Brent Marchant's Blog, page 135
December 20, 2014
A Hard Lesson
The first time I saw the trailer for the film "The Interview," I was appalled.
"WTF?" I thought. "What the hell are the producers thinking?" Not only did the preview have "turkey" written all over it, but I couldn't believe the creators were so naive as to think there wouldn't be some kind of negative fallout from this ill-conceived production. I never envisioned matters getting as out of hand as they have, but I knew for sure that there would be hell to pay for those who gave the green light to this bonehead project.
So why was I so outraged? The very premise of the film was in such incredibly bad taste that I had a hard time believing the production had gotten as far as it did. The idea of creating a movie (and a comedy at that) about assassinating Kim Jong-un, a known world leader, struck me as the height of irresponsibility. The situation might have been different if the film was premised on the idea of eliminating a fictional head of state, perhaps even one based on the figure here. But building a story like this around an actual, identifiable person was, in my opinion, unfathomably stupid. What if a North Korean filmmaker had proposed making a movie about one of his country's operatives being tapped to take out a known Western leader -- what kind of reaction would have that engendered? It's a pretty safe bet that it would have been one of righteous indignation, not cavalier dismissiveness.
In my view, the only smart decision Sony Pictures made during this debacle was to pull the plug on the film's release. This obviously had to have been a difficult choice in many ways, but, given the ominous threats that were being circulated regarding its distribution, I don't know that the studio and theater owners had any other realistically responsible choice. I realize this was a controversial decision, especially in light of all the criticism that has been heaped upon Sony and the movie house chains as a result. The arguments regarding freedom of speech and not caving in to intimidation indeed have merit. But what if the release had gone ahead and something happened? Where would those critics of Sony's decision be then? Under those circumstances, I'm fairly sure they would have called for the film to have been pulled, that a "courageous" decision to proceed with release despite the prevailing conditions would have been seen as short-sighted foolishness. (The hypocrisy in all this is simply too undeniable to ignore.)
Those who have said that the North Koreans are now dictating terms to the film industry are overstating the case. Their claims that no one can now make a movie critical of an unpopular foreign head of state like Kim Jong-un are grossly exaggerated. Films that satirize dictators have been an industry staple for years. Just look at Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" (1940) or, more recently, Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "Team America: World Police" (2004). Both were scathingly brutal in skewering their intended targets. But, in both of those cases, the filmmakers never went so far as to propose something so heinous as killing the figurehead in question. That's where "The Interview" crossed the line, and it's entirely understandable how Kim Jong-un and the North Koreans would have been justifiably upset at the film's premise, regardless of how any of us might feel about the renegade leader and his totalitarian regime. After all, if you were intentionally identified as a target for assassination, wouldn't you be outraged?
This incident no doubt has to have been a hard lesson for Sony and the creators of this film. But, quite frankly, I believe they had it coming, given the ill-considered thinking behind this project. I'm hoping that all parties concerned have learned their lesson from this episode, too, that they'll put more deliberate thought into the kinds of film projects they propose and approve going forward. It's bad enough that there are so many productions in the works that make use of the kind of adolescent humor employed here, but, when such puerile comedy is combined with the sort of blatant irresponsibility and lack of sound ethical standing on display in "The Interview," it's utterly embarrassing for an industry that's quite capable of so much better. We can only hope that the movie business comes away from this incident with a new, wiser outlook -- and a commitment not to make mistakes like this again.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
"WTF?" I thought. "What the hell are the producers thinking?" Not only did the preview have "turkey" written all over it, but I couldn't believe the creators were so naive as to think there wouldn't be some kind of negative fallout from this ill-conceived production. I never envisioned matters getting as out of hand as they have, but I knew for sure that there would be hell to pay for those who gave the green light to this bonehead project.
So why was I so outraged? The very premise of the film was in such incredibly bad taste that I had a hard time believing the production had gotten as far as it did. The idea of creating a movie (and a comedy at that) about assassinating Kim Jong-un, a known world leader, struck me as the height of irresponsibility. The situation might have been different if the film was premised on the idea of eliminating a fictional head of state, perhaps even one based on the figure here. But building a story like this around an actual, identifiable person was, in my opinion, unfathomably stupid. What if a North Korean filmmaker had proposed making a movie about one of his country's operatives being tapped to take out a known Western leader -- what kind of reaction would have that engendered? It's a pretty safe bet that it would have been one of righteous indignation, not cavalier dismissiveness.
In my view, the only smart decision Sony Pictures made during this debacle was to pull the plug on the film's release. This obviously had to have been a difficult choice in many ways, but, given the ominous threats that were being circulated regarding its distribution, I don't know that the studio and theater owners had any other realistically responsible choice. I realize this was a controversial decision, especially in light of all the criticism that has been heaped upon Sony and the movie house chains as a result. The arguments regarding freedom of speech and not caving in to intimidation indeed have merit. But what if the release had gone ahead and something happened? Where would those critics of Sony's decision be then? Under those circumstances, I'm fairly sure they would have called for the film to have been pulled, that a "courageous" decision to proceed with release despite the prevailing conditions would have been seen as short-sighted foolishness. (The hypocrisy in all this is simply too undeniable to ignore.)
Those who have said that the North Koreans are now dictating terms to the film industry are overstating the case. Their claims that no one can now make a movie critical of an unpopular foreign head of state like Kim Jong-un are grossly exaggerated. Films that satirize dictators have been an industry staple for years. Just look at Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" (1940) or, more recently, Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "Team America: World Police" (2004). Both were scathingly brutal in skewering their intended targets. But, in both of those cases, the filmmakers never went so far as to propose something so heinous as killing the figurehead in question. That's where "The Interview" crossed the line, and it's entirely understandable how Kim Jong-un and the North Koreans would have been justifiably upset at the film's premise, regardless of how any of us might feel about the renegade leader and his totalitarian regime. After all, if you were intentionally identified as a target for assassination, wouldn't you be outraged?
This incident no doubt has to have been a hard lesson for Sony and the creators of this film. But, quite frankly, I believe they had it coming, given the ill-considered thinking behind this project. I'm hoping that all parties concerned have learned their lesson from this episode, too, that they'll put more deliberate thought into the kinds of film projects they propose and approve going forward. It's bad enough that there are so many productions in the works that make use of the kind of adolescent humor employed here, but, when such puerile comedy is combined with the sort of blatant irresponsibility and lack of sound ethical standing on display in "The Interview," it's utterly embarrassing for an industry that's quite capable of so much better. We can only hope that the movie business comes away from this incident with a new, wiser outlook -- and a commitment not to make mistakes like this again.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
December 19, 2014
‘Imitation Game’ illustrates how our lives follow our beliefs
“The Imitation Game” (2014). Cast: Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley, Matthew Goode, Rory Kinnear, Allen Leech, Matthew Beard, Charles Dance, Mark Strong, Alex Lawther, Jack Bannon, Tuppence Middleton. Director: Morten Tyldum. Screenplay: Graham Moore. Book: Andrew Hodges, Alan Turing: The Enigma. Web site. Trailer.
Much of the time, our lives seem puzzlingly inscrutable. But they need not be if we look closely to see how they follow very clearly prescribed paths that fall in line with what we think, believe and feel. Should we become proficient at that, there’s virtually nothing we can’t come to understand, a point driven home in the engaging new biopic, “The Imitation Game.”
In the early days of World War II, England and its Allies were suffering heavy losses at the hands of Hitler’s war machine. British military intelligence had considerable difficulty getting sufficient information about the Germans’ battle plans in time to prevent the carnage. Enemy forces fared so well thanks to their ability to successfully convey encrypted messages to their troops using a coding system known as Enigma, believed to be unbreakable. But, if the British were somehow able to decipher the code, the game would change entirely.
To reach this goal, the royal military began interviewing the country’s leading mathematicians, cryptologists and linguists for participation in a top-secret project aimed at cracking the code. Heading the project was naval Commander Alastair Denniston (Charles Denniston), a hard-nosed, results-oriented taskmaster, who was quietly and clandestinely aided by Stewart Menzies (Mark Strong), an officer of the supposedly nonexistent military intelligence ministry, MI6.
One of the more prominent candidates Denniston interviewed was mathematics scholar Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch). Despite Turing’s impressive résumé, the commander found this contender to be arrogant and aloof. However, given the need to get the job done, Denniston brought Turing on board his team – but with great reservation and with one eye always looking over Alan’s shoulder.
Unlike the team’s other members (Matthew Goode, Matthew Beard, Allen Leech), who approached breaking the code by more conventional deciphering methods, Turing proposed something radically different – a machine capable of simultaneously processing multiple calculations aimed at cracking Enigma’s unfathomable algorithm. Yet, despite Alan’s unshakable faith in his idea, others scoffed at him, offering virtually no support (especially since his condescending attitude often rubbed them the wrong way). Even Denniston was able to overlook his results-driven focus when it came to Turing’s outlandish proposal, especially since it verged on what he considered to be the height of fiscal irresponsibility (wartime budget considerations notwithstanding). So, if Alan were to realize his goal, he would have to seek the assistance of a higher power – which he did by writing to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, a move that earned him the support he needed, as well as the leadership of the code breaking team.
Turing thus began work on creating his calculating machine. He also found a staunch ally in the team’s newest member, Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley), who shared Alan’s love of numbers and understood him in a way that the other team members didn’t. But progress came slowly, and rumors of a Communist spy lurking in the team’s midst cast a pall over the code breakers’ work. Denniston’s suspicions about the trustworthiness of his team leader thus grew, a circumstance that made life increasingly difficult for him, especially since he was struggling to keep a secret of his own – his homosexuality, which, at the time in England, was still punishable as a crime.
It was under these extremely trying conditions that Alan toiled to carry out his task. Would his creation function as hoped for, or would it wind up a disappointing failure? Would he be able to continue hiding the truth about himself, or would he be exposed? But, perhaps most importantly, would he ultimately succeed at breaking Enigma? And, even if he did, then what? As the prospects of a breakthrough loomed, the answers once sought so earnestly suddenly didn’t seem quite so clear-cut. In fact, the hope that success once promised now seemed to have raised a whole host of new questions, considerations of a nature far more complicated than anything Turing had faced up to that point – and that would continue to dog him for years to come, even after the war ended.
Turing’s complex circumstances aptly illustrate how our lives and our realities truly are metaphorical in nature, reflective of the prevailing beliefs within our true being. Their expression in physical terms is thus a direct outcome of the manifesting intents we employ through the conscious creation process. For instance, as the film’s trailer observes, it takes one who keeps secrets to know how to reveal them, and that’s certainly true in Alan’s case. However, secrets can also ensnare, another circumstance that Mr. Turing comes to know all too well, especially in the years after the war, when he unwittingly runs afoul of an investigation headed up by Manchester Police Detective Robert Nock (Rory Kinnear).
The beliefs we employ to create our realities are often remarkably persistent, too, as seen in flashbacks to when a 15-year-old Alan (Alex Lawther) was a boarding school student. These intents are born, develop and flourish over time, manifesting in myriad permutations through the years. This becomes most apparent in Alan’s fascination with puzzles and codes, an interest he shares with his classmate, Christopher (Jack Bannon). He comes to recognize, for instance, how we often employ encryption methods in our daily lives without even being aware of doing so. The statements we make, he notes, often don’t say what we really mean, prompting him to speculate that the trick to understanding what others truly say depends on our ability to break through those codes, seeing past the surface attributes and examining the genuine qualities that lie beneath. Indeed, one could argue, what better mindset is there for developing the means for fathoming how to break codes?
The persistence of our beliefs can sometimes get us in trouble, though, too. For example, it’s truly sad that we can allow the beliefs driving our prejudices to hold on so stubbornly. England’s entrenched bigotry toward homosexuals, for instance, was so pervasive at the time that it kept many from being able to recognize the accomplishments of those holding to that sexual orientation. No matter what grand achievements someone might have been able to fulfill, those efforts were often summarily wiped out when subjected to the onslaught of an inflexible prejudice.
This is unfortunate, since those whose realities operate outside the mainstream frequently inspire some of our most enlightened creations and ideas. Alan’s conception of a calculating device led to the development of what would come to be called “Turing machines” – or what we better know today as computers. Where would we be now if such outlandish thinking had not taken root? It’s regrettable that Alan never received the recognition he deserved, either (and all because of an aspect of his life that was really no one else’s business but his).
So how do we extricate ourselves from such circumstances? As alluded to above, discernment is key, for it teaches us how to read between the lines to be able to truly see and hear what others do and say. This allows us to look past mere surface perceptions to fathom the underlying beliefs manifesting the prevailing circumstances, enabling us to adjust our beliefs and intents in response. This also enables us to better develop the power of our intuition, a key element in forming the beliefs we employ through the conscious creation process.
Integrity is also important, because it inspires us to follow our hearts, our true selves. Admittedly, that may be difficult, as evidenced by the attitudes (not to mention legal sanctions) inflicted upon homosexuals in England at the time. However, the more we can be true to our beliefs, the more confidence it inspires – and the greater our chances of being able to bring about solutions that ultimately suit our needs. It’s unfortunate that Mr. Turing was not able to enjoy the fruits of his efforts at the time, but the prevalence of what his conceptions have led to is a lasting tribute to his contributions to society, technology and the world at large.
“The Imitation Game” is a very complete picture, well executed on all fronts, with solid performances, great character development, excellent period piece production values and a skillful blending of story lines from multiple time periods. It can be a little formulaic at times, but that’s easily overlooked in light of its many other strengths.
The performances of Cumberbatch and Knightley are truly noteworthy, and they have been lavished with praise on many fronts. Both have received nominations as best lead actor and best supporting actress in the Critics Choice, Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild Award competitions. The film itself is also a strong contender for best picture, having been nominated as such in the Critics Choice and Golden Globe Award programs. In all, it has racked up 14 nods in the three contests, with more recognition almost sure to follow.
The mystery of life need not be so intractably enigmatic if we know how to look at it. We have the means to solve the riddles posed to us if we’re only willing to make the effort to do so. Unlocking the secrets of everyday life, or of even existence itself, can be rewarding beyond measure, and now we have cinematic guidance to help show us the way – and all thanks to the efforts of a previously unsung British war hero.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Much of the time, our lives seem puzzlingly inscrutable. But they need not be if we look closely to see how they follow very clearly prescribed paths that fall in line with what we think, believe and feel. Should we become proficient at that, there’s virtually nothing we can’t come to understand, a point driven home in the engaging new biopic, “The Imitation Game.”
In the early days of World War II, England and its Allies were suffering heavy losses at the hands of Hitler’s war machine. British military intelligence had considerable difficulty getting sufficient information about the Germans’ battle plans in time to prevent the carnage. Enemy forces fared so well thanks to their ability to successfully convey encrypted messages to their troops using a coding system known as Enigma, believed to be unbreakable. But, if the British were somehow able to decipher the code, the game would change entirely.
To reach this goal, the royal military began interviewing the country’s leading mathematicians, cryptologists and linguists for participation in a top-secret project aimed at cracking the code. Heading the project was naval Commander Alastair Denniston (Charles Denniston), a hard-nosed, results-oriented taskmaster, who was quietly and clandestinely aided by Stewart Menzies (Mark Strong), an officer of the supposedly nonexistent military intelligence ministry, MI6.
One of the more prominent candidates Denniston interviewed was mathematics scholar Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch). Despite Turing’s impressive résumé, the commander found this contender to be arrogant and aloof. However, given the need to get the job done, Denniston brought Turing on board his team – but with great reservation and with one eye always looking over Alan’s shoulder.
Unlike the team’s other members (Matthew Goode, Matthew Beard, Allen Leech), who approached breaking the code by more conventional deciphering methods, Turing proposed something radically different – a machine capable of simultaneously processing multiple calculations aimed at cracking Enigma’s unfathomable algorithm. Yet, despite Alan’s unshakable faith in his idea, others scoffed at him, offering virtually no support (especially since his condescending attitude often rubbed them the wrong way). Even Denniston was able to overlook his results-driven focus when it came to Turing’s outlandish proposal, especially since it verged on what he considered to be the height of fiscal irresponsibility (wartime budget considerations notwithstanding). So, if Alan were to realize his goal, he would have to seek the assistance of a higher power – which he did by writing to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, a move that earned him the support he needed, as well as the leadership of the code breaking team.
Turing thus began work on creating his calculating machine. He also found a staunch ally in the team’s newest member, Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley), who shared Alan’s love of numbers and understood him in a way that the other team members didn’t. But progress came slowly, and rumors of a Communist spy lurking in the team’s midst cast a pall over the code breakers’ work. Denniston’s suspicions about the trustworthiness of his team leader thus grew, a circumstance that made life increasingly difficult for him, especially since he was struggling to keep a secret of his own – his homosexuality, which, at the time in England, was still punishable as a crime.
It was under these extremely trying conditions that Alan toiled to carry out his task. Would his creation function as hoped for, or would it wind up a disappointing failure? Would he be able to continue hiding the truth about himself, or would he be exposed? But, perhaps most importantly, would he ultimately succeed at breaking Enigma? And, even if he did, then what? As the prospects of a breakthrough loomed, the answers once sought so earnestly suddenly didn’t seem quite so clear-cut. In fact, the hope that success once promised now seemed to have raised a whole host of new questions, considerations of a nature far more complicated than anything Turing had faced up to that point – and that would continue to dog him for years to come, even after the war ended.
Turing’s complex circumstances aptly illustrate how our lives and our realities truly are metaphorical in nature, reflective of the prevailing beliefs within our true being. Their expression in physical terms is thus a direct outcome of the manifesting intents we employ through the conscious creation process. For instance, as the film’s trailer observes, it takes one who keeps secrets to know how to reveal them, and that’s certainly true in Alan’s case. However, secrets can also ensnare, another circumstance that Mr. Turing comes to know all too well, especially in the years after the war, when he unwittingly runs afoul of an investigation headed up by Manchester Police Detective Robert Nock (Rory Kinnear).
The beliefs we employ to create our realities are often remarkably persistent, too, as seen in flashbacks to when a 15-year-old Alan (Alex Lawther) was a boarding school student. These intents are born, develop and flourish over time, manifesting in myriad permutations through the years. This becomes most apparent in Alan’s fascination with puzzles and codes, an interest he shares with his classmate, Christopher (Jack Bannon). He comes to recognize, for instance, how we often employ encryption methods in our daily lives without even being aware of doing so. The statements we make, he notes, often don’t say what we really mean, prompting him to speculate that the trick to understanding what others truly say depends on our ability to break through those codes, seeing past the surface attributes and examining the genuine qualities that lie beneath. Indeed, one could argue, what better mindset is there for developing the means for fathoming how to break codes?
The persistence of our beliefs can sometimes get us in trouble, though, too. For example, it’s truly sad that we can allow the beliefs driving our prejudices to hold on so stubbornly. England’s entrenched bigotry toward homosexuals, for instance, was so pervasive at the time that it kept many from being able to recognize the accomplishments of those holding to that sexual orientation. No matter what grand achievements someone might have been able to fulfill, those efforts were often summarily wiped out when subjected to the onslaught of an inflexible prejudice.
This is unfortunate, since those whose realities operate outside the mainstream frequently inspire some of our most enlightened creations and ideas. Alan’s conception of a calculating device led to the development of what would come to be called “Turing machines” – or what we better know today as computers. Where would we be now if such outlandish thinking had not taken root? It’s regrettable that Alan never received the recognition he deserved, either (and all because of an aspect of his life that was really no one else’s business but his).
So how do we extricate ourselves from such circumstances? As alluded to above, discernment is key, for it teaches us how to read between the lines to be able to truly see and hear what others do and say. This allows us to look past mere surface perceptions to fathom the underlying beliefs manifesting the prevailing circumstances, enabling us to adjust our beliefs and intents in response. This also enables us to better develop the power of our intuition, a key element in forming the beliefs we employ through the conscious creation process.
Integrity is also important, because it inspires us to follow our hearts, our true selves. Admittedly, that may be difficult, as evidenced by the attitudes (not to mention legal sanctions) inflicted upon homosexuals in England at the time. However, the more we can be true to our beliefs, the more confidence it inspires – and the greater our chances of being able to bring about solutions that ultimately suit our needs. It’s unfortunate that Mr. Turing was not able to enjoy the fruits of his efforts at the time, but the prevalence of what his conceptions have led to is a lasting tribute to his contributions to society, technology and the world at large.
“The Imitation Game” is a very complete picture, well executed on all fronts, with solid performances, great character development, excellent period piece production values and a skillful blending of story lines from multiple time periods. It can be a little formulaic at times, but that’s easily overlooked in light of its many other strengths.
The performances of Cumberbatch and Knightley are truly noteworthy, and they have been lavished with praise on many fronts. Both have received nominations as best lead actor and best supporting actress in the Critics Choice, Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild Award competitions. The film itself is also a strong contender for best picture, having been nominated as such in the Critics Choice and Golden Globe Award programs. In all, it has racked up 14 nods in the three contests, with more recognition almost sure to follow.
The mystery of life need not be so intractably enigmatic if we know how to look at it. We have the means to solve the riddles posed to us if we’re only willing to make the effort to do so. Unlocking the secrets of everyday life, or of even existence itself, can be rewarding beyond measure, and now we have cinematic guidance to help show us the way – and all thanks to the efforts of a previously unsung British war hero.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
December 12, 2014
Follow Me on Pinterest, MeWe and Google+
Pinterest, MeWe and Google+ users can now keep up with the latest about the upcoming release of the new edition of my first book, Get the Picture?!: Conscious Creation Goes to the Movies, coming soon in print and ebook formats from all major online retailers. Check out the dedicated pages on those sites, as well as the existing page on Facebook, to find out more!
Cover design by Paul L. Clark, Inspirtainment (www.inspirtainment.com)
Cover design by Paul L. Clark, Inspirtainment (www.inspirtainment.com)December 11, 2014
‘Wild’ encourages us to look within
“Wild” (2014). Cast: Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern, Thomas Sadoski, Keene McRae, Michiel Huisman, W. Earl Brown, Gaby Hoffmann, Kevin Rankin, Mo McRae, Randy Schulman, Cliff De Young, Jason Newell, Bobbi Strayed Lindstrom. Director: Jean-Marc Vallée. Screenplay: Nick Hornby. Book: Cheryl Strayed, Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail. Web site. Trailer.
How we became who we are sometimes baffles us. We go through life, not fully realizing who we are, what we do or why, a course that can be fraught with complications, misunderstandings and even obliviousness. Getting a handle on our intents and motivations can prove valuable for sorting out such matters, but how? Sometimes it may take something as simple as getting away from it all for a while, a tactic explored in the moving new fact-based drama, “Wild.”
Cheryl Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) is sorely in need of getting her life together. With the untimely death of her mother, Bobbi (Laura Dern), Cheryl’s life falls apart. Overcome by grief and unclear how to cope with the loss of the woman she considered her best friend, she turns to drugs (including heroin) and a string of extramarital affairs in an attempt to ease her pain. Unfortunately, none of these solutions provides the answers or relief she seeks; in fact, all they do is leave her broke, unemployed and divorced from her adoring husband, Paul (Thomas Sadoski). Even Cheryl’s longtime companions, like her childhood friend Aimee (Gaby Hoffmann), and her therapist (Randy Schulman) begin to lose faith in her ability to escape her cycle of self-destructive behavior, worried that she’s spiraling into an abyss from which she won’t emerge.
Somehow, though, Cheryl manages to find a way out – by deciding to hike the 1,100-mile Pacific Crest Trail, a destination that has always inexplicably captivated her. And so, despite a lack of hiking experience and not knowing what she’ll face, she sets off on her solo journey, beginning in southern California’s Mojave Desert and heading north up the coast.
To get her life together, hiker Cheryl Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) embarks on a solo journey of self-discovery along the Pacific Crest Trail, beginning in southern California’s Mojave Desert, in the moving new fact-based drama, “Wild.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
The trip turns out to be nothing like what she expected, but it provides her with just what she needs – an opportunity to look inward to discover her true self and to heal a host of old wounds, some of which have to do with life events other than the passing of her mother and the fallout that came in its wake. To say more would reveal too much of Cheryl’s experiences and the insights that arose from them. Suffice it to say, however, that Cheryl’s trek brings her exactly what she needs at exactly the time she needs it. In fact, the journey itself becomes a metaphor for her own personal odyssey, one reflective of her inner being – the realm of her beliefs – the means by which she manifests her reality through the conscious creation process. It thus gives her an opportunity to address a range of issues, all the while providing an undeniable mirror of her true self. The experience proves quite profound; indeed, to call it cathartic and revelatory would be an understatement to be sure.
Embarking on an extended journey of some kind is often an effective means for getting away from it all to take stock of our lives, especially when traveling alone. The various stops along the way provide excellent opportunities to chart our personal growth and the evolution of our character, personal qualities that are almost certain to change over the course of the trek. Assessing the alterations and adjustments that emerge makes it possible to examine the beliefs that gave rise to them, shedding light on how and why they arose and, one would hope, how they’ve made our lives better.
Bobbi (Laura Dern), the mother and best friend of a hiker seeking to find herself, somehow manages to keep an optimistic outlook about life, despite its adversities, in director Jean-Marc Vallée’s latest offering, “Wild.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
As noted above, such journeys also serve as metaphorical mirrors of our beliefs. In Cheryl’s case, for example, she begins her odyssey in the desert, a place of isolation, limited life-sustaining resources and myriad perils, conditions not unlike those that prevailed in her reality before she began her hike. From there she journeys to the snow-covered mountains of central and northern California, a cold, sometimes-unforgiving landscape that demands much of those who seek to ascend to their exalted heights, circumstances reflective of Cheryl’s quest to better herself and change her existence. And, as she rounds out her travels, Cheryl heads into the lush old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest, a beautiful, abundantly verdant environment that fills her with a sense of renewal and vitality. That’s quite a trek – and on multiple levels to boot.
Of course, getting to that metaphysical promised land frequently takes work. In conscious creation terms, this primarily involves determining which manifesting beliefs need to be disposed of or rewritten. Intents that no longer serve us unduly weigh us down and make forward progress difficult, a circumstance that becomes symbolically apparent by the oversized bulky backpack Cheryl carries at her journey’s outset. It’s filled with all kinds of items she doesn’t need, which only slows her down and makes hiking needlessly burdensome. So it’s indeed fortuitous when she encounters someone who shows her how to lighten her load.
At one of the campsites along the trail, Cheryl meets Ed (Cliff De Young), one of the outpost’s full-time residents, who spends his days catering to the needs of passing hikers. He sorts through the items in her backpack, showing her what she doesn’t need (and, in Cheryl’s case, that proves to be considerable). Offloading such flotsam significantly unburdens her, an exercise that benefits her not only physically but that also symbolically reflects a useful – and necessary – shift in the palette of beliefs she needs to create her reality. Suddenly, Cheryl’s journey has become much easier, both literally and metaphorically.
When embarking on an undertaking as daunting as Cheryl’s, one might think that the foregoing should be obvious. But, given our heroine’s inexperience at hiking, it’s clear she’s not entirely sure what she needs for the trip. That, of course, could be resolved by simply asking others for assistance, but therein lies one of her personal challenges – developing a willingness to seek help when needed. These circumstances thus reflect one of the primary life lessons that Cheryl has drawn to herself to learn through this journey.
To overcome this issue, she must formulate suitable beliefs to materialize appropriate conditions for making that outcome possible. But, to do that, she must first determine why she has hesitated to embrace such intents. Perhaps it has something to do with her childhood, when her younger self (Bobbi Strayed Lindstrom) had to contend with an abusive father (Jason Newell) who frequently created chaos in the household. These disruptive circumstances may have led her to believe that her wishes would be disregarded, that it wasn’t even worth the effort to ask for what she wanted in the first place, because those desires would be ignored or squelched. This experience thus may have set in motion a belief pattern that carried forward into adulthood, one that kept her from seeking meaningful help from others – especially when she needed it most (just ask her friends, ex-husband and therapist).
A tearful separation marks the end of a seven-year marriage between Cheryl Strayed (Reese Witherspoon, right) and her adoring husband, Paul (Thomas Sadoski, left), in the new fact-based drama, “Wild.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
However, as conscious creators know, we’ll never receive what we seek until we make the effort to ask for it. To be able to do that, we must adopt beliefs that asking and receiving are acts that are not only acceptable but essential to our well-being. If this is something Cheryl has previously been unwilling to embrace, then perhaps the conditions of her hike have materialized to help her get over such hesitancy. When she sees that the Universe responds to her requests (especially when approached through its terrestrial emissaries), the act of asking for fulfillment of her needs suddenly doesn’t seem so imposing. In fact, once she gets a taste of it, she just might make it a habit going forward.
Being willing to make such essential requests shows maturity and responsibility, added benefits that come with learning this life lesson. These traits end up serving Cheryl well, too, since these qualities were noticeably absent in her response to her mother’s demise. Bobbi’s death at age 45 was undoubtedly a terrible tragedy, but engaging in irresponsible, self-destructive behavior won’t bring back a lost loved one, either. Cheryl thus needed to develop these crucial traits at some point if she were to ever have a meaningful life as an adult. Again, the beliefs she used to create her journey thankfully provide the conditions necessary for the emergence of these attributes, and Cheryl fortunately has the wisdom to recognize the benefits these previously missing qualities afford her.
Perhaps most importantly, though, journeys like this help us to make peace with ourselves. While it may have been tempting for Cheryl to wallow in self-pity or beat herself up over her past transgressions, she ultimately comes to see that all of her experiences – for better or worse – have contributed to making her the person she has become, and, if she’s content with who she is, then even the “negative” incidents of her past were not in vain.
Cheryl comes to this conclusion during her trek while reflecting on memories of her mother, who always managed to remain optimistic, even in the face of the many difficulties she endured in life. For instance, during one of the film’s many flashback sequences, Cheryl asks Bobbi how she could maintain such an upbeat attitude in the wake of her abusive marriage. Bobbi replies that she wouldn’t have changed a thing, because, if she had, she wouldn’t have given birth to the beautiful daughter sitting before her. That realization was something Cheryl apparently had trouble embracing at the time Bobbi said it, but, now that Cheryl has created the time and space necessary to reconsider it, she can see the wisdom of her mother’s statement. It’s also an understanding she can apply to her own life – where it had been, where it is at that moment and where it’s likely to go moving forward.
“Wild” is an excellent film, far better than its marketing materials make it appear. Cheryl’s story is skillfully told, never revealing too much all at once, making for an experience that is as revelatory to the audience as it is to the protagonist. Viewers witness the unfolding of Cheryl’s odyssey in much the same way as she sees it for herself – quite a feat of movie making, to be sure. Credit the production’s great script and editing, not to mention the superb direction of filmmaker Jean-Marc Vallée, who has followed up his previous effort, “Dallas Buyers Club,” with an offering of equal magnitude and power. The picture is also gorgeously filmed and includes a great soundtrack featuring the music of Simon & Garfunkel, the Hollies, Leonard Cohen, Bruce Springsteen and the Grateful Dead, among others.
Hiker Cheryl Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) travels through the mountains of the Pacific Crest Trail as part of a journey to find herself in the moving new fact-based drama, “Wild.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
Above all, though, the film is exceedingly well cast. It’s a terrific showcase for the considerable talent of Witherspoon, who has already garnered best actress nominations in the Screen Actors Guild and Golden Globe Award competitions (with more likely to come). It’s also an excellent platform for Dern, who has turned in some of her best work in years (and deserves more recognition than she has received thus far). And then there’s the excellent cast of colorful supporting characters who make Cheryl’s journey interesting, including a wily desert farmer (W. Earl Brown), the freewheeling editor of a “hobo journal” (Mo McRae) and a sexy concert promoter (Michiel Huisman) who takes a liking to the wandering protagonist.
To find our way in the world, sometimes we need to get away from it, to explore our inner realms and take a good hard look at who we are, what made us that way and what we want to become. This often involves unshackling ourselves from the constraints of daily living, getting in touch with our core beliefs and feelings, that untamed “wild” side we all too frequently never make the effort to know. But making an effort to embark on such an unrestrained journey may prove to be just what we need to live a life of fulfillment and satisfaction. All we need do is put on our metaphysical hiking boots – and hit the trail.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
How we became who we are sometimes baffles us. We go through life, not fully realizing who we are, what we do or why, a course that can be fraught with complications, misunderstandings and even obliviousness. Getting a handle on our intents and motivations can prove valuable for sorting out such matters, but how? Sometimes it may take something as simple as getting away from it all for a while, a tactic explored in the moving new fact-based drama, “Wild.”
Cheryl Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) is sorely in need of getting her life together. With the untimely death of her mother, Bobbi (Laura Dern), Cheryl’s life falls apart. Overcome by grief and unclear how to cope with the loss of the woman she considered her best friend, she turns to drugs (including heroin) and a string of extramarital affairs in an attempt to ease her pain. Unfortunately, none of these solutions provides the answers or relief she seeks; in fact, all they do is leave her broke, unemployed and divorced from her adoring husband, Paul (Thomas Sadoski). Even Cheryl’s longtime companions, like her childhood friend Aimee (Gaby Hoffmann), and her therapist (Randy Schulman) begin to lose faith in her ability to escape her cycle of self-destructive behavior, worried that she’s spiraling into an abyss from which she won’t emerge.
Somehow, though, Cheryl manages to find a way out – by deciding to hike the 1,100-mile Pacific Crest Trail, a destination that has always inexplicably captivated her. And so, despite a lack of hiking experience and not knowing what she’ll face, she sets off on her solo journey, beginning in southern California’s Mojave Desert and heading north up the coast.
To get her life together, hiker Cheryl Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) embarks on a solo journey of self-discovery along the Pacific Crest Trail, beginning in southern California’s Mojave Desert, in the moving new fact-based drama, “Wild.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.The trip turns out to be nothing like what she expected, but it provides her with just what she needs – an opportunity to look inward to discover her true self and to heal a host of old wounds, some of which have to do with life events other than the passing of her mother and the fallout that came in its wake. To say more would reveal too much of Cheryl’s experiences and the insights that arose from them. Suffice it to say, however, that Cheryl’s trek brings her exactly what she needs at exactly the time she needs it. In fact, the journey itself becomes a metaphor for her own personal odyssey, one reflective of her inner being – the realm of her beliefs – the means by which she manifests her reality through the conscious creation process. It thus gives her an opportunity to address a range of issues, all the while providing an undeniable mirror of her true self. The experience proves quite profound; indeed, to call it cathartic and revelatory would be an understatement to be sure.
Embarking on an extended journey of some kind is often an effective means for getting away from it all to take stock of our lives, especially when traveling alone. The various stops along the way provide excellent opportunities to chart our personal growth and the evolution of our character, personal qualities that are almost certain to change over the course of the trek. Assessing the alterations and adjustments that emerge makes it possible to examine the beliefs that gave rise to them, shedding light on how and why they arose and, one would hope, how they’ve made our lives better.
Bobbi (Laura Dern), the mother and best friend of a hiker seeking to find herself, somehow manages to keep an optimistic outlook about life, despite its adversities, in director Jean-Marc Vallée’s latest offering, “Wild.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.As noted above, such journeys also serve as metaphorical mirrors of our beliefs. In Cheryl’s case, for example, she begins her odyssey in the desert, a place of isolation, limited life-sustaining resources and myriad perils, conditions not unlike those that prevailed in her reality before she began her hike. From there she journeys to the snow-covered mountains of central and northern California, a cold, sometimes-unforgiving landscape that demands much of those who seek to ascend to their exalted heights, circumstances reflective of Cheryl’s quest to better herself and change her existence. And, as she rounds out her travels, Cheryl heads into the lush old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest, a beautiful, abundantly verdant environment that fills her with a sense of renewal and vitality. That’s quite a trek – and on multiple levels to boot.
Of course, getting to that metaphysical promised land frequently takes work. In conscious creation terms, this primarily involves determining which manifesting beliefs need to be disposed of or rewritten. Intents that no longer serve us unduly weigh us down and make forward progress difficult, a circumstance that becomes symbolically apparent by the oversized bulky backpack Cheryl carries at her journey’s outset. It’s filled with all kinds of items she doesn’t need, which only slows her down and makes hiking needlessly burdensome. So it’s indeed fortuitous when she encounters someone who shows her how to lighten her load.
At one of the campsites along the trail, Cheryl meets Ed (Cliff De Young), one of the outpost’s full-time residents, who spends his days catering to the needs of passing hikers. He sorts through the items in her backpack, showing her what she doesn’t need (and, in Cheryl’s case, that proves to be considerable). Offloading such flotsam significantly unburdens her, an exercise that benefits her not only physically but that also symbolically reflects a useful – and necessary – shift in the palette of beliefs she needs to create her reality. Suddenly, Cheryl’s journey has become much easier, both literally and metaphorically.
When embarking on an undertaking as daunting as Cheryl’s, one might think that the foregoing should be obvious. But, given our heroine’s inexperience at hiking, it’s clear she’s not entirely sure what she needs for the trip. That, of course, could be resolved by simply asking others for assistance, but therein lies one of her personal challenges – developing a willingness to seek help when needed. These circumstances thus reflect one of the primary life lessons that Cheryl has drawn to herself to learn through this journey.
To overcome this issue, she must formulate suitable beliefs to materialize appropriate conditions for making that outcome possible. But, to do that, she must first determine why she has hesitated to embrace such intents. Perhaps it has something to do with her childhood, when her younger self (Bobbi Strayed Lindstrom) had to contend with an abusive father (Jason Newell) who frequently created chaos in the household. These disruptive circumstances may have led her to believe that her wishes would be disregarded, that it wasn’t even worth the effort to ask for what she wanted in the first place, because those desires would be ignored or squelched. This experience thus may have set in motion a belief pattern that carried forward into adulthood, one that kept her from seeking meaningful help from others – especially when she needed it most (just ask her friends, ex-husband and therapist).
A tearful separation marks the end of a seven-year marriage between Cheryl Strayed (Reese Witherspoon, right) and her adoring husband, Paul (Thomas Sadoski, left), in the new fact-based drama, “Wild.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.However, as conscious creators know, we’ll never receive what we seek until we make the effort to ask for it. To be able to do that, we must adopt beliefs that asking and receiving are acts that are not only acceptable but essential to our well-being. If this is something Cheryl has previously been unwilling to embrace, then perhaps the conditions of her hike have materialized to help her get over such hesitancy. When she sees that the Universe responds to her requests (especially when approached through its terrestrial emissaries), the act of asking for fulfillment of her needs suddenly doesn’t seem so imposing. In fact, once she gets a taste of it, she just might make it a habit going forward.
Being willing to make such essential requests shows maturity and responsibility, added benefits that come with learning this life lesson. These traits end up serving Cheryl well, too, since these qualities were noticeably absent in her response to her mother’s demise. Bobbi’s death at age 45 was undoubtedly a terrible tragedy, but engaging in irresponsible, self-destructive behavior won’t bring back a lost loved one, either. Cheryl thus needed to develop these crucial traits at some point if she were to ever have a meaningful life as an adult. Again, the beliefs she used to create her journey thankfully provide the conditions necessary for the emergence of these attributes, and Cheryl fortunately has the wisdom to recognize the benefits these previously missing qualities afford her.
Perhaps most importantly, though, journeys like this help us to make peace with ourselves. While it may have been tempting for Cheryl to wallow in self-pity or beat herself up over her past transgressions, she ultimately comes to see that all of her experiences – for better or worse – have contributed to making her the person she has become, and, if she’s content with who she is, then even the “negative” incidents of her past were not in vain.
Cheryl comes to this conclusion during her trek while reflecting on memories of her mother, who always managed to remain optimistic, even in the face of the many difficulties she endured in life. For instance, during one of the film’s many flashback sequences, Cheryl asks Bobbi how she could maintain such an upbeat attitude in the wake of her abusive marriage. Bobbi replies that she wouldn’t have changed a thing, because, if she had, she wouldn’t have given birth to the beautiful daughter sitting before her. That realization was something Cheryl apparently had trouble embracing at the time Bobbi said it, but, now that Cheryl has created the time and space necessary to reconsider it, she can see the wisdom of her mother’s statement. It’s also an understanding she can apply to her own life – where it had been, where it is at that moment and where it’s likely to go moving forward.
“Wild” is an excellent film, far better than its marketing materials make it appear. Cheryl’s story is skillfully told, never revealing too much all at once, making for an experience that is as revelatory to the audience as it is to the protagonist. Viewers witness the unfolding of Cheryl’s odyssey in much the same way as she sees it for herself – quite a feat of movie making, to be sure. Credit the production’s great script and editing, not to mention the superb direction of filmmaker Jean-Marc Vallée, who has followed up his previous effort, “Dallas Buyers Club,” with an offering of equal magnitude and power. The picture is also gorgeously filmed and includes a great soundtrack featuring the music of Simon & Garfunkel, the Hollies, Leonard Cohen, Bruce Springsteen and the Grateful Dead, among others.
Hiker Cheryl Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) travels through the mountains of the Pacific Crest Trail as part of a journey to find herself in the moving new fact-based drama, “Wild.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.Above all, though, the film is exceedingly well cast. It’s a terrific showcase for the considerable talent of Witherspoon, who has already garnered best actress nominations in the Screen Actors Guild and Golden Globe Award competitions (with more likely to come). It’s also an excellent platform for Dern, who has turned in some of her best work in years (and deserves more recognition than she has received thus far). And then there’s the excellent cast of colorful supporting characters who make Cheryl’s journey interesting, including a wily desert farmer (W. Earl Brown), the freewheeling editor of a “hobo journal” (Mo McRae) and a sexy concert promoter (Michiel Huisman) who takes a liking to the wandering protagonist.
To find our way in the world, sometimes we need to get away from it, to explore our inner realms and take a good hard look at who we are, what made us that way and what we want to become. This often involves unshackling ourselves from the constraints of daily living, getting in touch with our core beliefs and feelings, that untamed “wild” side we all too frequently never make the effort to know. But making an effort to embark on such an unrestrained journey may prove to be just what we need to live a life of fulfillment and satisfaction. All we need do is put on our metaphysical hiking boots – and hit the trail.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
December 4, 2014
The New Back Cover Is Here!
Introducing the back cover of the newly revised and updated edition of Get the Picture?!: Conscious Creation Goes to the Movies, coming soon in print and ebook formats from all major online retailers!
Back cover design by Paul L. Clark, Inspirtainment (www.inspirtainment.com)
Back cover design by Paul L. Clark, Inspirtainment (www.inspirtainment.com)November 28, 2014
‘Theory of Everything’ choreographs the grand cosmic dance
“The Theory of Everything” (2014). Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Emily Watson, Simon McBurney, David Thewlis, Harry Lloyd, Charlie Cox, Christian McKay, Abigail Cruttenden, Maxine Peake. Director: James Marsh. Screenplay: Anthony McCarten. Book: Jane Hawking, Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen. Web site. Trailer.
They say it takes two to tango. It’s a concept that we can apply literally, metaphorically and even metaphysically. But nowhere is this notion more applicable than in the expression of the grand cosmic dance, a principle explored on multiple levels in director James Marsh’s inspiring new biopic, “The Theory of Everything.”
In 1963, cosmology student Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) seemed to have everything going his way. As a doctoral candidate at England’s storied Cambridge University, the somewhat-geeky but incredibly brilliant and deceptively charming graduate student was enrolled in one of the world’s most prestigious post-graduate programs. What’s more, before long, he met a beautiful and charming language arts student, Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones), with whom he fell madly in love. And, with the support of his loving parents, Frank and Isobel (Simon McBurney, Abigail Cruttenden), his jovial friend, Brian (Harry Lloyd), and his program advisor, Dennis Sciama (David Thewlis), Stephen apparently had what he needed to succeed in pursuing his goal – devising a simple, eloquent explanation for the existence of the Universe, in essence, a theory of everything.
But no sooner had Hawking embarked on this journey when he was blindsided by a major setback: He was diagnosed with motor neurone disease (also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or Lou Gehrig’s disease), a condition that would cause his muscle function to deteriorate while leaving his mind and brain intact. Faced with the prospect of being irretrievably trapped inside his own body and a projected life-span of only two years, Hawking lapsed into a deep depression. However, Stephen’s peers would have none of that attitude. And, before long, neither would he. He resolved to carry on with as “normal” a life as possible, a feat at which he succeeded beyond measure.
In his personal life, Stephen married Jane, despite their knowledge of what they would be up against. Meanwhile, in his collegiate life, Hawking would become inspired by the theories of physicist Roger Penrose (Christian McKay), which would subsequently lead him to the topic for his doctoral thesis, a paper that earned him his degree in 1966. In the ensuing years, the Hawkings would become the parents of three children, and Stephen would write a number of books, including the immensely successful best seller, A Brief History of Time (1988).
Despite these triumphs, however, life was not without its challenges. As Stephen’s health deteriorated, he eventually developed pneumonia, necessitating a tracheotomy that left him unable to speak on his own. Stephen and Jane also began experiencing marital difficulties as years of increasingly stressful living conditions piled up on them.
But the Hawkings also managed to come up with solutions to these challenges. To give him the ability to “speak,” Stephen was fitted with a special keyboard that translated his words into sound. And, on the home front, even though Stephen and Jane were unable to resolve their marital issues, they divorced and each found new partners; Stephen married his caregiver, Elaine Mason (Maxine Peake), while Jane was wed to longtime friend Jonathan Hellyer Jones (Charlie Cox). But, through their many travails, Stephen and Jane managed to remain friends. And, as for that two-year life-span prognosis, Hawking triumphantly beat it – by 50 years.
So how do individuals like Stephen and Jane beat such staggering odds so convincingly? As in any other conscious creation scenario, it all comes down to our beliefs. Given the Hawkings’ commitment to their convictions, they were able to successfully achieve seemingly implausible accomplishments, despite what the conventional wisdom and others had to say. Their noteworthy personal and professional achievements clearly illustrate the tremendous power inherent in our beliefs, conceptions that can indeed make the virtually unattainable entirely possible.
But what specifically makes our beliefs work so effectively under such trying circumstances? Two qualities come to mind: (1) leaving ourselves open to a range of myriad possibilities, no matter how unlikely some of them may seem, and (2) having an unshakable faith in the eventual fulfillment of those prospects, regardless of how heavily the deck may seem stacked against them. Based on how Stephen and Jane have lived their lives, these qualities have been undeniably present in their beliefs, even if they haven’t always been conscious of them, and those attributes have played a huge part in the realization of the Hawkings’ goals.
Moreover, Stephen and Jane have collectively made full use of the underlying components that drive the assimilation of our beliefs, namely, our intellect and intuition. Interestingly, in many ways, they each embody these traits as well, with Stephen representing the intellect and Jane epitomizing the intuition. Stephen’s profound scientific insights into matters of cosmology and physics have led to his many brilliant theories. By contrast, Jane’s spiritual devotion and love of all things expressive have resulted in her accomplishments as a writer and educator. Together, the synergy of their relationship inspired each of them to help one another in continually pushing the boundaries of their respective capabilities. With elements like this in place, their relationship thus symbolizes the grand cosmic dance that perpetually takes place between the intellect and the intuition in the formation of our beliefs and, subsequently, in the creation of our reality. And, given the dance that Stephen and Jane have engaged in over the years, they’ve jointly choreographed quite an astounding routine, one that’s beautiful, inspiring and enlightening in so many ways.
By engaging in this dance, Stephen and Jane each made it possible to show the other where they excel and where the other is in need of remedial enlightenment. For example, Jane, with her devout orientation, helps to illuminate the intellectual Stephen on the ways of spirit, an issue about which he often vacillated, depending on where the existence (or absence) of a God might fit into his equations for understanding the nature of reality. Stephen, meanwhile, used his knowledge of science to provide a tangible dimension to Jane’s spiritual musings, helping her understand the mechanics of what make her ethereal principles work. And, in their own way, they both came to appreciate the wisdom of Albert Einstein’s contention that “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”
All that aside, one still can’t help but wonder why Stephen and Jane created these trying circumstances in the first place. Undoubtedly there were life lessons involved, and these particular conditions may have been just what was called for as part of their ultimate unfolding, results that may not have been realized under other circumstances. For example, would Stephen have been able to come up with his brilliant insights if he hadn’t been confined to a wheelchair? Indeed, would he have achieved the same results if he had created a more customary lifestyle for himself, one in which had to contend with all the typical responsibilities of a traditional husband and father? Having imposed such conditions upon himself may have been just what he needed to concentrate the bulk of his attention on his work. And yet, despite the creation of these extraordinary circumstances, he was still able to enjoy some of life’s more conventional experiences (like becoming a parent), even if he didn’t realize them in quite the same way as most of us would.
By facing both life’s joys and sorrows, Stephen and Jane also afford themselves the opportunity to experience the full spectrum of what existence has to offer. This, too, is another permutation of the grand cosmic dance, showing the protagonists both sides of life, which makes it possible for them to more fully appreciate the qualities that characterize each. This, in turn, enables them to experience life’s richness and to dance their own tune – and in their own remarkable way.
“The Theory of Everything” thoroughly inspires from start to finish, eloquently showing us what’s possible when we employ the power of our beliefs to create masterpieces of existence. The overall tone is uplifting and engaging, if a bit overly earnest and borderline schmaltzy at times. Nevertheless, this is easily overlooked in light of the picture’s overarching message and outlook.
Perhaps the film’s most notable attribute, though, is its outstanding performance by Redmayne, whose incredible portrayal makes him a very strong contender for best lead actor in this year’s awards competitions. The role’s physical demands alone are astounding, yet Redmayne consistently rises to the occasion in his convincing portrayal of the enigmatic protagonist. Credit Jones as well with a fine performance as the film’s tireless heroine, one who takes on a heavy burden in the search to find herself.
When we go out steppin’ in this thing we call life, we have a wide range of dance moves to choose from. No matter what we select, though, we’d serve ourselves well by making choices that employ a wide range of steps. Doing so will certainly make the routine enjoyable for us as participants and for all who watch from the sidelines. But then that’s what happens when we make use of everything the grand cosmic dance allows.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
They say it takes two to tango. It’s a concept that we can apply literally, metaphorically and even metaphysically. But nowhere is this notion more applicable than in the expression of the grand cosmic dance, a principle explored on multiple levels in director James Marsh’s inspiring new biopic, “The Theory of Everything.”
In 1963, cosmology student Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) seemed to have everything going his way. As a doctoral candidate at England’s storied Cambridge University, the somewhat-geeky but incredibly brilliant and deceptively charming graduate student was enrolled in one of the world’s most prestigious post-graduate programs. What’s more, before long, he met a beautiful and charming language arts student, Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones), with whom he fell madly in love. And, with the support of his loving parents, Frank and Isobel (Simon McBurney, Abigail Cruttenden), his jovial friend, Brian (Harry Lloyd), and his program advisor, Dennis Sciama (David Thewlis), Stephen apparently had what he needed to succeed in pursuing his goal – devising a simple, eloquent explanation for the existence of the Universe, in essence, a theory of everything.
But no sooner had Hawking embarked on this journey when he was blindsided by a major setback: He was diagnosed with motor neurone disease (also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or Lou Gehrig’s disease), a condition that would cause his muscle function to deteriorate while leaving his mind and brain intact. Faced with the prospect of being irretrievably trapped inside his own body and a projected life-span of only two years, Hawking lapsed into a deep depression. However, Stephen’s peers would have none of that attitude. And, before long, neither would he. He resolved to carry on with as “normal” a life as possible, a feat at which he succeeded beyond measure.
In his personal life, Stephen married Jane, despite their knowledge of what they would be up against. Meanwhile, in his collegiate life, Hawking would become inspired by the theories of physicist Roger Penrose (Christian McKay), which would subsequently lead him to the topic for his doctoral thesis, a paper that earned him his degree in 1966. In the ensuing years, the Hawkings would become the parents of three children, and Stephen would write a number of books, including the immensely successful best seller, A Brief History of Time (1988).
Despite these triumphs, however, life was not without its challenges. As Stephen’s health deteriorated, he eventually developed pneumonia, necessitating a tracheotomy that left him unable to speak on his own. Stephen and Jane also began experiencing marital difficulties as years of increasingly stressful living conditions piled up on them.
But the Hawkings also managed to come up with solutions to these challenges. To give him the ability to “speak,” Stephen was fitted with a special keyboard that translated his words into sound. And, on the home front, even though Stephen and Jane were unable to resolve their marital issues, they divorced and each found new partners; Stephen married his caregiver, Elaine Mason (Maxine Peake), while Jane was wed to longtime friend Jonathan Hellyer Jones (Charlie Cox). But, through their many travails, Stephen and Jane managed to remain friends. And, as for that two-year life-span prognosis, Hawking triumphantly beat it – by 50 years.
So how do individuals like Stephen and Jane beat such staggering odds so convincingly? As in any other conscious creation scenario, it all comes down to our beliefs. Given the Hawkings’ commitment to their convictions, they were able to successfully achieve seemingly implausible accomplishments, despite what the conventional wisdom and others had to say. Their noteworthy personal and professional achievements clearly illustrate the tremendous power inherent in our beliefs, conceptions that can indeed make the virtually unattainable entirely possible.
But what specifically makes our beliefs work so effectively under such trying circumstances? Two qualities come to mind: (1) leaving ourselves open to a range of myriad possibilities, no matter how unlikely some of them may seem, and (2) having an unshakable faith in the eventual fulfillment of those prospects, regardless of how heavily the deck may seem stacked against them. Based on how Stephen and Jane have lived their lives, these qualities have been undeniably present in their beliefs, even if they haven’t always been conscious of them, and those attributes have played a huge part in the realization of the Hawkings’ goals.
Moreover, Stephen and Jane have collectively made full use of the underlying components that drive the assimilation of our beliefs, namely, our intellect and intuition. Interestingly, in many ways, they each embody these traits as well, with Stephen representing the intellect and Jane epitomizing the intuition. Stephen’s profound scientific insights into matters of cosmology and physics have led to his many brilliant theories. By contrast, Jane’s spiritual devotion and love of all things expressive have resulted in her accomplishments as a writer and educator. Together, the synergy of their relationship inspired each of them to help one another in continually pushing the boundaries of their respective capabilities. With elements like this in place, their relationship thus symbolizes the grand cosmic dance that perpetually takes place between the intellect and the intuition in the formation of our beliefs and, subsequently, in the creation of our reality. And, given the dance that Stephen and Jane have engaged in over the years, they’ve jointly choreographed quite an astounding routine, one that’s beautiful, inspiring and enlightening in so many ways.
By engaging in this dance, Stephen and Jane each made it possible to show the other where they excel and where the other is in need of remedial enlightenment. For example, Jane, with her devout orientation, helps to illuminate the intellectual Stephen on the ways of spirit, an issue about which he often vacillated, depending on where the existence (or absence) of a God might fit into his equations for understanding the nature of reality. Stephen, meanwhile, used his knowledge of science to provide a tangible dimension to Jane’s spiritual musings, helping her understand the mechanics of what make her ethereal principles work. And, in their own way, they both came to appreciate the wisdom of Albert Einstein’s contention that “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”
All that aside, one still can’t help but wonder why Stephen and Jane created these trying circumstances in the first place. Undoubtedly there were life lessons involved, and these particular conditions may have been just what was called for as part of their ultimate unfolding, results that may not have been realized under other circumstances. For example, would Stephen have been able to come up with his brilliant insights if he hadn’t been confined to a wheelchair? Indeed, would he have achieved the same results if he had created a more customary lifestyle for himself, one in which had to contend with all the typical responsibilities of a traditional husband and father? Having imposed such conditions upon himself may have been just what he needed to concentrate the bulk of his attention on his work. And yet, despite the creation of these extraordinary circumstances, he was still able to enjoy some of life’s more conventional experiences (like becoming a parent), even if he didn’t realize them in quite the same way as most of us would.
By facing both life’s joys and sorrows, Stephen and Jane also afford themselves the opportunity to experience the full spectrum of what existence has to offer. This, too, is another permutation of the grand cosmic dance, showing the protagonists both sides of life, which makes it possible for them to more fully appreciate the qualities that characterize each. This, in turn, enables them to experience life’s richness and to dance their own tune – and in their own remarkable way.
“The Theory of Everything” thoroughly inspires from start to finish, eloquently showing us what’s possible when we employ the power of our beliefs to create masterpieces of existence. The overall tone is uplifting and engaging, if a bit overly earnest and borderline schmaltzy at times. Nevertheless, this is easily overlooked in light of the picture’s overarching message and outlook.
Perhaps the film’s most notable attribute, though, is its outstanding performance by Redmayne, whose incredible portrayal makes him a very strong contender for best lead actor in this year’s awards competitions. The role’s physical demands alone are astounding, yet Redmayne consistently rises to the occasion in his convincing portrayal of the enigmatic protagonist. Credit Jones as well with a fine performance as the film’s tireless heroine, one who takes on a heavy burden in the search to find herself.
When we go out steppin’ in this thing we call life, we have a wide range of dance moves to choose from. No matter what we select, though, we’d serve ourselves well by making choices that employ a wide range of steps. Doing so will certainly make the routine enjoyable for us as participants and for all who watch from the sidelines. But then that’s what happens when we make use of everything the grand cosmic dance allows.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
November 24, 2014
Learning To Trust
Having doubts about your conscious creation/law of attraction experience? Here's one way to bolster your faith. Read "Learning To Trust," my latest Smart Women's Empowerment post, available by clicking here.
November 23, 2014
Check Out Radio Out There
Now airing through November 28 -- check out my podcast interview on Radio Out There with host Barry Eaton. Our lively conversation about conscious creation and the movies is available for on-demand listening by clicking here.
November 22, 2014
Let Me Inspire You Today!
I'm pleased to announce that I'm today's featured brilliance on Inspiremetoday.com! Click here to read more.
November 21, 2014
‘Rosewater’ unlocks freedom from fear
“Rosewater” (2014). Cast: Gael García Bernal, Kim Bodnia, Dimitri Leonidas, Haluk Bilginer, Shohreh Aghdashloo, Golshifteh Farahani, Claire Foy, Amir El-Masry, Nasser Faris, Hamza Muhaisen, Jason Jones. Director: Jon Stewart. Screenplay: Jon Stewart. Book: Maziar Bahari and Aimee Molloy, Then They Came for Me: A Family's Story of Love, Captivity, and Survival. Web site. Trailer.
Fear can be a crippling emotion that keeps us locked in place, unable to move forward in our lives. Under dire circumstances, those feelings can become debilitating, preventing us from extricating ourselves from what we’ve manifested and creating anew. For a foreign correspondent returning to the oppressive regime of the land of his birth, those notions get put to the test, as seen in the fact-based new biopic, “Rosewater.”
In 2009, Iranian-born journalist Maziar Bahari (Gael García Bernal) traveled from his home in London to Tehran to cover the nation’s presidential election for Newsweek magazine, a contest principally featuring hardline incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and progressive reform candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Bahari left behind his young pregnant fiancée, Paola (Claire Foy), believing that he would be gone for only a week. However, the trip turned into a much longer and more difficult journey than he ever imagined.
Bahari’s return to Iran evoked mixed personal feelings. On the plus side, it afforded him an opportunity to visit his aging, adoring mother, Moloojoon (Shohreh Aghdashloo). But, at the same time, the trip brought back painful memories of the incarceration of his free-spirited sister, Maryam (Golshifteh Farahani), who was jailed as a political prisoner by the fundamentalist government of Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1980s, and of his father, Baba Akbar (Haluk Bilginer), who was arrested for being a Communist during the reign of Shah Reza Pahlavi during the 1950s. Still, being the professional that he was, Bahari focused his attention on the task at hand – covering the election.
The 2009 Iranian presidential contest was a watershed moment in the country’s history. In the days leading up to the vote, Mousavi was believed to be steadily gaining momentum, giving the incumbent a genuine run for his money. However, when the results were announced, Mousavi was soundly defeated, an outcome many disbelieved, including Bahari, who received a jubilant phone call from one of Ahmadinejad’s campaign staffers (Amir El-Masry) enthusiastically proclaiming the president’s glorious re-election – before the polls even closed. In the ensuing days, claims of widespread election fraud circulated, and violent protests erupted, which Bahari documented with his video camera and released to the Western press. The intrepid journalist, who operated with official government accreditation, was simply doing his job – but that’s what got him into trouble.
Not long after the release of his protest footage, Bahari was taken into custody by the Iranian government. He was charged with being a Western spy and subjected to intensive, sometimes-brutal interrogation by a “specialist” (Kim Bodnia) seeking to coerce a confession out of him, a nameless captor who Bahari only knew by the ever-present scent of rosewater, a fragrance commonly used for cosmetic and ceremonial purposes in the Islamic world. The interrogator, who Bahari nicknamed for his signature bouquet, used seemingly every tactic imaginable to get his subject to confess, but Rosewater made little progress, especially since the allegations against his bewildered captive were rarely made clear and often based on laughably faulty “evidence.” Given the slow progress, Rosewater was increasingly pressured by his superior (Nasser Faris) to get results, and, over time, Bahari’s resolve gradually began to weaken; he was reaching the point where he was increasingly willing to do almost anything to secure his release.
To cope with these circumstances, Bahari frequently envisioned himself engaging in conversations with his sister and father. Having both been captives themselves, Bahari believed they might be able to provide him with insights from their experiences to help him get by. And that coping mechanism proved valuable, eventually providing him a key to outwit his captors. Drawing upon the advice of his sister, Bahari decided to follow her recommendation that he tap into his sense of internal freedom, a strategy that enabled him to strengthen his will to survive – and to shrewdly turn the tables on those who imprisoned him.
The intimidation inflicted by Bahari’s captors was undeniable. In fact, they came incredibly close to breaking him. But Bahari knew there was no basis behind their contentions, and his personal conviction successfully sustained him through these trying times. Indeed, the power of his beliefs in his personal truth enabled the creation of conditions necessary for preventing his interrogators from psychologically crippling him. And the employment of one’s beliefs in attaining a desired outcome, such as this, is the very essence of what conscious creation is all about.
As anyone familiar with this practice knows, we create the reality we experience through the power of our thoughts, intents and beliefs. And Bahari, as someone who was utterly convinced of his innocence, wielded tremendous personal power with his beliefs, a circumstance that ensured his eventual triumph.
Rosewater and his minions, by contrast, tried to achieve success by employing beliefs that they knew were disingenuous, tainted by unsupported claims, at best, and outright fabrications, at worst. They were so hell-bent on achieving their desired outcome that they were willing to disregard such considerations in their pursuit of success. The use of un-conscious creation (also known as creation by default) in this way rarely yields hoped-for results, especially if the practice rests on a foundation of beliefs tinged with doubt (as is often the case here, as depicted in several scenes in which Rosewater is visibly conflicted about what he’s asked to do, knowing that such requests are inherently foolhardy).
Is it any wonder, then, that Bahari’s captors are destined to fail? It’s a lesson we can all benefit from for those times when we try to force outcomes into manifestation, especially when we’re well aware that we don’t have adequate belief support to make them possible.
Part of the reason for Rosewater’s failure is due to the co-created nature of these circumstances. While he obviously had certain results in mind when employing his conscious creation skills, so did Bahari, and the captive’s objectives were clearly at odds with those of the captor. In an event like this, the presence of contradiction as part of the mix kept Rosewater’s desired outcome from being realized. Of course, contradiction also kept Bahari’s results from materializing, which raises a significant question for all involved – exactly why did they create these conditions in the first place? What’s to be gained from such a seemingly intractable stalemate?
In scenarios as complicated as these, there are often multiple motivations behind the creation of the attendant circumstances. But, in many instances, they often involve the manifestation of conditions needed for each party to learn various life lessons. In Bahari’s case, this scenario enabled him to learn much about fear, the freedom from it and what such liberation makes possible. Rosewater’s experience, by contrast, provided him with an opportunity for a valuable lesson in the perils of un-conscious creation. And, in tandem, Bahari and Rosewater each materialized the means for gaining a significant new understanding of the importance of integrity.
The degree of success we attain in pursuits like those outlined above depends on how well we pay attention at recognizing what we create. After 118 days of interrogation, it becomes apparent that Bahari and Rosewater achieved mixed results in their respective endeavors, and one need only look at the outcomes to see how this played out. For them, like us, when we succeed at a particular undertaking, we’re able to move on to new ventures; and, when we don’t, we often find it necessary to revisit the lesson in question, re-creating comparable conditions in the hope that we just might get it the next time around. In either case, though, it ultimately depends on what beliefs we employ and act upon in realizing whatever outcomes unfold.
“Rosewater” is an excellent debut feature from first-time writer-director Jon Stewart. The picture is something of a surprise offering from the host of Comedy Central’s bitingly satirical Daily Show, which probably helps to heighten the film’s overall impact. Yet, despite the unexpected subject matter probed here, Stewart has nevertheless infused portions of his excellent script with his signature wit, making his points with effectively nuanced humor that never becomes gratuitous. This nicely paced, skillfully edited release features great portrayals by Bodnia and Aghdashloo, as well as Bernal, who has quietly added yet another fine effort to his growing resume of first-rate performances.
When fear threatens to imprison us, we must have the wherewithal to realize that it arises just like any other creation – from the power of our beliefs – and that we can change our circumstances at any time we wish, as long as we allow ourselves to do so. Making such a change, however, requires us to envisage a different path and to draw upon our internal freedom to choose it. And, as long as we retain our vision of such possibilities, we can move forward confidently into the future – no matter what obstacles may seemingly block our way.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Fear can be a crippling emotion that keeps us locked in place, unable to move forward in our lives. Under dire circumstances, those feelings can become debilitating, preventing us from extricating ourselves from what we’ve manifested and creating anew. For a foreign correspondent returning to the oppressive regime of the land of his birth, those notions get put to the test, as seen in the fact-based new biopic, “Rosewater.”
In 2009, Iranian-born journalist Maziar Bahari (Gael García Bernal) traveled from his home in London to Tehran to cover the nation’s presidential election for Newsweek magazine, a contest principally featuring hardline incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and progressive reform candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Bahari left behind his young pregnant fiancée, Paola (Claire Foy), believing that he would be gone for only a week. However, the trip turned into a much longer and more difficult journey than he ever imagined.
Bahari’s return to Iran evoked mixed personal feelings. On the plus side, it afforded him an opportunity to visit his aging, adoring mother, Moloojoon (Shohreh Aghdashloo). But, at the same time, the trip brought back painful memories of the incarceration of his free-spirited sister, Maryam (Golshifteh Farahani), who was jailed as a political prisoner by the fundamentalist government of Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1980s, and of his father, Baba Akbar (Haluk Bilginer), who was arrested for being a Communist during the reign of Shah Reza Pahlavi during the 1950s. Still, being the professional that he was, Bahari focused his attention on the task at hand – covering the election.
The 2009 Iranian presidential contest was a watershed moment in the country’s history. In the days leading up to the vote, Mousavi was believed to be steadily gaining momentum, giving the incumbent a genuine run for his money. However, when the results were announced, Mousavi was soundly defeated, an outcome many disbelieved, including Bahari, who received a jubilant phone call from one of Ahmadinejad’s campaign staffers (Amir El-Masry) enthusiastically proclaiming the president’s glorious re-election – before the polls even closed. In the ensuing days, claims of widespread election fraud circulated, and violent protests erupted, which Bahari documented with his video camera and released to the Western press. The intrepid journalist, who operated with official government accreditation, was simply doing his job – but that’s what got him into trouble.
Not long after the release of his protest footage, Bahari was taken into custody by the Iranian government. He was charged with being a Western spy and subjected to intensive, sometimes-brutal interrogation by a “specialist” (Kim Bodnia) seeking to coerce a confession out of him, a nameless captor who Bahari only knew by the ever-present scent of rosewater, a fragrance commonly used for cosmetic and ceremonial purposes in the Islamic world. The interrogator, who Bahari nicknamed for his signature bouquet, used seemingly every tactic imaginable to get his subject to confess, but Rosewater made little progress, especially since the allegations against his bewildered captive were rarely made clear and often based on laughably faulty “evidence.” Given the slow progress, Rosewater was increasingly pressured by his superior (Nasser Faris) to get results, and, over time, Bahari’s resolve gradually began to weaken; he was reaching the point where he was increasingly willing to do almost anything to secure his release.
To cope with these circumstances, Bahari frequently envisioned himself engaging in conversations with his sister and father. Having both been captives themselves, Bahari believed they might be able to provide him with insights from their experiences to help him get by. And that coping mechanism proved valuable, eventually providing him a key to outwit his captors. Drawing upon the advice of his sister, Bahari decided to follow her recommendation that he tap into his sense of internal freedom, a strategy that enabled him to strengthen his will to survive – and to shrewdly turn the tables on those who imprisoned him.
The intimidation inflicted by Bahari’s captors was undeniable. In fact, they came incredibly close to breaking him. But Bahari knew there was no basis behind their contentions, and his personal conviction successfully sustained him through these trying times. Indeed, the power of his beliefs in his personal truth enabled the creation of conditions necessary for preventing his interrogators from psychologically crippling him. And the employment of one’s beliefs in attaining a desired outcome, such as this, is the very essence of what conscious creation is all about.
As anyone familiar with this practice knows, we create the reality we experience through the power of our thoughts, intents and beliefs. And Bahari, as someone who was utterly convinced of his innocence, wielded tremendous personal power with his beliefs, a circumstance that ensured his eventual triumph.
Rosewater and his minions, by contrast, tried to achieve success by employing beliefs that they knew were disingenuous, tainted by unsupported claims, at best, and outright fabrications, at worst. They were so hell-bent on achieving their desired outcome that they were willing to disregard such considerations in their pursuit of success. The use of un-conscious creation (also known as creation by default) in this way rarely yields hoped-for results, especially if the practice rests on a foundation of beliefs tinged with doubt (as is often the case here, as depicted in several scenes in which Rosewater is visibly conflicted about what he’s asked to do, knowing that such requests are inherently foolhardy).
Is it any wonder, then, that Bahari’s captors are destined to fail? It’s a lesson we can all benefit from for those times when we try to force outcomes into manifestation, especially when we’re well aware that we don’t have adequate belief support to make them possible.
Part of the reason for Rosewater’s failure is due to the co-created nature of these circumstances. While he obviously had certain results in mind when employing his conscious creation skills, so did Bahari, and the captive’s objectives were clearly at odds with those of the captor. In an event like this, the presence of contradiction as part of the mix kept Rosewater’s desired outcome from being realized. Of course, contradiction also kept Bahari’s results from materializing, which raises a significant question for all involved – exactly why did they create these conditions in the first place? What’s to be gained from such a seemingly intractable stalemate?
In scenarios as complicated as these, there are often multiple motivations behind the creation of the attendant circumstances. But, in many instances, they often involve the manifestation of conditions needed for each party to learn various life lessons. In Bahari’s case, this scenario enabled him to learn much about fear, the freedom from it and what such liberation makes possible. Rosewater’s experience, by contrast, provided him with an opportunity for a valuable lesson in the perils of un-conscious creation. And, in tandem, Bahari and Rosewater each materialized the means for gaining a significant new understanding of the importance of integrity.
The degree of success we attain in pursuits like those outlined above depends on how well we pay attention at recognizing what we create. After 118 days of interrogation, it becomes apparent that Bahari and Rosewater achieved mixed results in their respective endeavors, and one need only look at the outcomes to see how this played out. For them, like us, when we succeed at a particular undertaking, we’re able to move on to new ventures; and, when we don’t, we often find it necessary to revisit the lesson in question, re-creating comparable conditions in the hope that we just might get it the next time around. In either case, though, it ultimately depends on what beliefs we employ and act upon in realizing whatever outcomes unfold.
“Rosewater” is an excellent debut feature from first-time writer-director Jon Stewart. The picture is something of a surprise offering from the host of Comedy Central’s bitingly satirical Daily Show, which probably helps to heighten the film’s overall impact. Yet, despite the unexpected subject matter probed here, Stewart has nevertheless infused portions of his excellent script with his signature wit, making his points with effectively nuanced humor that never becomes gratuitous. This nicely paced, skillfully edited release features great portrayals by Bodnia and Aghdashloo, as well as Bernal, who has quietly added yet another fine effort to his growing resume of first-rate performances.
When fear threatens to imprison us, we must have the wherewithal to realize that it arises just like any other creation – from the power of our beliefs – and that we can change our circumstances at any time we wish, as long as we allow ourselves to do so. Making such a change, however, requires us to envisage a different path and to draw upon our internal freedom to choose it. And, as long as we retain our vision of such possibilities, we can move forward confidently into the future – no matter what obstacles may seemingly block our way.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
