victory, coupled with a Golden Globe Award (which he received in a category in which he was not competing head to head with Redmayne) and a likely win in the upcoming Independent Spirit Awards (in which Redmayne is not nominated), could stand him in good stead as an upset winner. However, if the outcome holds true to form for Oscar races between one actor playing a fictional character and one actor playing a historical/biographical character, the actor playing the historical/biographical character nearly always wins. If that’s the case here, count Redmayne in and Keaton out.
Also-Rans: Benedict Cumberbatch, Steve Carell and Bradley Cooper should be grateful for their nominations. Even though they each turned in capable performances, I don’t believe any of them has enough momentum to push past Redmayne or Keaton. If one of them were to pull off an upset, it would be Cooper, who could prevail in light of the film’s phenomenal late season financial success, coupled with the fact that he’s something of a wild card, having not been nominated in the lead actor category in any of the season’s other awards competitions (thus providing no basis for comparison). Don’t count on this happening, though it’s not out of the realm of possibility.
Who Should Have Been Left Out: Everyone nominated should have been included, though, considering the talent pool vying for honors in this category, it’s unfortunate that only five gentlemen were permitted to make the final cut.
Who Else Should Have Been Considered: There are many other actors who would have made welcome additions in this category, most notably David Oyelowo for “Selma,” Jake Gyllenhaal for “Nightcrawler” and Christoph Waltz for “Big Eyes,” all of whom received nominations in other awards competitions, and Timothy Spall for “Mr. Turner,” who won the best actor award at the Cannes Film Festival. Other candidates worthy of recognition include Chadwick Boseman for “Get On Up,” Philip Seymour Hoffman for “A Most Wanted Man” and Jeremy Renner for “Kill the Messenger.”

Best Actress

The Field: Julianne Moore, “Still Alice”; Felicity Jones, “The Theory of Everything”; Rosamund Pike, “Gone Girl”; Reese Witherspoon, “Wild”; Marion Cotillard, “Two Days, One Night”
Who Will Likely Win: Julianne Moore. This is Moore’s award to lose. Having won the Golden Globe, Critics Choice, Screen Actors Guild and BAFTA Awards for best lead actress, coupled with a nomination for best female lead in the upcoming Independent Spirit Awards (which she’s likely to win), it’s hard to imagine the pattern changing on Oscar night. Having been passed over by the Academy four times previously, this is her year.
Who Should Win: Julianne Moore. Even with some formidable competition from Witherspoon and Pike, Moore still rises to the top as the cream of the crop in this category and genuinely deserves the win.
Possible Dark Horse(s): Reese Witherspoon. The actress’s excellent portrayal received some front runner buzz early on in awards season, but, with the release of Moore’s film, Witherspoon’s star faded from the scene rather quickly. That loss of momentum, coupled with the fact that she has already won (for “Walk the Line” (2005)) and Moore hasn’t, serve to work against her. But, if anyone could surpass Moore, it would be her (but don’t count on it).
Also-Rans: Felicity Jones, Rosamund Pike and Marion Cotillard should be grateful for their nominations. I don’t believe any of them stands a chance.
Who Should Have Been Left Out: Of all the performance categories, lead actress was by far the weakest of them in 2014 (the exact opposite of what happened in 2013). In fact, before awards season began, I had trouble envisioning a slate of five truly worthy candidates. Once the list of nominees was revealed, I wasn’t surprised by the roster, though I was seriously disappointed with one of the choices – Marion Cotillard. As fine an actress as she is, her performance in “Two Days, One Night” has to be one of the most overrated portrayals I’ve seen in recent years. There are several other candidates who would have been far more deserving and should have been named in place of this ill-considered nomination.
Who Else Should Have Been Considered: The biggest snub of Oscar season has to be the exclusion of Jennifer Aniston for her outstanding performance in “Cake”; how her portrayal was overlooked truly escapes me. Others who might have been considered for nomination include Amy Adams for “Big Eyes,” Gugu Mbatha-Raw for “Belle,” Helen Mirren for “The Hundred-Foot Journey” and Kristen Wiig for “The Skeleton Twins,” though the strength of these performances – as good as they are – likely didn’t have enough oomph behind them to put them over the top.

Best Supporting Actor

The Field: Robert Duvall, “The Judge”; J.K. Simmons, “Whiplash”; Ethan Hawke, “Boyhood”; Edward Norton, “Birdman”; Mark Ruffalo, “Foxcatcher”
Who Will Likely Win: J.K. Simmons. This is Simmons’s award to lose. Having won the Golden Globe, Critics Choice, Screen Actors Guild and BAFTA Awards for best supporting actor, coupled with a slew of film critics’ awards and a nomination for best supporting male in the upcoming Independent Spirit Awards (which he’s likely to win), it’s hard to imagine the pattern changing on Oscar night. In short, Simmons has a lock on this award.
Who Should Win: J.K. Simmons. Even with some formidable competition from Hawke and Norton, Simmons still holds all the cards in this category and richly deserves to take home the award.
Possible Dark Horse(s): It’s difficult to imagine anyone overtaking Simmons at this point.
Also-Rans: Anyone who isn’t J.K. Simmons. They should thank the Academy for their nominations.
Who Should Have Been Left Out: As much as I enjoyed Mark Ruffalo’s nuanced performance, I believe that the Academy should have nominated one of several other performers in his place, most notably his co-star, Channing Tatum (see below). While I wouldn’t say that this portrayal was completely undeserving, I believe there were other performances that were more worthy.
Who Else Should Have Been Considered: As noted above, I believe “Foxcatcher” would have been better represented in the supporting actor category by Channing Tatum, who showed a range not seen in any of his previous roles. With that said, though, there was another noteworthy supporting performance that inexplicably received no recognition – Tim Roth for “Selma.” It truly baffles me how this performance was completely overlooked in all of the season’s other awards competitions and went virtually unmentioned in the entertainment press. I also would have considered Josh Brolin’s portrayal in “Inherent Vice” as a possible nominee.

Best Supporting Actress

The Field: Patricia Arquette, “Boyhood”; Keira Knightley, “The Imitation Game”; Emma Stone, “Birdman”; Meryl Streep, “Into the Woods”; Laura Dern, “Wild”
Who Will Likely Win: Patricia Arquette. This is Arquette’s award to lose. Having won the Golden Globe, Critics Choice, Screen Actors Guild and BAFTA Awards for best supporting actress, coupled with a nomination for best supporting female in the upcoming Independent Spirit Awards (which she’s likely to win), it’s hard to imagine the pattern changing on Oscar night. In short, Arquette has a lock on this award.
Who Should Win: Emma Stone. As capable as Arquette’s performance is, Stone really stole the show in the supporting actress category for 2014. She showed talent not previously seen in her prior roles, and she really deserves to win.
Possible Dark Horse(s): It’s difficult to imagine anyone overtaking Arquette at this point. Also-Rans: Anyone who isn’t Patricia Arquette. They should thank the Academy for their nominations, though I must say that I was very happy to see Dern nominated for a wonderful performance that had been overlooked in the season’s other awards competitions.
Who Should Have Been Left Out: As much as I enjoyed Meryl Streep’s performance in “Into the Woods” (and in virtually everything she does), I believe the Academy would have better served its members by nominating someone else in her place. The reason? Given her record number of nominations, as well as three previous victories (“Kramer Vs. Kramer” (1979), “Sophie’s Choice” (1982) and “The Iron Lady” (2011)), she’s simply not going to win for this capable, though not outstanding, performance. That being the case, the nomination is a sort of “throwaway,” one that might have better been bestowed on someone who legitimately has a chance of winning. (I’ll probably burn in hell for having just said that, but I think any nominations Streep receives in the future will have to be for performances that raise the bar far above what she has previously turned in for them to be taken seriously as worthy of victory. Anything that’s seen as merely “adequate” by Streep’s standards is sure to be summarily overlooked, simply because of her track record.)
Who Else Should Have Been Considered: As with the lead actor category, there were many deserving supporting actress performances worthy of recognition, including Jessica Chastain for “A Most Violent Year,” Tilda Swinton for “Snowpiercer,” Imelda Staunton for “Pride” and Rene Russo for “Nightcrawler,” all of whom were nominated in other awards competitions. Others who should have received consideration include Rachel McAdams and Robin Wright, both for “A Most Wanted Man,” and Christine Baranski for “Into the Woods.”

Best Director

The Field: Richard Linklater, “Boyhood”; Alejandro González Iñárritu, “Birdman”; Morten Tyldum, “The Imitation Game”; Wes Anderson, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”; Bennett Miller, “Foxcatcher”
Who Will Likely Win: Richard Linklater. Having won the Golden Globe, Critics Choice and BAFTA Awards, coupled with an Independent Spirit Award nomination (which he stands a good chance to win), Linklater has to be considered the front runner in this category. However, in light of a somewhat surprising loss to Iñárritu in the Directors’ Guild Awards (usually a reliable predictor of the eventual Oscar winner), I don’t believe Linklater has an absolute lock on the statue at this point. Given that he is likely to win the award for best picture (as producer of “Boyhood”) (see below), there’s a possibility he might lose out on the best director award in favor of his “Birdman” competitor. Even though the best picture and best director awards historically run in tandem, splits are known to happen, and I wouldn’t entirely rule out that possibility at this point. Still, if I were to follow my gut instincts, I would have to say I expect Linklater to best Iñárritu in this category.
Who Should Win: Alejandro González Iñárritu. Among the nominees, I believe Iñárritu turned in the best work (even though my favorite directorial performance of 2014 wasn’t nominated, as noted below). Despite the ambitious 12-year undertaking involved in the creation of “Boyhood,” I believe “Birdman” is the better picture, and much of the credit for that rests with its director, who deserves to be honored accordingly.
Possible Dark Horse(s): Wes Anderson. Should Linklater and Iñárritu split the vote for best director, which is not outside the realm of possibility, that could open the door for Anderson to sneak in as a spoiler. I don’t believe this will happen, but I can picture it as a remote possibility.
Also-Rans: Morten Tyldum and Bennett Miller should thank the Academy for their nominations. I suspect neither of them stands a chance.
Who Should Have Been Left Out: Bennett Miller. Very simply, “Foxcatcher” is not a very good film, despite the strength of its three principal performances. How the director managed to pick up a nomination when the film itself wasn’t even considered for best picture escapes me. This slot should have been opened up to any number of other more deserving candidates.
Who Else Should Have Been Considered: In my opinion, the best directorial work of 2014 was turned in by Ava Duvernay for “Selma,” and her exclusion in this category is a glaring oversight. Others worthy of consideration include Damien Chazelle for “Whiplash,” J.C. Chandor for “A Most Violent Year” and Jean-Marc Vallée for “Wild.”

Best Picture

The Field: “American Sniper”; “Birdman”; “Boyhood”; “The Grand Budapest Hotel”; “The Imitation Game”; “Selma”; “The Theory of Everything”; “Whiplash”
What Will Likely Win: “Boyhood.” With its wins in the Golden Globe, Critics Choice and BAFTA Awards competitions, coupled with a best feature nomination in the upcoming Independent Spirit Awards program (which it stands a good chance of winning), this film has to be considered the prohibitive favorite for taking top honors on Oscar night. The picture has a virtual lock on this award, and anything else winning would be a shock.
What Should Win: “Selma.” Without a doubt, “Selma” is the best picture of 2014. Its poor overall showing in the nominations, however, virtually dooms it to also-ran status. The film will have to be satisfied with its award for best original song, which it’s almost certain to win, one of only two nominations that the picture received – far, far, far short of what it deserved.
Possible Dark Horse(s): “Birdman,” “The Grand Budapest Hotel” and “American Sniper.” While I don’t realistically expect any of these pictures to present a serious challenge to the front runner, they could slip in as possible dark horses. The biggest wild card here is “American Sniper,” especially in light of the aforementioned late season financial success and lack of comparative performance in other awards competitions. “Birdman” and “Budapest Hotel” also have potential to sneak in, though don’t expect that, especially if either of them captures the director award (as discussed above).
Also-Rans: “The Imitation Game,” “Selma,” “The Theory of Everything” and “Whiplash,” though all admirable, should thank the Academy for their nominations. I don’t realistically see any of these pictures having a chance.
What Should Have Been Left Out: All controversy issues aside, cinematically speaking, “American Sniper” is definitely not in the same league as its competitors and should not have been tapped as a nominee. And, if it were up to me, I probably would not have nominated “Boyhood,” either; its novelty production history, ambitious though it was, is not enough to merit the film the kind of overblown attention it has been receiving, especially in light of its largely underwhelming story line and generally lame performance by its protagonist.
What Else Should Have Been Considered: Several noteworthy films were overlooked in this category, including “Wild,” “A Most Violent Year,” “A Most Wanted Man” and “Rosewater.” Any of them would have made fine additions to the category and better choices than those that should have been left out.

The Oscars will be handed out in televised ceremonies on Sunday February 22. I’ll post my report card on these predictions thereafter. Enjoy the show!

(Oscar® and Academy Award® are registered trademarks of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences.)

Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

Missing the Mark

Two of this year’s awards season releases celebrate the lives of people whom some consider heroes. Director Clint Eastwood’s enormous box office hit “American Sniper” tells the story of military marksman Chris Kyle, a Navy SEAL sharp shooter who did four tours in Iraq, while filmmaker Angelina Jolie’s modestly successful “Unbroken” profiles the experiences of World War II veteran and U.S. Olympian Louis Zamperini. Both pictures have been hailed to critical acclaim, with “Sniper” capturing six Academy Award nominations (including best picture and best lead actor for Bradley Cooper) and “Unbroken” snagging three Oscar nods. Unfortunately, despite their financial and critical successes, both films in my opinion seriously miss their marks. Why? Because they both come up short when it comes to telling the stories they should have told.

How can a biographical film supposedly based on actual events get it wrong? Easily, especially when it comes to those in charge not seeing what the real story is, what truly makes the narrative compelling and engaging. And, in both of these instances, that is precisely what happened.

Much of “American Sniper” focuses on the protagonist’s wartime experience, with numerous, lengthy battlefield sequences reminiscent of many old-time World War II movies. Those episodes are capably filmed and directed, but Kyle’s story involves much more than just surgically taking out insurgents. His wartime experience affects him profoundly, leading him to suffer from a bout of PTSD that impacts him considerably but that he initially tries to deny. He eventually acknowledges and conquers his condition, though, largely by helping other vets similarly affected. And that last part of his saga is the real story here, though one would hardly know it from the film; it’s handled largely as an afterthought, thrown in with what amounts to little more than cinematic lip service.

Likewise, much of “Unbroken” emphasizes Zamperini’s experience in a Japanese prisoner of war camp during WW II. Throughout his incarceration, Zamperini is subjected to repeated indignities, not to mention a string of beatings rivaling what was portrayed in “12 Years a Slave” (2013). His time in a Japanese forced labor camp is also featured, with seemingly endless depictions of punishment for disobeying his captors. With the end of the war, however, he and his fellow prisoners are eventually released and sent home. And, in a fleeting footnote at the film’s end, the director throws in a passing reference to how Zamperini forgave his enemies. Again, we witness yet another lost opportunity to tell the real story; Zamperini’s saga is not just about showing how many times he can be brutally roughed up but how he could also successfully summon up the courage and conviction to absolve those who committed such horrific atrocities against him.

In both of these cases, I couldn’t help but wonder, what were the directors and screenwriters thinking? Couldn’t they see what the more absorbing plot lines were in these stories? Movies glorifying battle and showing the pain of torture have been made so many times before that there’s really nothing new about them, and these pictures mostly offer little more than modern-day rehashings of these time-worn narratives. However, when one is presented with a story that has a built-in distinguishing twist, a wrinkle that sets the story apart from virtually anything else that has ever been committed to film, how is it that a filmmaker or screenwriter can so blithely overlook what truly makes the narrative unique? These two examples of this glaring oversight are both baffling – and disappointing.

Both movies (particularly “Sniper”) have come under scrutiny for their politics and for the messages they send. There has even been considerable speculation about the credibility of Kyle’s autobiographical account, which formed the basis of the film, in light of other stories that he allegedly told that have since proven questionable at best. In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll admit that I, too, hold my own strong opinions about what messages are being conveyed here, and I’ll confess that my mindset probably colors my views about what versions of these stories were – and should have been – made. However, as someone who is first and foremost concerned with the quality of the finished cinematic products, I’ll limit my comments here to that aspect of the story, much like what movie critic Keith Phipps of The Dissolve did in his recent piece on the subject, “The American Sniper controversy proves film critics matter.”

One reason why I believe the stories in these films missed the mark has to do with the character of the protagonists. Kyle and Zamperini are both complex and multifaceted, yet their stories tend to leave these qualities underdeveloped. They each go through personal transformations (in Zamperini’s case several times), yet their changed selves receive far too little attention to reflect these metamorphoses and the significance they hold in their lives. The films’ failure to capitalize on this further holds back these stories from becoming what they could have been.

When I was a journalism student years ago, one of my professors related a story about a cub reporter who was assigned to cover a mayor’s speech at a town council meeting. When the reporter returned to the newspaper office, the neophyte’s editor asked him what the mayor said.

“Nothing,” the reporter replied.

“Nothing?” the editor asked. “Then what’s the story here?”

“There is no story,” the reporter said. “Somebody shot the mayor before he got to say a word.”

I’m reminded of this anecdote whenever I come upon films like “American Sniper” and “Unbroken,” instances where the story that should be told gets lost in the midst of the story (or lack thereof) that actually is told. I can only hope that the filmmakers and screenwriters involved in these projects learn from that cub reporter’s miscalculation – and get it right next time.

Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

‘Cake’ explores the struggle of letting go

“Cake” (2014). Cast: Jennifer Aniston, Adriana Barraza, Anna Kendrick, Sam Worthington, Mamie Gummer, Felicity Huffman, William H. Macy, Chris Messina, Lucy Punch, Evan O’Toole, Manuel Garcia-Rolfo, Camille Mana. Director: Daniel Barnz. Screenplay: Patrick Tobin. Web site. Trailer.

Holding on to what does not serve us can be fraught with difficulties. When it’s of a minor nature, it can be a nagging nuisance. But, when it’s of significant magnitude, it can disrupt our lives in countless ways. The search for how to handle this dilemma provides the basis for one of the most engaging releases of recent months, “Cake.”

Claire Bennett (Jennifer Aniston) is in a lot of pain, both physically and emotionally. The twin sources of her discomfort are obvious, too, but she focuses almost exclusively on addressing her physical distress, with her psychological anguish receiving little more than cursory attention. In fact, rather than dealing with the source of her emotional suffering, she instead escapes into a routine of denial and bitterness, relying on a treatment regimen of alcohol, prescription painkillers and unrelenting sarcasm in an attempt to quell her pain. By doing so, however, Claire puts off resolving her discomfort and simultaneously alienates those most able to help her heal, including her physical therapist (Mamie Gummer), her chronic pain support group facilitator (Felicity Huffman) and her estranged husband (Chris Messina). She even runs the risk of pushing away the one person who has remained unwaveringly faithful through her ordeal, her loyal housekeeper and caretaker, Silvana (Adriana Barraza).

On some level, though, Claire realizes that her current game plan isn’t working. She contemplates her options, some of which might seem quite extreme. One possible course – suicide – emerges when she learns of the self-inflicted death of one of her fellow support group members, Nina Collins (Anna Kendrick). Claire mulls over the idea for herself, becoming morbidly fascinated with the particulars of her peer’s demise. In fact, she grows so captivated that Nina begins appearing to her in dreams and drug-induced hallucinations, engaging in both profound and silly conversations about the subject. But, by partaking in these surreal dialogues, Claire discovers she may not be as ready as she thinks she is to take that big last step. And, if she decides against that option, she must then wrestle with the big question of, “If not suicide, then what?”

While evaluating her options, Claire also becomes acquainted with Nina’s survivors, her husband, Roy (Sam Worthington), and son, Casey (Evan O’Toole). Through these interactions, she has an opportunity to assess the merits of carrying on – and seeing what happens to those left behind in the wake of a loved one’s suicide. So, while Claire contemplates the advantages and drawbacks of choosing death, she also has an opportunity to do the same with regard to pursuing life. The overriding question thus becomes, “What will she choose?”

As viewers watch Claire’s story unfold, the source of her physical and emotional pain is revealed slowly (though, from repeated images of her body’s many scars, it’s not too difficult to guess what happened). And, even though her physical distress is obviously quite substantial, her emotional pain is perhaps even more palpable. After all, as many advocates of alternative health care practices contend, physical maladies are rooted in emotional and psychological concerns. So, given Claire’s reluctance to deal with these issues, is it any wonder she doesn’t seem to get better? By ignoring the underlying cause of her discomfort, she’s unable to effectively treat its physical expression.

All of this draws attention to the crucial role our beliefs play in the manifestation of our life experience, the cornerstone principle of the conscious creation process. If Claire is content to cling to beliefs built upon foundations of bitterness, spite and despair, her lack of progress at getting better shouldn’t come as any surprise. Indeed, if she ever wants to turn things around, she will have to choose to embark on a different path, one supported by a set of new beliefs aimed at bringing her the relief and inner peace she seeks.

It’s interesting to note how Claire uses the law of attraction to summon individuals, situations and circumstances that enable her to examine both sides of the coin of life and death. Through her respective interactions with Nina, Roy and Casey, for example, she has an opportunity to see what fallout comes with the act of killing oneself, both for the victim and survivors. She thus gets a chance to address some important questions: Will suicide truly eliminate her pain? Will regrets arise if she follows through on such a plan? And what will happen to those left behind? Answers to these inquiries are pivotal to her decision about what to do – and how to rewrite the beliefs that make the materialization of a new reality possible.

Perhaps the most important question Claire needs to ask herself is why is she holding on to the pain? What is she getting out of it? And are the alleged benefits worth the energy and effort she puts into it? Might she serve herself better by letting go of whatever is keeping her mired in discomfort? But, if so, what must she do to realize a different outcome? And is she willing to do it?

How we respond to such challenges goes a long way toward determining what arises as a result. Perhaps it calls for us to step up to the brink to take a look at what our options might potentially entail. Perhaps it calls for us to get mad, to release the anger that’s keeping us locked in place and in pain. Perhaps it even calls for us to forgive ourselves for misperceptions of our own actions, outlooks rooted in “erroneous” beliefs. Or maybe it calls for some of all of the foregoing. Regardless of what it takes, however, we would be wise to take any steps necessary to realize the outcome of truly letting go – and letting a new and better future unfold for us.

Despite some rather obvious shortcomings (occasionally amateurish and clichéd cinematography and a narrative that sometimes wears its message on its sleeve), “Cake” is generally effective in telling its story and making its point. Claire’s acerbic wit works wonders in taking the edge off a subject that might otherwise be seen as unduly depressing, and the always-surprising interactions between the protagonist and her deceased apparition make the material lively and fresh. A fine supporting cast supplies additional color to the story, often in unexpected ways.

The real strength here, though, is Aniston’s remarkable performance. Even though the former television sitcom star has quietly distinguished herself as a dramatic performer in other lesser-known independent films (like “Friends with Money” (2006)), Aniston has truly established herself as a serious artist in this breakthrough role. For her efforts, she deservedly earned best actress nominations in the Golden Globe, Critics Choice and Screen Actors Guild Award contests. Regrettably, she missed out on capturing an Oscar nod, though her portrayal certainly is worthy of such an honor, easily one of the best female lead performances of 2014.

Letting go may not be easy, especially when faced with the uncertainty of what lies beyond what we already know (even if what we cling to no longer serves us). But holding on unnecessarily may prove to be even more damaging in the long run, preventing us from growing as individuals and depriving us of the potential benefits that await us by embracing change. We can only hope that, when faced with such circumstances, we have the wisdom and courage to see things through.

Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

'Get the Picture?!' Now on the iTunes Store!

Fans of Apple's iTunes Store can now find the ebook edition of Get the Picture?!: Conscious Creation Goes to the Movies on this popular bookseller's web site, available by clicking here!

Cover design by Paul L. Clark, Inspirtainment (www.Inspirtainment.com)

‘Force Majeure’ wrestles with expectations

“Force Majeure” (“Turist”) (2014). Cast: Johannes Bah Kuhnke, Lisa Loven Kongsli, Vincent Wettergren, Clara Wettergren, Kristofer Hivju, Fanni Metelius, Karin Myrenberg, Brady Corbet, Johannes Moustos, Jorge Lattof, Adrian Heinisch. Director: Ruben Östlund. Screenplay: Ruben Östlund. Web site. Trailer.

When different types of everyday circumstances arise, we’d all like to think we know how we and others will react. The expectations associated with such situations offer a degree of predictability and reassurance that we find comforting. But what happens when unforeseen events occur? Do we know how we and others will respond? And what happens if any expectations we hold about such scenarios go unfulfilled? Those are among the many thorny questions raised in the recently released, darkly satirical Swedish comedy, “Force Majeure” (“Turist”).

For those unfamiliar with the term force majeure, it’s a French expression (usually, though not exclusively, used in a legal context) that refers to a superior (and often-uncontrollable) force, such as an extraordinary act of nature, like a flood or hurricane. In other contexts, it can be used to characterize an exceptional man-made action or event, one capable of having profound, perhaps even devastating, impact. In the case of this film, force majeure effects arise from both of these sources, some of which are obvious and some of which are more insidious, but all of which threaten to wreak havoc in many ways.

When a young Swedish family embarks on a skiing holiday in the French Alps, they look forward to a fun time together. Tomas (Johannes Bah Kuhnke), a successful businessman, is a good, though somewhat-overworked provider for his wife, Ebba (Lisa Loven Kongsli), and their two children, Vera (Clara Wettergren) and Harry (Vincent Wettergren). The hope is that the trip will allow the industrious breadwinner an opportunity to relax and reconnect with his family, and, at the outset, everything seems to go according to plan. However, circumstances change drastically on the second day of the vacation, when events transpire that threaten not only the trip, but also the family’s future well-being.

While enjoying a pleasant lunch at their resort’s outdoor terrace café, the family witnesses a controlled avalanche, one of many routinely triggered by slope managers to prevent more massive snow buildups from forming and potentially endangering skiers. Restaurant patrons marvel at the sight, snapping cell phone photos and admiring the awesome, though potentially catastrophic power of nature unleashed. Still, as a controlled avalanche, the effects are intended to be localized, with no impact whatsoever on anyone safely out of harm’s way.

A pleasant ski vacation in the French Alps threatens to turn into a tragedy for a visiting Swedish family when an avalanche strikes in the satirical comedy, “Force Majeure.” Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

However, as this (allegedly) carefully orchestrated event unfolds, it quickly becomes apparent that something may be going terribly wrong. The wall of snow crashing down the mountainside seems to grow larger than anticipated, with its massive white outflow headed directly for the unsuspecting diners. With the avalanche racing toward the terrace, the restaurant’s patrons flee in fright. But not everyone reacts as one might expect they would (or “should”) under the circumstances – most notably Tomas, who bolts for cover, leaving Ebba and the children to fend for themselves.

Despite the frightening nature of this spectacle, the event leaves diners largely unscathed; the snow cloud that overspreads the terrace, though larger than expected, turns out to be mostly harmless powder, not the suffocating mass that spectators suspected was about engulf them. Everyone breathes a heavy sigh of relief. But, even though no one is physically hurt, that’s not to suggest no damage occurs, as Tomas, Ebba and the kids come to discover in the ensuing days.

That damage first surfaces during the evening after the incident, when Tomas and Ebba share drinks with a pair of fellow vacationers, Charlotte (Karin Myrenberg) and Brady (Brady Corbet). A casual conversation about the event quickly turns politely ugly when Ebba expresses her anger over Tomas abandoning her and the children during the height of the incident. Tomas claims he doesn’t recall doing so, sparking a controlled argument between the couple. Given that they’re out in public with people they barely know, Tomas and Ebba manage to contain themselves, and the situation seems to dissipate. But what appears to be over is far from settled.

Over the next few days, troubles simmer. In fact, when Tomas and Ebba find themselves in the private company of their newly arrived close friends, Mats (Kristofer Hivju) and Fanni (Fanni Metelius), matters between them resurface and escalate. And, this time, the quarreling spouses’ impact is not limited to the feuding couple; the fallout extends beyond the boundaries of their relationship, with effects spreading far and wide.

As the intensifying story unfolds, questions emerge: Will Tomas and Ebba reconcile their differences? What outcomes will materialize from their contentious discourse? What sorts of ancillary effects will result, and how will they impact those so affected? But, perhaps most importantly, how will everyone concerned respond if comparable circumstances should arise again?

Tomas, a hard-working breadwinner (Johannes Bah Kuhnke, left), seeks to get away from it all on a ski vacation to the French Alps with his wife, Ebba (Lisa Loven Kongsli, second from left), and their children, Vera (Clara Wettergren, second from right) and Harry (Vincent Wettergren, right), in “Force Majeure.” Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

So, if you were faced with the prospect of being overcome by an approaching avalanche, how would you respond? Would you be a noble soul, rushing to protect loved ones? Would you run away in terror to save your own behind? Or would you follow some other course, such as intentionally getting out of harm’s way so that you could be of service to others as a rescuer in the event’s aftermath? Ultimately, whatever course you pursue, it comes down to your beliefs and the choices you make with them, for they will determine what circumstances manifest.

Situations like this often bring our fears to the surface, giving us an opportunity to test ourselves and, more importantly, to examine the beliefs driving those apprehensions. This can prove to be remarkably beneficial going forward, especially among those of us seeking to surmount anxieties that might be preventing us from furthering our personal growth. But, as valuable as those benefits can be, these situations also tend to bring out our beliefs regarding expectations. And, if those expectations go unfulfilled, they also have the potential to shed light on our beliefs concerning judgment.

For example, Ebba feels betrayed that Tomas runs when the avalanche strikes. As a husband and father, she believes, he’s supposed to be a provider and protector in all circumstances, no matter what hazards are involved. When Ebba’s expectations in this regard aren’t met, she believes her husband is shirking his presumed paternal responsibilities. She judges him to be a coward, a view that subsequently puts their relationship in jeopardy.

Such belief-based assumptions thus illuminate our expectations about a host of related matters, like gender roles, which frequently go unquestioned. But is Ebba’s belief about how her husband should respond fixed and absolute? When threatened with a situation where one’s continued existence is at stake, is it wrong to automatically abandon one’s survival instinct, even if it conflicts with long-established expectations regarding gender-based roles? Couldn’t Ebba, as a parent herself, step up to play the role of protector just as readily as Tomas? What’s more, is it acceptable for Ebba to robotically (and conveniently) hide behind the shield of “the fairer sex” under such circumstances? The beliefs the protagonists hold regarding these matters will affect how their resulting reality materializes, for better or worse.

In terms of conscious creation, the means by which we manifest our existence through the power of our beliefs, all options are equally viable, depending on what intents we put forth. So to assume that one belief-based course of action is intrinsically and unilaterally correct at the expense of all others is, naturally, contrary to what the philosophy maintains. Even though it may be true that a particular path is considered preferable or more popular than others, this is not to suggest that it is indisputably the only one that can or should be pursued. Different individuals hold different beliefs, which, of necessity, will produce different expectations and divergent outcomes, and judging others with a tunnel vision view of reality flies in the face of this notion (not to mention being patently unfair).

This is especially important to bear in mind in an age when many of us are seeking to expand the range of what we consider to be acceptable beliefs and behavior. If we cling to a narrower view, the palette of possible outcomes is automatically diminished, leaving many potential probabilities unexplored, something that also runs counter to the basic tents of conscious creation. Those seeking to move beyond traditional modes of behavior, like those associated with conventional gender roles, should keep cognizant of this, especially when it comes to judging the actions and responses of others.

In the wake of a near-tragedy, the marriage between Tomas (Johannes Bah Kuhnke, right) and Ebba (Lisa Loven Kongsli, left) gets put to the test in director Ruben Östlund’s “Force Majeure.” Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

Those under scrutiny for their behavior should bear the foregoing in mind as well. For example, when the family embarks on their vacation, Ebba hopes that Tomas will use the time to relax and reconnect with her and the kids, something with which he historically seems to have had difficulty; given that he spends so much of his time being a provider for his wife and children, he appears to have trouble winding down to enjoy himself. And that may be particularly problematic for him now, especially if he’s expected to continue playing the same provider and protector role during what is supposed to be a time of enjoyment. How can he realistically be expected to unwind if he’s also supposed to continue being duty-bound? What’s more, how can Ebba realistically be upset with him if he fails to meet her expectations on either of those fronts? It’s a no-win situation for Tomas, no matter what he believes or attempts to manifest for himself. And his prevailing withdrawal response shouldn’t come as a surprise, either, given the myriad expectations being heaped on him (mostly by his wife).

This is where the role of overcoming fears comes back into play. If Tomas truly hopes his circumstances will change, he needs to look at what’s holding him back. This, of course, involves his beliefs, some of which most likely relate to his fears about how to proceed. This consideration ultimately affects not only the reality he experiences, but also how well he manages his sense of personal power, both under these circumstances and others.

It’s quite fitting that all of this comes to light in the wake of an avalanche, an event that metaphorically mirrors the internal beliefs of the protagonists. As is hinted at the film’s outset, and as becomes readily apparent as the story unfolds, it’s obvious that trouble has been brewing in the couple’s marriage for some time, even if it has gone unaddressed. The avalanche, however, is symbolic of the weight of all of these issues coming crashing down on Tomas and Ebba. And these issues, like the avalanche itself, threaten to crush the couple unless they take steps to rectify it.

The implications of this are far-reaching, too. As the film illustrates, these issues affect not only the couple but also their children; on a number of occasions, the kids act out, largely because they sense the growing tension in their parents’ relationship and fear that mom and dad may be splitting up. They also affect the couple’s friends, such as when Mats and Fanni begin to question the status of their own relationship in the wake of Tomas and Ebba’s revelations. Indeed, the unleashed “avalanche” of emotions is difficult to confine to their source, especially when they prompt others to question the nature of their beliefs and realities. What starts out as an individual or joint creation holds the potential to quickly expand into a mass event, with implications that have far-reaching impact.

The arrival of Mats (Kristofer Hivju), a good friend of a married couple experiencing relationship troubles in the wake of a near-tragedy, holds the potential to make a complex situation even more complicated in “Force Majeure.” Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

So how are these potentially dysfunctional circumstances “corrected”? One way is to keep an open mind, to consider untried possibilities and employ beliefs related to their manifestation. This becomes apparent when Tomas and Ebba spend time apart from one another. For instance, in one scene, Ebba converses with Charlotte about alternative relationship options, giving her a fresh perspective about what’s possible. Similarly, the somewhat-henpecked Tomas rediscovers his sense of personal empowerment, not to mention his ability to relax, when he joins Mats for some good, old-fashioned male bonding time. The benefits each spouse realizes from these experiences help to prepare them for dealing with their mutual issues. One hopes they’ll be able to work things out.

“Force Majeure” definitely won’t appeal to everyone. Some may see the film’s bitingly satirical approach to these emotionally charged personal matters as being too dark or cynical. However, like many Scandinavian films, the picture’s razor-sharp insights cut to the core of what’s really going on in the couple’s relationship, exposing the truth for what it is, no matter how much either spouse would like to ignore or deny it. The film accomplishes this with an often wickedly funny script and a narrative that relies more on showing than telling. Credit writer-director Ruben Östlund for a job well done.

Even though this picture may not be widely known, prospective audiences have a variety of options for viewing it. It premiered at a number of film festivals and is still available in select theaters, particularly those that specialize in foreign and independent cinema. It’s also available for instant video streaming and on-demand cable TV viewing, as well as for purchase on DVD and Blu-ray disk.

“Force Majeure” has been recognized in a number of awards competitions, too. It won the Critics Choice Award for best foreign language film, and it earned comparable nominations in the Golden Globe and upcoming Independent Spirit Award contests. The picture surprisingly failed to grab an Oscar nomination, but it did earn accolades at the Cannes Film Festival, where it was the Un Certain Regard Jury Prize winner and an Un Certain Regard Award nominee.

The expectations we hold of ourselves and of others can be a dual-edged sword. In some cases, they can empower us, giving us the confidence to know how we’ll respond to certain circumstances. In others, however, they can form the bars of a cage that traps us within the confines of personally imposed limitations from which escape can be difficult, if not seemingly impossible. The trick is to know the difference, and “Force Majeure” helps enlighten us about this. And, when we’re able to make the distinction, we just might find that there really are no insurmountable forces – except for those that we allow to hold sway.

Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

'Get the Picture" Available at Barnes & Noble!

Barnes & Noble fans can now find the newly revised and updated edition of Get the Picture?!: Conscious Creation Goes to the Movies on the bookseller's web site! Both the print and Nook ebook versions are available by clicking here. Enjoy!

'Get the Picture?!' Now on Kindle!

Great news for Kindle users -- the new edition of Get the Picture?!: Conscious Creation Goes to the Movies is now available for the Amazon reader by clicking here. And for traditionalists, the book is also available in print by clicking here. Enjoy!