Brent Marchant's Blog, page 138
September 12, 2014
‘Hundred-Foot Journey’ charts our personal creative odysseys
“The Hundred-Foot Journey” (2014). Cast: Helen Mirren, Om Puri, Manish Dayal, Charlotte Le Bon, Amit Shah, Farzana Dua Elahe, Dillon Mitra, Aria Pandya, Michael Blanc, Clément Sibony, Juhi Chawla, Shuna Lemoine, Rohan Chand. Director: Lasse Halström. Screenplay: Steven Knight. Book: Richard C. Morais, The Hundred-Foot Journey. Web site. Trailer.
When we embark on the journeys of our lives, we seldom know what awaits us. Yet, if we leave ourselves open to the range of possible experiences available, we enable the potential for a wealth of rewarding and wondrous opportunities for creative fulfillment, many of which are unexpected yet ever so satisfying. Such are the sorts of personal odysseys profiled in the entertaining new comedy-drama, “The Hundred-Foot Journey.”
When an attacking mob destroys the Mumbai restaurant owned by the Kadam family, they lose everything they’ve worked for. But, if that weren’t tragic enough, their grief is magnified by the loss of the family matriarch (Juhi Chawla), who is killed during the incident. With their lives shattered, the Kadams emigrate from India to Europe in search of a fresh start. Leading the way is the family patriarch (Om Puri), who is accompanied by his five children and lovingly guided by the spirit of his departed wife.
The family journeys to the continent not only to search for a new home, but also a suitable location for a new restaurant, continuing the long-standing family tradition. Papa Kadam is eager to open an eatery that showcases the culinary skills of his son, Hassan (Manish Dayal), who has been an ardent devotee of cooking since he was a child (Rohan Chand). But, despite these noble ambitions, the family’s quest is initially fraught with pitfalls, and frustrations quickly mount. However, just as everything seems to be falling apart once again, synchronicity steps in to lend an unexpected hand.
While motoring through rural France, a nearly devastating traffic accident lands the family in the small town of Saint-Antonin-Noble-Val, a village that’s destined to become their new home. With the aid of a beautiful young Samaritan named Marguerite (Charlotte Le Bon), the Kadams are welcomed and cared for in their time of need. And, as they await completion of repairs on their vehicle, they stumble upon the ideal location for their new restaurant, a run-down but otherwise-beautiful country estate. Papa sees the potential of this location, despite the protests of his children, and decides to buy the property.
As the villa undergoes renovation, everything seems to proceed well – that is, until the family meets their neighbor, Madame Mallory (Helen Mirren). As the owner of Le Saule Pleurer, an elegant Michelin-rated bistro, Mme. Mallory condescendingly stares down her nose at the new arrivals, especially when she learns of their plans to open a restaurant of their own. Even though the Kadams’ cuisine does not compete with that of their upscale neighbor, Mme. Mallory is sufficiently appalled at the prospect of a noisy, “unrefined” establishment opening up a mere 100 feet away, fearing it will offend her patrons and jeopardize her acclaimed rating.
Once the Maison Mumbai opens, a gastronomic feud ensues, and the flames of this comical dispute are fanned in myriad ways. Tensions rise as circumstances grow progressively more complicated, too, such as when Mme. Mallory’s sous chef – Marguerite – begins fraternizing with the staff of her next-door nemesis. Or when the feuding restaurateurs try to undermine one another by monopolizing the supplies available from local food purveyors. Or when Mme. Mallory is unexpectedly shocked at the extent of Hassan’s kitchen talents. Matters spiral so out of control that even the mayor (Michel Blanc) is called upon to intervene in the culinary quarrel.
But, all roguish gamesmanship aside, the playfully spirited conflict eventually takes an ugly turn, and neither combatant is responsible for the resulting ruin. With the nature of the situation changed, the feuding parties need to adopt a new stance, one aimed at resolving the dispute and taking steps that benefit them both. And, in devising a workable solution, the warring factions ultimately steer the course of events in a surprising new direction, one that proves a winner for all involved.
The mere fact that this film’s title includes the word “journey” implies that its characters partake in an odyssey of sorts, one that inherently includes a rich and diverse array of experiences. As participants in this trek, they’re bound to be affected and changed by what they undergo. This, in turn, fosters their personal evolution, one of the cornerstone principles of conscious creation philosophy, the means by which we shape the reality we each experience. They thereby reflect the conscious creation notion that we’re far from static beings, that we’re each in a constant state of becoming.
Indeed, as the film’s characters make their way through the story, they transform, becoming different people from whom they were when they first embarked on their journeys. And the evolutionary changes they experience occur in many ways, both outwardly in the physical existence of which they’re a part and inwardly in the realm of their being. Their thoughts, beliefs and intents, the means by which they manifest the reality that surrounds them, take them down new, untried, unexplored avenues of possibility. In many respects, they truly embody these principles in their most basic expression. Metaphorically speaking, they clearly journey much farther than the 100 feet the picture’s title suggests.
In doing so, the characters immerse themselves in experiences involving other significant conscious creation concepts. For instance, they learn valuable lessons related to the intrinsic connectedness of all things. Despite the protagonists’ preconceived notions of everyone and everything being separate and apart from one another, they come to realize through the circumstances they materialize that “they’re all in this together.” When confronted with challenges that threaten their collective well-being, they quickly understand that everyone benefits from a spirit of cooperation rather than competition, a belief that speaks to the innate connectedness that binds them to one another. A change in attitude in this regard leads to creations – and solutions – not previously considered, remedies that ultimately advance everyone’s interests. They discover that drawing upon our intrinsic sense of connection and collaboration pays better dividends for everybody than thoughtlessly pursuing aims driven by conflict, ego, bragging rights or other self-serving considerations.
The parties also come to understand the role of synchronicity in the unfolding of their creative journeys. This fortuitous phenomenon often greases the wheels of our evolution, even if it doesn’t always seem that way. The family’s initial tragedy, their subsequent traffic accident and the unforeseen malice later inflicted upon them all may seem like cruel, capricious twists of fate destined to yield demoralizing setbacks. Yet, in each case, the devastation ends up taking circumstances in surprisingly favorable directions.
The trick in making effective use of synchronicity is being cognizant of its occurrence. Rather than curse the heavens, we’d be wise in such situations to ask ourselves, “Why did this happen?” In fact, to make even more effective use of it, we’d serve ourselves well to put it in a conscious creation context by asking ourselves, “So why did I create these conditions?” and “What beliefs are driving these circumstances?” Once we do this, we have an opportunity to uncover the pearl in the metaphysical oyster.
Of course, this also begs us to become awake and aware of how our reality comes into being and what we do specifically to make that happen. It compels us to draw upon all of our perceptive abilities and all of the elements that we employ in the manifestation process, especially our intuition. This is something Papa Kadam is acutely aware of, especially in his seemingly unconventional communications with his departed wife. But such exceptional contact always pays off, resulting in insights that lead to constructive outcomes. One would hope that his example rubs off on others, too – including us.
The biggest payoff that arises from all these realizations is a deeper understanding of the joy and power of creation. The fulfillment that comes from the simple act of manifesting our desires assumes an exalted position of prominence in the consciousness and sensibilities of those working their materialization magic. This is perhaps most obvious in the experience of Hassan, whose lifelong passion takes quantum leaps in advancement when he taps into the conditions that make such progress possible. His experience provides him with a tremendous sense of personal satisfaction – and an inspiring example for all of us to draw upon.
In driving home this point, the film aptly illustrates how unbridled joy can come from a comparatively simple act like cooking, something many of us may take for granted as an everyday mundane task. Yet “The Hundred-Foot Journey” elevates the commonplace to an art form, one to be savored in every respect, from its inception to its completion and eventual consumption. Indeed, the kitchen is an arena that has received considerable attention in this regard in recent years, both in the plethora of television shows celebrating the subject, as well as in a number of other theatrical film releases, including “Chef” (2014), “Le Chef” (2014) and “Haute Cuisine” (2013). But, then, all of these offerings applaud something that nourishes us, just as the conscious creation process itself does.
“The Hundred-Foot Journey” is fairly typical fare from director Lasse Halström, a mildly entertaining melodrama that satisfies nicely, like a good, home-cooked meal. The picture’s luscious cinematography and capable acting are sure to please, despite the film’s need for some judicious editing and its tendencies toward schmaltzy predictability. But these shortcomings are nonetheless compensated for by Mirren’s deliciously wicked performance and the movie’s many exquisite culinary and landscape shots. In short, if you go in without high expectations about this film, you won’t be disappointed.
Our personal creative odysseys often take us in directions we don’t see coming, but those experiences also open us up to parts of ourselves we know little about or never knew existed. That allows our true selves and untapped potential to emerge, making it possible to fulfill ourselves in ways we never dreamed of. And, under such tantalizing circumstances, who knows what we might cook up.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
When we embark on the journeys of our lives, we seldom know what awaits us. Yet, if we leave ourselves open to the range of possible experiences available, we enable the potential for a wealth of rewarding and wondrous opportunities for creative fulfillment, many of which are unexpected yet ever so satisfying. Such are the sorts of personal odysseys profiled in the entertaining new comedy-drama, “The Hundred-Foot Journey.”
When an attacking mob destroys the Mumbai restaurant owned by the Kadam family, they lose everything they’ve worked for. But, if that weren’t tragic enough, their grief is magnified by the loss of the family matriarch (Juhi Chawla), who is killed during the incident. With their lives shattered, the Kadams emigrate from India to Europe in search of a fresh start. Leading the way is the family patriarch (Om Puri), who is accompanied by his five children and lovingly guided by the spirit of his departed wife.
The family journeys to the continent not only to search for a new home, but also a suitable location for a new restaurant, continuing the long-standing family tradition. Papa Kadam is eager to open an eatery that showcases the culinary skills of his son, Hassan (Manish Dayal), who has been an ardent devotee of cooking since he was a child (Rohan Chand). But, despite these noble ambitions, the family’s quest is initially fraught with pitfalls, and frustrations quickly mount. However, just as everything seems to be falling apart once again, synchronicity steps in to lend an unexpected hand.
While motoring through rural France, a nearly devastating traffic accident lands the family in the small town of Saint-Antonin-Noble-Val, a village that’s destined to become their new home. With the aid of a beautiful young Samaritan named Marguerite (Charlotte Le Bon), the Kadams are welcomed and cared for in their time of need. And, as they await completion of repairs on their vehicle, they stumble upon the ideal location for their new restaurant, a run-down but otherwise-beautiful country estate. Papa sees the potential of this location, despite the protests of his children, and decides to buy the property.
As the villa undergoes renovation, everything seems to proceed well – that is, until the family meets their neighbor, Madame Mallory (Helen Mirren). As the owner of Le Saule Pleurer, an elegant Michelin-rated bistro, Mme. Mallory condescendingly stares down her nose at the new arrivals, especially when she learns of their plans to open a restaurant of their own. Even though the Kadams’ cuisine does not compete with that of their upscale neighbor, Mme. Mallory is sufficiently appalled at the prospect of a noisy, “unrefined” establishment opening up a mere 100 feet away, fearing it will offend her patrons and jeopardize her acclaimed rating.
Once the Maison Mumbai opens, a gastronomic feud ensues, and the flames of this comical dispute are fanned in myriad ways. Tensions rise as circumstances grow progressively more complicated, too, such as when Mme. Mallory’s sous chef – Marguerite – begins fraternizing with the staff of her next-door nemesis. Or when the feuding restaurateurs try to undermine one another by monopolizing the supplies available from local food purveyors. Or when Mme. Mallory is unexpectedly shocked at the extent of Hassan’s kitchen talents. Matters spiral so out of control that even the mayor (Michel Blanc) is called upon to intervene in the culinary quarrel.
But, all roguish gamesmanship aside, the playfully spirited conflict eventually takes an ugly turn, and neither combatant is responsible for the resulting ruin. With the nature of the situation changed, the feuding parties need to adopt a new stance, one aimed at resolving the dispute and taking steps that benefit them both. And, in devising a workable solution, the warring factions ultimately steer the course of events in a surprising new direction, one that proves a winner for all involved.
The mere fact that this film’s title includes the word “journey” implies that its characters partake in an odyssey of sorts, one that inherently includes a rich and diverse array of experiences. As participants in this trek, they’re bound to be affected and changed by what they undergo. This, in turn, fosters their personal evolution, one of the cornerstone principles of conscious creation philosophy, the means by which we shape the reality we each experience. They thereby reflect the conscious creation notion that we’re far from static beings, that we’re each in a constant state of becoming.
Indeed, as the film’s characters make their way through the story, they transform, becoming different people from whom they were when they first embarked on their journeys. And the evolutionary changes they experience occur in many ways, both outwardly in the physical existence of which they’re a part and inwardly in the realm of their being. Their thoughts, beliefs and intents, the means by which they manifest the reality that surrounds them, take them down new, untried, unexplored avenues of possibility. In many respects, they truly embody these principles in their most basic expression. Metaphorically speaking, they clearly journey much farther than the 100 feet the picture’s title suggests.
In doing so, the characters immerse themselves in experiences involving other significant conscious creation concepts. For instance, they learn valuable lessons related to the intrinsic connectedness of all things. Despite the protagonists’ preconceived notions of everyone and everything being separate and apart from one another, they come to realize through the circumstances they materialize that “they’re all in this together.” When confronted with challenges that threaten their collective well-being, they quickly understand that everyone benefits from a spirit of cooperation rather than competition, a belief that speaks to the innate connectedness that binds them to one another. A change in attitude in this regard leads to creations – and solutions – not previously considered, remedies that ultimately advance everyone’s interests. They discover that drawing upon our intrinsic sense of connection and collaboration pays better dividends for everybody than thoughtlessly pursuing aims driven by conflict, ego, bragging rights or other self-serving considerations.
The parties also come to understand the role of synchronicity in the unfolding of their creative journeys. This fortuitous phenomenon often greases the wheels of our evolution, even if it doesn’t always seem that way. The family’s initial tragedy, their subsequent traffic accident and the unforeseen malice later inflicted upon them all may seem like cruel, capricious twists of fate destined to yield demoralizing setbacks. Yet, in each case, the devastation ends up taking circumstances in surprisingly favorable directions.
The trick in making effective use of synchronicity is being cognizant of its occurrence. Rather than curse the heavens, we’d be wise in such situations to ask ourselves, “Why did this happen?” In fact, to make even more effective use of it, we’d serve ourselves well to put it in a conscious creation context by asking ourselves, “So why did I create these conditions?” and “What beliefs are driving these circumstances?” Once we do this, we have an opportunity to uncover the pearl in the metaphysical oyster.
Of course, this also begs us to become awake and aware of how our reality comes into being and what we do specifically to make that happen. It compels us to draw upon all of our perceptive abilities and all of the elements that we employ in the manifestation process, especially our intuition. This is something Papa Kadam is acutely aware of, especially in his seemingly unconventional communications with his departed wife. But such exceptional contact always pays off, resulting in insights that lead to constructive outcomes. One would hope that his example rubs off on others, too – including us.
The biggest payoff that arises from all these realizations is a deeper understanding of the joy and power of creation. The fulfillment that comes from the simple act of manifesting our desires assumes an exalted position of prominence in the consciousness and sensibilities of those working their materialization magic. This is perhaps most obvious in the experience of Hassan, whose lifelong passion takes quantum leaps in advancement when he taps into the conditions that make such progress possible. His experience provides him with a tremendous sense of personal satisfaction – and an inspiring example for all of us to draw upon.
In driving home this point, the film aptly illustrates how unbridled joy can come from a comparatively simple act like cooking, something many of us may take for granted as an everyday mundane task. Yet “The Hundred-Foot Journey” elevates the commonplace to an art form, one to be savored in every respect, from its inception to its completion and eventual consumption. Indeed, the kitchen is an arena that has received considerable attention in this regard in recent years, both in the plethora of television shows celebrating the subject, as well as in a number of other theatrical film releases, including “Chef” (2014), “Le Chef” (2014) and “Haute Cuisine” (2013). But, then, all of these offerings applaud something that nourishes us, just as the conscious creation process itself does.
“The Hundred-Foot Journey” is fairly typical fare from director Lasse Halström, a mildly entertaining melodrama that satisfies nicely, like a good, home-cooked meal. The picture’s luscious cinematography and capable acting are sure to please, despite the film’s need for some judicious editing and its tendencies toward schmaltzy predictability. But these shortcomings are nonetheless compensated for by Mirren’s deliciously wicked performance and the movie’s many exquisite culinary and landscape shots. In short, if you go in without high expectations about this film, you won’t be disappointed.
Our personal creative odysseys often take us in directions we don’t see coming, but those experiences also open us up to parts of ourselves we know little about or never knew existed. That allows our true selves and untapped potential to emerge, making it possible to fulfill ourselves in ways we never dreamed of. And, under such tantalizing circumstances, who knows what we might cook up.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
September 10, 2014
Catch Me on Writers' Voices!
Please tune in this Friday, September 12 at 2 pm Eastern, when I'll be a guest on the Writers' Voices radio show on KRUU FM in Fairfield, IA. Tune in locally at 100.1 FM or over the Internet by clicking here. Join me and host Monica Hadley for a lively conversation about conscious creation in the movies. And, for further information about the show, visit the Writers' Voices web site.
August 29, 2014
‘The Giver’ probes the essence of human nature
“The Giver” (2014). Cast: Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Brenton Thwaites, Alexander Skarsgård, Katie Holmes, Odeya Rush, Cameron Monaghan, Taylor Swift, Emily Tremblay. Director: Phillip Noyce. Screenplay: Michael Mitnick and Robert B. Weide. Book: Lois Lowry, The Giver. Web site. Trailer.
Like an enormous dam holding back a huge reservoir, efforts aimed at intentionally quashing the essence of human nature pose quite a challenge for those seeking to implement them. And, should the occasion arise when those metaphorical floodgates need to be opened, those in charge of monitoring those relief mechanisms had better be prepared for what flows through them. The consequences of mishandling such an important task could be devastating for those seeking to maintain control. But, then, perhaps control isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, a notion capably explored in the new sci-fi adventure, “The Giver,” based on the best-selling young adult novel by author Lois Lowry.
Life in “the Community,” a pristine, well-mannered society of the future, seems like a utopian enclave. But, as quickly becomes apparent, looks can be deceiving. While political, social and economic problems like war, famine and poverty have been eradicated – systematically dispensed with in the wake of “the Ruin” – those benefits come with a cost:
• Everyone’s behavior is rigidly controlled, and their actions are tightly monitored, with Community residents receiving daily drug injections to ensure tranquility and cooperation – not to mention quietly coerced compliance.
• Nearly all decisions – both big and small – are handled by a Council of Elders, with major pronouncements delivered with ostensibly convincing sincerity by the Community’s Chief Elder (Meryl Streep).
• Even though family units resemble the traditional model, their makeup is determined by considerations other than biology – or even basic emotional bonds.
• Each resident’s calling in life is predetermined, with lifetime vocational assignments doled out upon turning age 18. Community members retain these assignments until retirement, when they are quietly relocated to a new life in “Elsewhere.”
Seems like paradise, right? Community members apparently believe so. But that’s all about to change with the coming of age of a gifted young man named Jonas (Brenton Thwaites).
During a ceremony in which lifetime work assignments are handed out, Jonas learns that he has been given a special designation, “the Receiver of Memories.” Unlike his peers, who are assigned comparatively mundane tasks like groundskeeper and child nurturer, Jonas is given this charge because of his unique capabilities, most notably his gift of second sight, an ability to see beyond the ordinary and accepted aspects of daily life. He’s chosen for this task because only one who possesses such qualities is deemed worthy of such a challenging – and potentially dangerous – assignment.
When Jonas begins his training, he’s assigned to work with the current holder of memories. And, since Jonas is to become the Receiver of such information, the one charged with imparting it to him is known simply as “the Giver” (Jeff Bridges), an aging mentor who is all too familiar with the arduous responsibility Jonas is about to assume.
Jonas (Brenton Thwaites, right), the newly appointed Receiver of Memories for a future society known as the Community, learns the ropes from an aging mentor simply known as the Giver (Jeff Bridges, left) in the new sci-fi adventure, “The Giver.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.
In the course of his training, Jonas learns many things previously unknown to him (or to any of his peers for that matter). As the Receiver of Memories, he’s exposed to knowledge of all the aforementioned ills that have been purged from Community life and consciousness. But, at the same time, he also discovers the many joys that have been expunged from the residents’ awareness. Beneficial and uplifting concepts that we take for granted, like love and happiness, are totally foreign to Jonas and his peers. What’s more, Jonas is strictly forbidden from sharing these ideas with them; his knowledge is only to be used for “consultations” with the Elders when they need memory-related advice for solving problems. But, thanks to the aid of the Giver, Jonas and his fellow residents are about to embark on an odyssey filled with remarkable revelations.
Of course, there are tremendous risks in what Jonas is about to undertake. The Giver is well aware of this, too, especially in light of his unfortunate experience with a previous Receiver (Taylor Swift), who struggled with the power of such knowledge and its attendant ramifications. On top of this, those interested in protecting the status quo frown upon the dissemination of such radical ideas, and they’re willing to take whatever steps are necessary to preserve their way of life. They even try turning Jonas’s friends (Odeya Rush, Cameron Monaghan) and family (Alexander Skarsgård, Katie Holmes, Emily Tremblay) against him to get him to abandon his plans. But, considering the risks – and rewards – involved, Jonas forges ahead, despite a highly uncertain future.
The quietly coercive Chief Elder (Meryl Streep, foreground, left) of a future society known as the Community tries to thwart plans for reform initiated by the aging Receiver of Memories, a.k.a. the Giver (Jeff Bridges, foreground, right) in director Phillip Noyce’s “The Giver.” Photo by David Bloomer, courtesy of The Weinstein Co.
Those well-versed in conscious creation, the means by which we create the reality we experience, understand that our beliefs determine what unfolds before us. The nature of those beliefs, in turn, depends on the input afforded them by our intellect and intuition. Both are essential to make the process work effectively. And that’s where the Community’s founders got themselves, the residents and their progeny into trouble.
Given the virtual absence of emotion and feeling – hallmarks of the intuitive side of the belief equation – in the Community, it’s obvious that those who established the foundations of this new society did so on the basis of logic and reason, key indicia of the intellect. Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with the intellect, but relying upon it exclusively to determine the nature of one’s beliefs (and everything that stems from them) is a recipe for disaster (especially when employed on a scale as wide as that of an entire population). It stifles creativity and even hampers the functioning of everyday skills, like basic problem-solving (as is apparent from the Elders’ need to have someone with the Receiver’s knowledge on hand to begin with). And, should glimmers of awareness of these “volatile” concepts begin to emerge, those who try to squelch them have no idea what they’re up against.
So why are the Elders so preoccupied with stifling such “radical” notions? They sincerely believe that the fallout from the Ruin was so intolerable that they must take all necessary steps to prevent its recurrence. The cure for that, in their estimation, is to rein in the causes that prompted it, most notably the power of choice. The Elders have successfully convinced themselves that this fundamental human birthright is the root of all of the ills that gave rise to the Ruin and that it must be contained at all costs. Choice, they surmise, leads to differences, which lead to comparison, which then lead to jealousy, envy and greed, qualities that ultimately brought down the world of before. So, by eliminating the source of the problem, they maintain, the problem is itself eradicated. Or so they think. Indeed, as the Chief Elder ardently observes (and sincerely believes), “When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong.”
As parents of a gifted young man, a concerned Mother (Katie Holmes, left) and Father (Alexander Skarsgård, right) grow worried when their son embarks on what appear to be socially unacceptable plans in the young adult sci-fi adventure, “The Giver.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.
In light of human history, some would contend that a good argument could be made for the Chief Elder’s outlook. However, eliminating choice carries other consequences. It stifles such natural human tendencies as the need and desire to create, to evolve, to overcome limitations and to pursue our intrinsic constant state of becoming. By removing such abilities from our manifestation toolbox, we leave ourselves open to being unprepared for the challenges we face, some of which could have implications tied to the nature of our humanity – and possibly even our very survival.
It’s futile to think these innate stirrings can be suppressed indefinitely. As has been demonstrated previously through the experiences of the inhabitants of other would-be utopias, such as those portrayed in films like “Brave New World” (1998), “Logan’s Run” (1976), “THX 1138” (1971) and even “TRON: Legacy” (2010), the denial of our inherent nature as beings whose fundamental purpose is to live to create is destined to fail. That can be a difficult lesson for those who would attempt to thwart us in the pursuit of our basic human mission, but it’s one that must come to pass for those who try to block its fulfillment.
Haunted by the painful memories of a previous protégé (Taylor Swift, right) unprepared for her responsibilities, the aging Receiver of Memories (Jeff Bridges, left) recalls a happier time in their ill-fated relationship in the movie adaptation of author Lois Lowry’s “The Giver.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.
The young adult dystopian future movie genre has been somewhat overworked in recent years with the release of such pictures as “The Hunger Games” films (2012, 2013) and “Divergent” (2014), among others, but “The Giver” nevertheless does a respectable job of delivering the goods. Its inventive cinematography, offering a carefully crafted mix of black-and-white and color photography reminiscent of the techniques used in “Pleasantville” (1998), lends a poetic touch to the narrative (especially in its duotone depiction of the Community, a world where virtually everything is metaphorically seen in black and white). Capable acting and an emotive background score complement the imagery well.
With that said, however, the film’s writing leaves much to be desired at times. Some sequences go on too long, others are underexplained and some are wholly improbable, even with a healthy stretch of the imagination. A half-hearted attempt at incorporating a love story between Jonas and his friend Fiona (Rush) comes up short, too. But, even with these failings, the picture still provides ample fodder for contemplation and discussion, especially for those who are new to the metaphysical concepts explored here, the young adult audience at which this film (and its source material) are targeted.
With the intention of creating a better life for his friend Fiona (Odeya Rush, right), Jonas, the newly appointed Receiver of Memories (Brenton Thwaites, left), prepares to embark on a perilous personal journey in “The Giver.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.
In an age when so many of us have been so willing to surrender so much for the sake of comfort and security, “The Giver” should serve as a cautionary tale about what we stand to lose if we give away too much. It’s likely that those losses ultimately won’t endure, given the power of human nature, but recapturing what we willingly forfeit may be a major hurdle to surmount. So, in light of that, we should keep a finger on the button to those aforementioned floodgates – just in case we need it.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Like an enormous dam holding back a huge reservoir, efforts aimed at intentionally quashing the essence of human nature pose quite a challenge for those seeking to implement them. And, should the occasion arise when those metaphorical floodgates need to be opened, those in charge of monitoring those relief mechanisms had better be prepared for what flows through them. The consequences of mishandling such an important task could be devastating for those seeking to maintain control. But, then, perhaps control isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, a notion capably explored in the new sci-fi adventure, “The Giver,” based on the best-selling young adult novel by author Lois Lowry.
Life in “the Community,” a pristine, well-mannered society of the future, seems like a utopian enclave. But, as quickly becomes apparent, looks can be deceiving. While political, social and economic problems like war, famine and poverty have been eradicated – systematically dispensed with in the wake of “the Ruin” – those benefits come with a cost:
• Everyone’s behavior is rigidly controlled, and their actions are tightly monitored, with Community residents receiving daily drug injections to ensure tranquility and cooperation – not to mention quietly coerced compliance.
• Nearly all decisions – both big and small – are handled by a Council of Elders, with major pronouncements delivered with ostensibly convincing sincerity by the Community’s Chief Elder (Meryl Streep).
• Even though family units resemble the traditional model, their makeup is determined by considerations other than biology – or even basic emotional bonds.
• Each resident’s calling in life is predetermined, with lifetime vocational assignments doled out upon turning age 18. Community members retain these assignments until retirement, when they are quietly relocated to a new life in “Elsewhere.”
Seems like paradise, right? Community members apparently believe so. But that’s all about to change with the coming of age of a gifted young man named Jonas (Brenton Thwaites).
During a ceremony in which lifetime work assignments are handed out, Jonas learns that he has been given a special designation, “the Receiver of Memories.” Unlike his peers, who are assigned comparatively mundane tasks like groundskeeper and child nurturer, Jonas is given this charge because of his unique capabilities, most notably his gift of second sight, an ability to see beyond the ordinary and accepted aspects of daily life. He’s chosen for this task because only one who possesses such qualities is deemed worthy of such a challenging – and potentially dangerous – assignment.
When Jonas begins his training, he’s assigned to work with the current holder of memories. And, since Jonas is to become the Receiver of such information, the one charged with imparting it to him is known simply as “the Giver” (Jeff Bridges), an aging mentor who is all too familiar with the arduous responsibility Jonas is about to assume.
Jonas (Brenton Thwaites, right), the newly appointed Receiver of Memories for a future society known as the Community, learns the ropes from an aging mentor simply known as the Giver (Jeff Bridges, left) in the new sci-fi adventure, “The Giver.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.In the course of his training, Jonas learns many things previously unknown to him (or to any of his peers for that matter). As the Receiver of Memories, he’s exposed to knowledge of all the aforementioned ills that have been purged from Community life and consciousness. But, at the same time, he also discovers the many joys that have been expunged from the residents’ awareness. Beneficial and uplifting concepts that we take for granted, like love and happiness, are totally foreign to Jonas and his peers. What’s more, Jonas is strictly forbidden from sharing these ideas with them; his knowledge is only to be used for “consultations” with the Elders when they need memory-related advice for solving problems. But, thanks to the aid of the Giver, Jonas and his fellow residents are about to embark on an odyssey filled with remarkable revelations.
Of course, there are tremendous risks in what Jonas is about to undertake. The Giver is well aware of this, too, especially in light of his unfortunate experience with a previous Receiver (Taylor Swift), who struggled with the power of such knowledge and its attendant ramifications. On top of this, those interested in protecting the status quo frown upon the dissemination of such radical ideas, and they’re willing to take whatever steps are necessary to preserve their way of life. They even try turning Jonas’s friends (Odeya Rush, Cameron Monaghan) and family (Alexander Skarsgård, Katie Holmes, Emily Tremblay) against him to get him to abandon his plans. But, considering the risks – and rewards – involved, Jonas forges ahead, despite a highly uncertain future.
The quietly coercive Chief Elder (Meryl Streep, foreground, left) of a future society known as the Community tries to thwart plans for reform initiated by the aging Receiver of Memories, a.k.a. the Giver (Jeff Bridges, foreground, right) in director Phillip Noyce’s “The Giver.” Photo by David Bloomer, courtesy of The Weinstein Co.Those well-versed in conscious creation, the means by which we create the reality we experience, understand that our beliefs determine what unfolds before us. The nature of those beliefs, in turn, depends on the input afforded them by our intellect and intuition. Both are essential to make the process work effectively. And that’s where the Community’s founders got themselves, the residents and their progeny into trouble.
Given the virtual absence of emotion and feeling – hallmarks of the intuitive side of the belief equation – in the Community, it’s obvious that those who established the foundations of this new society did so on the basis of logic and reason, key indicia of the intellect. Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with the intellect, but relying upon it exclusively to determine the nature of one’s beliefs (and everything that stems from them) is a recipe for disaster (especially when employed on a scale as wide as that of an entire population). It stifles creativity and even hampers the functioning of everyday skills, like basic problem-solving (as is apparent from the Elders’ need to have someone with the Receiver’s knowledge on hand to begin with). And, should glimmers of awareness of these “volatile” concepts begin to emerge, those who try to squelch them have no idea what they’re up against.
So why are the Elders so preoccupied with stifling such “radical” notions? They sincerely believe that the fallout from the Ruin was so intolerable that they must take all necessary steps to prevent its recurrence. The cure for that, in their estimation, is to rein in the causes that prompted it, most notably the power of choice. The Elders have successfully convinced themselves that this fundamental human birthright is the root of all of the ills that gave rise to the Ruin and that it must be contained at all costs. Choice, they surmise, leads to differences, which lead to comparison, which then lead to jealousy, envy and greed, qualities that ultimately brought down the world of before. So, by eliminating the source of the problem, they maintain, the problem is itself eradicated. Or so they think. Indeed, as the Chief Elder ardently observes (and sincerely believes), “When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong.”
As parents of a gifted young man, a concerned Mother (Katie Holmes, left) and Father (Alexander Skarsgård, right) grow worried when their son embarks on what appear to be socially unacceptable plans in the young adult sci-fi adventure, “The Giver.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.In light of human history, some would contend that a good argument could be made for the Chief Elder’s outlook. However, eliminating choice carries other consequences. It stifles such natural human tendencies as the need and desire to create, to evolve, to overcome limitations and to pursue our intrinsic constant state of becoming. By removing such abilities from our manifestation toolbox, we leave ourselves open to being unprepared for the challenges we face, some of which could have implications tied to the nature of our humanity – and possibly even our very survival.
It’s futile to think these innate stirrings can be suppressed indefinitely. As has been demonstrated previously through the experiences of the inhabitants of other would-be utopias, such as those portrayed in films like “Brave New World” (1998), “Logan’s Run” (1976), “THX 1138” (1971) and even “TRON: Legacy” (2010), the denial of our inherent nature as beings whose fundamental purpose is to live to create is destined to fail. That can be a difficult lesson for those who would attempt to thwart us in the pursuit of our basic human mission, but it’s one that must come to pass for those who try to block its fulfillment.
Haunted by the painful memories of a previous protégé (Taylor Swift, right) unprepared for her responsibilities, the aging Receiver of Memories (Jeff Bridges, left) recalls a happier time in their ill-fated relationship in the movie adaptation of author Lois Lowry’s “The Giver.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.The young adult dystopian future movie genre has been somewhat overworked in recent years with the release of such pictures as “The Hunger Games” films (2012, 2013) and “Divergent” (2014), among others, but “The Giver” nevertheless does a respectable job of delivering the goods. Its inventive cinematography, offering a carefully crafted mix of black-and-white and color photography reminiscent of the techniques used in “Pleasantville” (1998), lends a poetic touch to the narrative (especially in its duotone depiction of the Community, a world where virtually everything is metaphorically seen in black and white). Capable acting and an emotive background score complement the imagery well.
With that said, however, the film’s writing leaves much to be desired at times. Some sequences go on too long, others are underexplained and some are wholly improbable, even with a healthy stretch of the imagination. A half-hearted attempt at incorporating a love story between Jonas and his friend Fiona (Rush) comes up short, too. But, even with these failings, the picture still provides ample fodder for contemplation and discussion, especially for those who are new to the metaphysical concepts explored here, the young adult audience at which this film (and its source material) are targeted.
With the intention of creating a better life for his friend Fiona (Odeya Rush, right), Jonas, the newly appointed Receiver of Memories (Brenton Thwaites, left), prepares to embark on a perilous personal journey in “The Giver.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.In an age when so many of us have been so willing to surrender so much for the sake of comfort and security, “The Giver” should serve as a cautionary tale about what we stand to lose if we give away too much. It’s likely that those losses ultimately won’t endure, given the power of human nature, but recapturing what we willingly forfeit may be a major hurdle to surmount. So, in light of that, we should keep a finger on the button to those aforementioned floodgates – just in case we need it.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
August 25, 2014
Check out BookDaily.com!
Look for my new author and book profiles on BookDaily.com! Just click here. And, while you're at it, check out the site's many other fine author and book posts!
And, if you haven't seen it yet, check out my book trailer video on YouTube.
And, if you haven't seen it yet, check out my book trailer video on YouTube.
August 24, 2014
Take a Peek at 'Consciously Created Cinema'!
Want to read an excerpt from the Introduction to my new book, Consciously Created Cinema: The Movie Lover's Guide to the Law of Attraction? Just click here, and enjoy!
Cover deign by Paul L. Clark, www.inspirtainment.com
Cover deign by Paul L. Clark, www.inspirtainment.comAugust 13, 2014
R.I.P., Mr. Williams
In the midst of the many tributes being paid on the passing of Robin Williams, it's ironic that one of his best films -- and one that many movie fans seeking solace are now taking comfort in -- was, in fact, about the subject of death and the afterlife, the visually stunning "What Dreams May Come" (1998). I wrote about this excellent picture in my first book, "Get the Picture." And here's a fine Huffington Post article addressing the significance of this tremendous film, available by clicking here.
August 8, 2014
‘Moonlight’ seeks to expose the magic of life
“Magic in the Moonlight” (2014). Cast: Colin Firth, Emma Stone, Eileen Atkins, Jacki Weaver, Marcia Gay Harden, Hamish Linklater, Simon McBurney, Jeremy Shamos, Erica Leerhsen, Catherine McCormack. Director: Woody Allen. Screenplay: Woody Allen. Web site. Trailer.
Life would be pretty tedious if everything could be explained in purely rational terms. As valuable as logic and the intellect are, they don’t take into account the mystery of magic and the intuition, elements that add spice and flavor to our lives and the realities we create for ourselves. And forgoing one of those components of existence at the expense of the other can be a painful experience, to be sure. Learning to strike a balance between the two is important to our well-being and happiness as a beleaguered protagonist discovers for himself in the latest offering from director Woody Allen, “Magic in the Moonlight.”
Stanley Crawford (a.k.a. Wei Ling Soo) (Colin Firth) enjoys quite a following as a master magician touring the capitals of 1920s Europe. Ironically, though, for all the seemingly astounding feats he performs on stage before captivated audiences, Stanley is a scrupulously rational man who believes everything can be explained with logic and facts. And, because of his proficiency in magic and his unshakable faith in the power of reason, he has developed a reputation as a leading debunker of the wildly popular spirit mediums of his day, a talent not unlike that of famed contemporary Harry Houdini (1874-1926).
After one of his performances, Stanley is approached by longtime friend, colleague and fellow magician Howard Burkan (Simon McBurney) to investigate the claims of an up-and-coming psychic, Sophie Baker (Emma Stone), who has been retained by wealthy friends to perform séances for them. Howard is concerned that Sophie and her manager mother (Marcia Gay Harden) are out to fleece his friend Grace Catledge (Jacki Weaver) and her son, Brice (Hamish Linklater), who has become quite smitten with the beautiful young spiritualist (and is ready to practically hand over the family fortune to her). However, despite Howard’s doubts, Sophie comes across as so convincing that he believes she just might be the real deal. Stanley remains steadfastly skeptical, though, and he’s confident that he can expose Sophie for the fraud that he believes she is.
Master magician and psychic debunker Stanley Crawford (Colin Firth, second from right) seeks to expose allegedly fraudulent spirit medium Sophie Baker (Emma Stone, second from left) in her attempts to fleece her wealthy clients, Grace Catledge (Jacki Weaver, right) and her son, Brice (Hamish Linklater, left), in Woody Allen’s “Magic in the Moonlight.” Photo by Jack English © 2014 Gravier Productions, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.
Not long thereafter, Stanley is on his way to the Catledge villa in the south of France to conduct his investigation. He looks forward to the opportunity to unmask yet another con artist. He also welcomes the trip as a chance to visit his favorite aunt, Vanessa (Eileen Atkins), whom he looks upon like a mother figure. But, as much as he relishes this assignment, Stanley may also be taking on more than he bargained for.
Upon his initial meeting with Sophie, Stanley is convinced she’s a fake. However, when she begins making pronouncements concerning matters she couldn’t possibly know anything about, he’s floored. And, when she invokes what appear to be inexplicable miracles during séances, he’s utterly dumbfounded. He’s not sure what to think, especially when he begins succumbing to her charms.
So is Sophie for real, or is she yet another imposter? That’s what Stanley – and the audience – are left to figure out. And, in the process, Stanley just may find his world turned upside down.
Psychic debunker Stanley Crawford (Colin Firth, right) journeys to the south of France on an assignment at the behest of his colleague, Howard Burkan (Simon McBurney, left), a trip that also gives him an opportunity to visit his beloved Aunt Vanessa (Eileen Atkins, center), in director Woody Allen’s new romantic comedy, “Magic in the Moonlight.” Photo by Jack English © 2014 Gravier Productions, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.
In many ways, Stanley is a walking contradiction. He’s such a stickler for all things rational and scientific, yet he practices magic without reservation. Even though he acknowledges that there are logical explanations behind all the tricks of his craft, he nevertheless promotes a belief in the supernatural among his audiences. Yet, at the same time, he unreservedly tells people that they shouldn’t believe in such nonsense. What are people to think?
The conscious creation process requires us to learn how to strike a balance between the influences of science and spirituality, of logic and metaphysics, of reason and magic, of intellect and intuition. In his own way, Stanley seems to understand both, but he dismisses the magical out of hand, despite his on-stage efforts at promoting it. He’s so confident that rationality reigns supreme – and that his belief in it is inherently superior to other ways of thought – that he never considers what might happen if those alternative viewpoints appear to have any credibility.
So why does he so stubbornly hold onto this view? Perhaps it’s because he’s such a hard-nosed control freak, believing that everything can be understood with certainty and logic. But, when his beliefs get shaken, he suddenly feels less in control, uncertain of what’s really transpiring in his world. His discernment abilities are clearly being tested.
Wealthy socialite Grace Catledge (Jacki Weaver, left) discusses financial arrangements for psychic services with Mrs. Baker (Marcia Gay Harden, right), mother and manager of a supposedly gifted spirit medium, in “Magic in the Moonlight.” Photo by Jack English © 2014 Gravier Productions, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.
Sophie’s presence in Stanley’s life is designed to stir the pot of his beliefs, and, on some level, he must have wanted that; otherwise, he wouldn’t have drawn her into his reality. The same can be said of Aunt Vanessa, who has long tried to convince Stanley that we should embrace the magic in our lives, for it often brings us joy greater than we can imagine. But will Stanley recognize what these influences have to offer? It all depends on what he’s willing to believe.
As conscious creators know, there’s a place for both intellect and intuition. We just need to know which to draw upon and when, again spotlighting the importance of discernment. This is not to suggest that we should automatically buy into the phony claims of charlatans, but it also means that we shouldn’t reject magic out of hand just because it doesn’t comport with the strict regimens of logic. (Pay attention, Stanley.)
“Magic in the Moonlight” is a modestly amusing, though not especially stellar, offering from Woody Allen. The picture could have benefited from better lead performances (Firth is too bombastic, while Stone often sleepwalks through her role). Even more surprising, however, is the inconsistent writing. The film starts out crisp but fizzles as the story unfolds, especially in the meandering final 30 minutes. The narrative also rehashes story elements found in some of Allen’s earlier films, such as “You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger” (2010), “Shadows and Fog” (1991) and “The Curse of the Jade Scorpion” (2001). A fine supporting cast (particularly Weaver, Atkins, McBurney and Linklater), gorgeous cinematography and terrific period piece production values help to shore up these shortcomings, making for a visually appealing and mildly entertaining, though not especially memorable, time at the movies.
Spirit medium Sophie Baker (Emma Stone, right, back to camera) is relentlessly wooed by the smitten son of a wealthy client, Brice Catledge (Hamish Linklater, left), in Woody Allen’s “Magic in the Moonlight.” Photo by Jack English © 2014 Gravier Productions, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.
Just as the intellect gives us a rational basis for our existence, the brilliance of sunlight illuminates all we see and gives life to our world. But, as crucial as this is, we also need the magic and mystery of the intuition – the illumination metaphorically afforded by the moonlight – to give life character and, ultimately, make it worth living. May we all have the wisdom to recognize and embrace both the sun’s rays and the moonbeams that come our way to make our existence truly magical.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Life would be pretty tedious if everything could be explained in purely rational terms. As valuable as logic and the intellect are, they don’t take into account the mystery of magic and the intuition, elements that add spice and flavor to our lives and the realities we create for ourselves. And forgoing one of those components of existence at the expense of the other can be a painful experience, to be sure. Learning to strike a balance between the two is important to our well-being and happiness as a beleaguered protagonist discovers for himself in the latest offering from director Woody Allen, “Magic in the Moonlight.”
Stanley Crawford (a.k.a. Wei Ling Soo) (Colin Firth) enjoys quite a following as a master magician touring the capitals of 1920s Europe. Ironically, though, for all the seemingly astounding feats he performs on stage before captivated audiences, Stanley is a scrupulously rational man who believes everything can be explained with logic and facts. And, because of his proficiency in magic and his unshakable faith in the power of reason, he has developed a reputation as a leading debunker of the wildly popular spirit mediums of his day, a talent not unlike that of famed contemporary Harry Houdini (1874-1926).
After one of his performances, Stanley is approached by longtime friend, colleague and fellow magician Howard Burkan (Simon McBurney) to investigate the claims of an up-and-coming psychic, Sophie Baker (Emma Stone), who has been retained by wealthy friends to perform séances for them. Howard is concerned that Sophie and her manager mother (Marcia Gay Harden) are out to fleece his friend Grace Catledge (Jacki Weaver) and her son, Brice (Hamish Linklater), who has become quite smitten with the beautiful young spiritualist (and is ready to practically hand over the family fortune to her). However, despite Howard’s doubts, Sophie comes across as so convincing that he believes she just might be the real deal. Stanley remains steadfastly skeptical, though, and he’s confident that he can expose Sophie for the fraud that he believes she is.
Master magician and psychic debunker Stanley Crawford (Colin Firth, second from right) seeks to expose allegedly fraudulent spirit medium Sophie Baker (Emma Stone, second from left) in her attempts to fleece her wealthy clients, Grace Catledge (Jacki Weaver, right) and her son, Brice (Hamish Linklater, left), in Woody Allen’s “Magic in the Moonlight.” Photo by Jack English © 2014 Gravier Productions, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.Not long thereafter, Stanley is on his way to the Catledge villa in the south of France to conduct his investigation. He looks forward to the opportunity to unmask yet another con artist. He also welcomes the trip as a chance to visit his favorite aunt, Vanessa (Eileen Atkins), whom he looks upon like a mother figure. But, as much as he relishes this assignment, Stanley may also be taking on more than he bargained for.
Upon his initial meeting with Sophie, Stanley is convinced she’s a fake. However, when she begins making pronouncements concerning matters she couldn’t possibly know anything about, he’s floored. And, when she invokes what appear to be inexplicable miracles during séances, he’s utterly dumbfounded. He’s not sure what to think, especially when he begins succumbing to her charms.
So is Sophie for real, or is she yet another imposter? That’s what Stanley – and the audience – are left to figure out. And, in the process, Stanley just may find his world turned upside down.
Psychic debunker Stanley Crawford (Colin Firth, right) journeys to the south of France on an assignment at the behest of his colleague, Howard Burkan (Simon McBurney, left), a trip that also gives him an opportunity to visit his beloved Aunt Vanessa (Eileen Atkins, center), in director Woody Allen’s new romantic comedy, “Magic in the Moonlight.” Photo by Jack English © 2014 Gravier Productions, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.In many ways, Stanley is a walking contradiction. He’s such a stickler for all things rational and scientific, yet he practices magic without reservation. Even though he acknowledges that there are logical explanations behind all the tricks of his craft, he nevertheless promotes a belief in the supernatural among his audiences. Yet, at the same time, he unreservedly tells people that they shouldn’t believe in such nonsense. What are people to think?
The conscious creation process requires us to learn how to strike a balance between the influences of science and spirituality, of logic and metaphysics, of reason and magic, of intellect and intuition. In his own way, Stanley seems to understand both, but he dismisses the magical out of hand, despite his on-stage efforts at promoting it. He’s so confident that rationality reigns supreme – and that his belief in it is inherently superior to other ways of thought – that he never considers what might happen if those alternative viewpoints appear to have any credibility.
So why does he so stubbornly hold onto this view? Perhaps it’s because he’s such a hard-nosed control freak, believing that everything can be understood with certainty and logic. But, when his beliefs get shaken, he suddenly feels less in control, uncertain of what’s really transpiring in his world. His discernment abilities are clearly being tested.
Wealthy socialite Grace Catledge (Jacki Weaver, left) discusses financial arrangements for psychic services with Mrs. Baker (Marcia Gay Harden, right), mother and manager of a supposedly gifted spirit medium, in “Magic in the Moonlight.” Photo by Jack English © 2014 Gravier Productions, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.Sophie’s presence in Stanley’s life is designed to stir the pot of his beliefs, and, on some level, he must have wanted that; otherwise, he wouldn’t have drawn her into his reality. The same can be said of Aunt Vanessa, who has long tried to convince Stanley that we should embrace the magic in our lives, for it often brings us joy greater than we can imagine. But will Stanley recognize what these influences have to offer? It all depends on what he’s willing to believe.
As conscious creators know, there’s a place for both intellect and intuition. We just need to know which to draw upon and when, again spotlighting the importance of discernment. This is not to suggest that we should automatically buy into the phony claims of charlatans, but it also means that we shouldn’t reject magic out of hand just because it doesn’t comport with the strict regimens of logic. (Pay attention, Stanley.)
“Magic in the Moonlight” is a modestly amusing, though not especially stellar, offering from Woody Allen. The picture could have benefited from better lead performances (Firth is too bombastic, while Stone often sleepwalks through her role). Even more surprising, however, is the inconsistent writing. The film starts out crisp but fizzles as the story unfolds, especially in the meandering final 30 minutes. The narrative also rehashes story elements found in some of Allen’s earlier films, such as “You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger” (2010), “Shadows and Fog” (1991) and “The Curse of the Jade Scorpion” (2001). A fine supporting cast (particularly Weaver, Atkins, McBurney and Linklater), gorgeous cinematography and terrific period piece production values help to shore up these shortcomings, making for a visually appealing and mildly entertaining, though not especially memorable, time at the movies.
Spirit medium Sophie Baker (Emma Stone, right, back to camera) is relentlessly wooed by the smitten son of a wealthy client, Brice Catledge (Hamish Linklater, left), in Woody Allen’s “Magic in the Moonlight.” Photo by Jack English © 2014 Gravier Productions, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.Just as the intellect gives us a rational basis for our existence, the brilliance of sunlight illuminates all we see and gives life to our world. But, as crucial as this is, we also need the magic and mystery of the intuition – the illumination metaphorically afforded by the moonlight – to give life character and, ultimately, make it worth living. May we all have the wisdom to recognize and embrace both the sun’s rays and the moonbeams that come our way to make our existence truly magical.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
The August Issue of New Age News Is Now Out
I'm pleased to announce that the August edition of New Age News magazine containing my latest article, "Exploring Probabilities -- For Success!", is now available from the iTunes Store! Check out this jam-packed issue by clicking here.
August 6, 2014
‘Get On Up’ shows how to tap the spark within
“Get On Up” (2014). Cast: Chadwick Boseman, Nelsan Ellis, Dan Aykroyd, Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, Craig Robinson, Lennie James, Fred Melamed, Jill Scott, Brandon Smith, Aunjanue Ellis, Tika Sumpter, Jacinte Blankenship, Jamarion Scott, Jordan Scott. Director: Tate Taylor. Screenplay: Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth. Story: Steven Baigelman, Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth. Web site. Trailer.
We all possess an inner spark of creativity that, if tapped, enables us to do great things. Recognizing and making use of that spirit within, however, is something many may never attain. But, when we’re cognizant enough to do so, the results can be astounding, as a music industry trailblazer discovers for himself in the entertaining new biopic, “Get On Up.”
Doing justice to the life story of an iconic figure is never an easy undertaking, but “Get On Up” does just that for music industry giant James Brown (1933-2006). As one of the most original and most influential artists of the 20th Century, Brown (Chadwick Boseman) created a sound all his own. And, in doing so, he broke down barriers in the music he created, the audiences he reached and the way the industry does business. (Not bad for an impoverished kid from the South Carolina backwoods.)
The film follows Brown’s life from his youth until his early 60s. Viewers first witness his stormy childhood, during which he’s abandoned by his indifferent mother, Susie (Viola Davis), and then by his abusive father, Joe (Lennie James), ending up in the care of his Aunt Honey (Octavia Spencer), who quickly puts the young James (Jamarion Scott, Jordan Scott) to work rounding up “company” for her bevy of female “companions.” Then there’s Brown’s troubled adolescence, when he’s arrested and imprisoned for stealing a suit, a crime for which he receives a sentence of up to 13 years. However, while in jail, he gets an unexpected break from gospel singer Bobby Byrd (Nelsan Ellis), who, during a performance for inmates, recognizes Brown’s considerable talent and helps get him paroled so he can join his group.
But, while singing in a gospel group helps to get Brown’s career off the ground, it’s obvious that it’s a little too constrained for his burgeoning talent. He quickly emerges as the front man of the group, now known as the Famous Flames, which trades in gospel music for R&B, leaving behind its comparatively subdued sound for a groove that really cooks. And, after a brief but enlightening encounter with a little-known but upcoming artist named Little Richard (Brandon Smith), Brown is on his way. With the aid of manager and agent Ben Bart (Dan Aykroyd), Brown rapidly rises to national prominence, playing to huge crowds and winning over a fan base that transcends what had been the traditional R&B audience.
Throughout the 1960s, Brown becomes one of the biggest (and richest) stars in the music business. But success carries a cost. With an ego as large as his following, Brown grows increasingly demanding and inflexible. Relations with band members, such as saxophonist Maceo Parker (Craig Robinson), become strained, especially when artistic differences and financial issues surface. Challenges arise on the home front, too, when Brown divorces his first wife, Velma (Jacinte Blankenship), and grows unduly suspicious about the fidelity of his second wife, DeeDee (Jill Scott), a relationship that often turns violent. And, when things sour with his longtime friend and collaborator Bobby, Brown begins a downward spiral that lands him back in prison, a time that gives him pause to reflect on what he had – and lost. However, as Brown’s childhood experience illustrates, he’s a survivor, one who’s determined to come out on top, no matter what.
It’s easy to see why Brown was such a survivor, though; he had a good, innate grasp on his conscious creation abilities. And, even if Brown didn’t recognize this skill as such, others, like Aunt Honey and even his mother, saw the “spirit” that resided within him, a quality that they knew destined him for greatness one day, an observation they shared with him repeatedly. Brown apparently embraced these observations, too, an act that helped him galvanize his beliefs in himself and in the talents he possessed. That, in turn, enabled him to move forward with tremendous confidence when his career took off; he intuitively knew what he wanted to accomplish – and didn’t hesitate to act upon it when the time came. He readily brought forth that inner spirit in all he created, manifesting materializations indicative of a conscious creator firing on all cylinders.
Given the many trials and tribulations of Brown’s life, however, one might rightfully wonder why he created all his difficulties as well. But, as is often the case, incidents like that provide valuable opportunities for significant life lessons, painful though they may be. What’s more, they often serve as preludes to fortuitous synchronicities that enable us to thrive. For example, if Brown hadn’t been imprisoned for stealing a suit, he might never have met Bobby, who played such a crucial role in helping launch his career. Brown even recognizes that fact in the film, noting that he felt his incarceration was destined to lead him to Bobby and his family, who graciously took him in and helped him get back on his feet when he needed it most. On some level, Brown was aware of his inner spirit’s existence, even if he didn’t fully appreciate its nature or what it was capable of.
Brown’s ability to envision the outcomes of his conscious creation efforts was quite strong, so much so that it enabled him to push through barriers and limitations, both personally and professionally. He could hear sounds in his head that others couldn’t, and his ability to transform them into finished pieces was uncanny. At the same time, he could also picture how to reach new audiences and to employ new promotional tactics for his live performances, practices that defied the conventional wisdom but that were immensely successful – moves that made him wealthy and famous.
As noted above, however, Brown often let his ego get in the way. Indeed, he knew he was good at what he did, but he became so enamored with his own expertise that it began to get in the way. And, to get what he wanted, he did whatever it took (it’s no wonder he was often referred to as “the hardest working man in show business”), even if such efforts produced “unintended” consequences.
Metaphysically speaking, an attitude like this often stems from difficulty in distinguishing between the ability to create and the desire to control. Acts of creation occur naturally, almost effortlessly, but acts of control frequently feel forced, pushed into existence at almost any cost. And, even though control-based efforts may yield envisioned outcomes, they’re often accompanied by the aforementioned unplanned consequences, like the alienation of collaborators or romantic partners. This was a difficult lesson for Brown to work through and may have even been an outgrowth of his own survivor mentality. Nevertheless, his experience provides a valuable example to anyone wrestling with comparable issues of their own.
Still, despite the challenges Brown drew into his life, he also accomplished much, manifesting creations that have since inspired many. He truly earned his reputation as “the Godfather of Soul.” But, then, that probably wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t recognized and tapped into the creative soul that resided within him – the same powerful, creative force that resides within each of us.
“Get On Up” is a great homage to James Brown, featuring a masterful portrayal by Boseman, who has truly established himself as one of Hollywood’s preeminent new talents. As good as he was in his breakout performance as baseball great Jackie Robinson in “42” (2013), Boseman has clearly shown the movie world what he’s capable of in this role, capturing Brown’s voice, mannerisms and dance moves with remarkable precision. With this performance, he has staked a claim as a leading contender for accolades come awards season.
But “Get On Up” features more than just a terrific lead performance. Director Tate Taylor, who distinguished himself in his work on “The Help” (2011), has delivered another fine effort in this film. It’s an excellent period piece, effectively capturing the look, feel and mood of several decades’ worth of clothes, hairstyles and sets. It also serves up ample kitschy humor, often simply in its attitude, without having to fish for laughs. The superb supporting cast features an array of capable performances, including those turned in by Aykroyd, Ellis, Davis and Spencer. And then there’s the music, which includes a fine selection of works by Brown and other artists, such as the Rolling Stones, Percy Mayfield and Lesley Gore.
Despite the picture’s many strengths, it nevertheless is not without its problems. Most notable among these is the screenplay, which often wavers between a traditional biography and a character study focused on the influences that shaped the protagonist’s life (an approach skillfully used in films like “The Iron Lady” (2011) and “The Life and Death of Peter Sellers” (2004)). As a consequence, the chronology in “Get On Up” is presented out of order, forgoing a straightforward linear timeline, jumping about from decade to decade, an approach some viewers may justifiably find annoying or confusing. The screenwriters would have served audiences better by picking one format and sticking to it. Thankfully, the movie’s other fine attributes compensate for this shortcoming rather well; it’s unfortunate, however, that the script quality didn’t measure up to the same level as the picture’s other elements.
Living up to our creative potential can be a daunting endeavor, especially when we don’t even know what that might entail. But, when we know what we’re supposed to achieve and then set out to do it, we can take pride in our accomplishments, and others are sure to applaud us for our efforts. The rewards associated with that are immeasurable, too. And to think, all it takes is a little spark to set off a creative inferno, one that casts a brilliant light for all to see.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
We all possess an inner spark of creativity that, if tapped, enables us to do great things. Recognizing and making use of that spirit within, however, is something many may never attain. But, when we’re cognizant enough to do so, the results can be astounding, as a music industry trailblazer discovers for himself in the entertaining new biopic, “Get On Up.”
Doing justice to the life story of an iconic figure is never an easy undertaking, but “Get On Up” does just that for music industry giant James Brown (1933-2006). As one of the most original and most influential artists of the 20th Century, Brown (Chadwick Boseman) created a sound all his own. And, in doing so, he broke down barriers in the music he created, the audiences he reached and the way the industry does business. (Not bad for an impoverished kid from the South Carolina backwoods.)
The film follows Brown’s life from his youth until his early 60s. Viewers first witness his stormy childhood, during which he’s abandoned by his indifferent mother, Susie (Viola Davis), and then by his abusive father, Joe (Lennie James), ending up in the care of his Aunt Honey (Octavia Spencer), who quickly puts the young James (Jamarion Scott, Jordan Scott) to work rounding up “company” for her bevy of female “companions.” Then there’s Brown’s troubled adolescence, when he’s arrested and imprisoned for stealing a suit, a crime for which he receives a sentence of up to 13 years. However, while in jail, he gets an unexpected break from gospel singer Bobby Byrd (Nelsan Ellis), who, during a performance for inmates, recognizes Brown’s considerable talent and helps get him paroled so he can join his group.
But, while singing in a gospel group helps to get Brown’s career off the ground, it’s obvious that it’s a little too constrained for his burgeoning talent. He quickly emerges as the front man of the group, now known as the Famous Flames, which trades in gospel music for R&B, leaving behind its comparatively subdued sound for a groove that really cooks. And, after a brief but enlightening encounter with a little-known but upcoming artist named Little Richard (Brandon Smith), Brown is on his way. With the aid of manager and agent Ben Bart (Dan Aykroyd), Brown rapidly rises to national prominence, playing to huge crowds and winning over a fan base that transcends what had been the traditional R&B audience.
Throughout the 1960s, Brown becomes one of the biggest (and richest) stars in the music business. But success carries a cost. With an ego as large as his following, Brown grows increasingly demanding and inflexible. Relations with band members, such as saxophonist Maceo Parker (Craig Robinson), become strained, especially when artistic differences and financial issues surface. Challenges arise on the home front, too, when Brown divorces his first wife, Velma (Jacinte Blankenship), and grows unduly suspicious about the fidelity of his second wife, DeeDee (Jill Scott), a relationship that often turns violent. And, when things sour with his longtime friend and collaborator Bobby, Brown begins a downward spiral that lands him back in prison, a time that gives him pause to reflect on what he had – and lost. However, as Brown’s childhood experience illustrates, he’s a survivor, one who’s determined to come out on top, no matter what.
It’s easy to see why Brown was such a survivor, though; he had a good, innate grasp on his conscious creation abilities. And, even if Brown didn’t recognize this skill as such, others, like Aunt Honey and even his mother, saw the “spirit” that resided within him, a quality that they knew destined him for greatness one day, an observation they shared with him repeatedly. Brown apparently embraced these observations, too, an act that helped him galvanize his beliefs in himself and in the talents he possessed. That, in turn, enabled him to move forward with tremendous confidence when his career took off; he intuitively knew what he wanted to accomplish – and didn’t hesitate to act upon it when the time came. He readily brought forth that inner spirit in all he created, manifesting materializations indicative of a conscious creator firing on all cylinders.
Given the many trials and tribulations of Brown’s life, however, one might rightfully wonder why he created all his difficulties as well. But, as is often the case, incidents like that provide valuable opportunities for significant life lessons, painful though they may be. What’s more, they often serve as preludes to fortuitous synchronicities that enable us to thrive. For example, if Brown hadn’t been imprisoned for stealing a suit, he might never have met Bobby, who played such a crucial role in helping launch his career. Brown even recognizes that fact in the film, noting that he felt his incarceration was destined to lead him to Bobby and his family, who graciously took him in and helped him get back on his feet when he needed it most. On some level, Brown was aware of his inner spirit’s existence, even if he didn’t fully appreciate its nature or what it was capable of.
Brown’s ability to envision the outcomes of his conscious creation efforts was quite strong, so much so that it enabled him to push through barriers and limitations, both personally and professionally. He could hear sounds in his head that others couldn’t, and his ability to transform them into finished pieces was uncanny. At the same time, he could also picture how to reach new audiences and to employ new promotional tactics for his live performances, practices that defied the conventional wisdom but that were immensely successful – moves that made him wealthy and famous.
As noted above, however, Brown often let his ego get in the way. Indeed, he knew he was good at what he did, but he became so enamored with his own expertise that it began to get in the way. And, to get what he wanted, he did whatever it took (it’s no wonder he was often referred to as “the hardest working man in show business”), even if such efforts produced “unintended” consequences.
Metaphysically speaking, an attitude like this often stems from difficulty in distinguishing between the ability to create and the desire to control. Acts of creation occur naturally, almost effortlessly, but acts of control frequently feel forced, pushed into existence at almost any cost. And, even though control-based efforts may yield envisioned outcomes, they’re often accompanied by the aforementioned unplanned consequences, like the alienation of collaborators or romantic partners. This was a difficult lesson for Brown to work through and may have even been an outgrowth of his own survivor mentality. Nevertheless, his experience provides a valuable example to anyone wrestling with comparable issues of their own.
Still, despite the challenges Brown drew into his life, he also accomplished much, manifesting creations that have since inspired many. He truly earned his reputation as “the Godfather of Soul.” But, then, that probably wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t recognized and tapped into the creative soul that resided within him – the same powerful, creative force that resides within each of us.
“Get On Up” is a great homage to James Brown, featuring a masterful portrayal by Boseman, who has truly established himself as one of Hollywood’s preeminent new talents. As good as he was in his breakout performance as baseball great Jackie Robinson in “42” (2013), Boseman has clearly shown the movie world what he’s capable of in this role, capturing Brown’s voice, mannerisms and dance moves with remarkable precision. With this performance, he has staked a claim as a leading contender for accolades come awards season.
But “Get On Up” features more than just a terrific lead performance. Director Tate Taylor, who distinguished himself in his work on “The Help” (2011), has delivered another fine effort in this film. It’s an excellent period piece, effectively capturing the look, feel and mood of several decades’ worth of clothes, hairstyles and sets. It also serves up ample kitschy humor, often simply in its attitude, without having to fish for laughs. The superb supporting cast features an array of capable performances, including those turned in by Aykroyd, Ellis, Davis and Spencer. And then there’s the music, which includes a fine selection of works by Brown and other artists, such as the Rolling Stones, Percy Mayfield and Lesley Gore.
Despite the picture’s many strengths, it nevertheless is not without its problems. Most notable among these is the screenplay, which often wavers between a traditional biography and a character study focused on the influences that shaped the protagonist’s life (an approach skillfully used in films like “The Iron Lady” (2011) and “The Life and Death of Peter Sellers” (2004)). As a consequence, the chronology in “Get On Up” is presented out of order, forgoing a straightforward linear timeline, jumping about from decade to decade, an approach some viewers may justifiably find annoying or confusing. The screenwriters would have served audiences better by picking one format and sticking to it. Thankfully, the movie’s other fine attributes compensate for this shortcoming rather well; it’s unfortunate, however, that the script quality didn’t measure up to the same level as the picture’s other elements.
Living up to our creative potential can be a daunting endeavor, especially when we don’t even know what that might entail. But, when we know what we’re supposed to achieve and then set out to do it, we can take pride in our accomplishments, and others are sure to applaud us for our efforts. The rewards associated with that are immeasurable, too. And to think, all it takes is a little spark to set off a creative inferno, one that casts a brilliant light for all to see.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
August 1, 2014
‘I Origins’ choreographs the dance of science and spirit
“I Origins” (2014). Cast: Michael Pitt, Brit Marling, Astrid Bergès-Frisbey, Steven Yeun, Archie Panjabi, Kashish, Cara Seymour, Venida Evans, Crystal Anne Dickinson, William Mapother. Director: Mike Cahill. Screenplay: Mike Cahill. Web site. Trailer.
The relationship between science and spirit is an often-precarious one. Each of these metaphysical dance partners tries to lead or sometimes even dominate the steps they take together. But, considering it takes two to tango, they need to collaborate and achieve a proper balance if they’re to work together successfully in creating the reality we experience. That elaborate, intertwined footwork is the subject of an intriguing new science fiction release, “I Origins.”
Many of us believe that “the eyes are the window to the soul.” But, for Dr. Ian Gray (Michael Pitt), a molecular biologist, they’re the key to scientific proof of evolution. The New York City grad student believes that, if it’s possible to conclusively document that contention, it would not only prove the theory, but it would also finally, and definitively, put an end to what he considers the childish, nonsensical notions of the nature of existence put forth by religion and spirituality. In essence, he’s out to disprove the notion of intelligent design, a conclusion that would, for all practical purposes, make God irrelevant.
Ian’s study focuses on eyes, because he believes they’re the piece of the evolutionary puzzle that’s missing to irrefutably prove the theory. He’s fascinated by their unique character and takes countless photos of the irises of innumerable subjects, known and unknown, to further his research. With the aid of two colleagues, first-year research assistant Karen (Brit Marling) and fellow grad student Kenny (Steven Yeun), he diligently pursues his investigation into this singular marker of one’s being. And, despite his obviously passionate obsession with the topic, he nevertheless takes a scrupulously dispassionate approach to his work, summarily eschewing any considerations that are even remotely unscientific.
That all goes out the window, however, when Ian meets a beguiling woman at a Halloween party. They share a brief encounter, including one of his ocular photo sessions, but they quickly part ways. Yet, despite the brevity of this seemingly chance meeting, Ian can’t put her out of his mind, and, before long, they’re reunited through a series of undeniable synchronicities that even he can’t dismiss. Ian subsequently gets to know this mystery woman, a cosmetics model named Sofi (Astrid Bergès-Frisbey), and soon falls in love with her – her fascination with, and faith in, the supernatural notwithstanding.
A New York City billboard is one of many intriguing synchronicities responsible for drawing together separated lovers in the captivating new sci-fi romance, “I Origins.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
Sofi is especially interested in reincarnation. She believes she and Ian have known one another before and will know one another again, their souls being drawn together by the same kinds of synchronicities that fortuitously reunited them in this life. For his part, Ian looks upon Sofi’s ideas as simple and naïve, but, because he cares for her so deeply, he’s willing to humor her. Besides, it’s something he’ll have to get used to, particularly once they’re married.
The marriage, however, never takes place due to a tragic accident. Ian is devastated by Sofi’s loss, but he takes comfort in the arms of Karen, who sees him through his grief. In fact, they eventually fall in love and marry. Through his work and this new relationship, Ian is able to heal, and, seven years later, he becomes a respected expert, a published author and a father-to-be.
Molecular biologist Dr. Ian Gray (Michael Pitt, left) is mysteriously drawn to cosmetics model Sofi (Astrid Bergès-Frisbey, right) in director Mike Cahill’s engaging new feature, “I Origins.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
On the surface, life is good – or so it would seem. But, when fond memories of Sofi resurface, a new string of intriguing synchronicities begins to unfold, leading Ian and Karen down a path neither of them could have foreseen. Through a series of captivating twists and turns, Ian embarks on a journey of discovery that takes him from his Connecticut home to a dairy farm in Idaho and a community center in India. These experiences, coupled with unexpected interactions with a high-ranking research scientist (Cara Seymour), a community activist (Archie Panjabi), a missionary businessman (William Mapother) and a young orphan girl (Kashish), spur revelations that hold the potential to radically challenge Ian’s beliefs – and his prevailing worldview.
As any conscious creation practitioner knows, the process is based on the beliefs we draw upon to manifest the reality we experience. Those beliefs form as a result of the input provided by our intellect and intuition, attributes correlative to the disciplines of science and spirit, the primary themes explored in this film. And, as noted earlier, striking a balance between the two is crucial to make the practice work effectively. Indeed, refusing to acknowledge the functioning or existence of either component provides a skewed and often-bewildering impression of how things work.
This is a challenge Ian obviously must come to terms with. His stubborn denial of the spirit world hampers his progress in making use of conscious creation, not to mention his understanding of how his reality comes into being. His resolve is so strong that he’s reluctant to acknowledge the influence of the metaphysical, even when it impacts him directly. He demands extraordinary proof of these concepts before he’ll even consider them. But, thankfully, for his sake, he’s also unwittingly adept at manifesting such proof just when he needs it most.
Sofi plays a key role in helping to make Ian aware of these ideas. She makes a particularly convincing argument when she asserts that all creatures perceive their reality based on whatever sensory capabilities they’ve created for themselves. She observes, for instance, that worms, the subject of one of Ian’s evolution experiments, perceive their world with only two senses, smell and touch. Humans, by contrast, generally assess their existence with the benefit of the five senses we all know. However, Sofi suggests, what if some of us have developed additional sensory capabilities that go beyond the basic five faculties most of us possess? Are such individuals to be dismissed for having a sixth sense? We would never fault the worms for having only two senses, so why should we assume that the five senses we’re familiar with are the maximum we’re capable of materializing?
Molecular biologist Dr. Ian Gray (Michael Pitt, center) seeks to definitively prove the theory of evolution with the aid of his research assistant, Karen (Brit Marling, left), and fellow grad student, Kenny (Steven Yeun, right), in the unusual new science fiction release, “I Origins.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
Ian, of course, yet again demands proof of such a contention, but, Sofi counters, how can we produce proof for something that someone with lesser capabilities isn’t even capable of comprehending in the first place? How could a worm, with no eyes, comprehend a concept like light? Yet light, as we all know, is a phenomenon that exists, one we perceive with our sense of sight, and we would never consider denying its existence. The lack of “proof” of an extraordinary sense to someone lacking it, she asserts, doesn’t mean the faculty doesn’t exist; it just can’t be substantiated by conventional means.
To further bolster her metaphysical contentions, Sofi points to the synchronicities that reunited them. She knows that he’s aware of them on some level and that they quietly captivate him. Which is why it also puzzles her that he’s unwilling to embrace them. Their significance has been clearly demonstrated to him, so doesn’t that constitute the kind of “proof” he seeks? Why, she wonders, would scientific proof be considered valid but metaphysical proof isn’t? Is it because metaphysical proof can’t readily be replicated? Or is it another case of just plain stubbornness?
Synchronicities are significant, because they shed light on the inherent connectedness of all things in the Universe. This is an integral component of conscious creation philosophy. But it’s also a key consideration in quantum physics, conscious creation’s scientific cousin. The principle of quantum entanglement, for example, implies an innate connection between anything and everything, and synchronicities lend credence to the validity of this notion. Indeed, if related quantum elements can exist across the span of space (as Ian’s and Sofi’s experience suggests), what’s to say that they also couldn’t exist across the span of time (as Sofi’s reincarnational beliefs propose)? Once again, Ian demands proof of this notion, and, one would think that, as a scientist, he should readily be able to recognize such evidence when it appears. And, if materializing proof of such ideas is so important to him, one can only begin to imagine how amazed he will be if he’s actually able to achieve that. Sofi would undoubtedly take it all in stride, but, for Ian, it would be quite a revelation, to be sure.
After a series of unexpected interactions, such as an encounter with an Indian community center worker (Archie Panjabi, right), molecular biologist Dr. Ian Gray (Michael Pitt, left) is on the verge of an earth-shattering discovery in director Mike Cahill’s “I Origins.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
“I Origins” is an intriguing film that effectively weaves together elements of science fiction and interpersonal relationships, much like Cahill’s previous offering, “Another Earth” (2011). The story is solid and engaging, exploring its heady themes with sublime elegance. Admittedly, the writing is a bit too technical at times, the pacing is a little slow at the outset and some of the picture’s attempts at humor don’t always work. However, the overall narrative is captivating and generally well presented, providing viewers with much to ponder about the nature of existence and what makes it work.
The dance of life – both in its current form and across the ages – is a wondrous creation in all its various permutations. We’d serve ourselves well by enjoying – and embracing – all it has to offer. But, to do that, we must leave ourselves open to all of the metaphysical resources at our disposal. Cutting ourselves off from the elements available to us only harms us in the long run, robbing us of the opportunity to show off what we’re really capable of achieving on that Universal dance floor.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
The relationship between science and spirit is an often-precarious one. Each of these metaphysical dance partners tries to lead or sometimes even dominate the steps they take together. But, considering it takes two to tango, they need to collaborate and achieve a proper balance if they’re to work together successfully in creating the reality we experience. That elaborate, intertwined footwork is the subject of an intriguing new science fiction release, “I Origins.”
Many of us believe that “the eyes are the window to the soul.” But, for Dr. Ian Gray (Michael Pitt), a molecular biologist, they’re the key to scientific proof of evolution. The New York City grad student believes that, if it’s possible to conclusively document that contention, it would not only prove the theory, but it would also finally, and definitively, put an end to what he considers the childish, nonsensical notions of the nature of existence put forth by religion and spirituality. In essence, he’s out to disprove the notion of intelligent design, a conclusion that would, for all practical purposes, make God irrelevant.
Ian’s study focuses on eyes, because he believes they’re the piece of the evolutionary puzzle that’s missing to irrefutably prove the theory. He’s fascinated by their unique character and takes countless photos of the irises of innumerable subjects, known and unknown, to further his research. With the aid of two colleagues, first-year research assistant Karen (Brit Marling) and fellow grad student Kenny (Steven Yeun), he diligently pursues his investigation into this singular marker of one’s being. And, despite his obviously passionate obsession with the topic, he nevertheless takes a scrupulously dispassionate approach to his work, summarily eschewing any considerations that are even remotely unscientific.
That all goes out the window, however, when Ian meets a beguiling woman at a Halloween party. They share a brief encounter, including one of his ocular photo sessions, but they quickly part ways. Yet, despite the brevity of this seemingly chance meeting, Ian can’t put her out of his mind, and, before long, they’re reunited through a series of undeniable synchronicities that even he can’t dismiss. Ian subsequently gets to know this mystery woman, a cosmetics model named Sofi (Astrid Bergès-Frisbey), and soon falls in love with her – her fascination with, and faith in, the supernatural notwithstanding.
A New York City billboard is one of many intriguing synchronicities responsible for drawing together separated lovers in the captivating new sci-fi romance, “I Origins.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.Sofi is especially interested in reincarnation. She believes she and Ian have known one another before and will know one another again, their souls being drawn together by the same kinds of synchronicities that fortuitously reunited them in this life. For his part, Ian looks upon Sofi’s ideas as simple and naïve, but, because he cares for her so deeply, he’s willing to humor her. Besides, it’s something he’ll have to get used to, particularly once they’re married.
The marriage, however, never takes place due to a tragic accident. Ian is devastated by Sofi’s loss, but he takes comfort in the arms of Karen, who sees him through his grief. In fact, they eventually fall in love and marry. Through his work and this new relationship, Ian is able to heal, and, seven years later, he becomes a respected expert, a published author and a father-to-be.
Molecular biologist Dr. Ian Gray (Michael Pitt, left) is mysteriously drawn to cosmetics model Sofi (Astrid Bergès-Frisbey, right) in director Mike Cahill’s engaging new feature, “I Origins.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.On the surface, life is good – or so it would seem. But, when fond memories of Sofi resurface, a new string of intriguing synchronicities begins to unfold, leading Ian and Karen down a path neither of them could have foreseen. Through a series of captivating twists and turns, Ian embarks on a journey of discovery that takes him from his Connecticut home to a dairy farm in Idaho and a community center in India. These experiences, coupled with unexpected interactions with a high-ranking research scientist (Cara Seymour), a community activist (Archie Panjabi), a missionary businessman (William Mapother) and a young orphan girl (Kashish), spur revelations that hold the potential to radically challenge Ian’s beliefs – and his prevailing worldview.
As any conscious creation practitioner knows, the process is based on the beliefs we draw upon to manifest the reality we experience. Those beliefs form as a result of the input provided by our intellect and intuition, attributes correlative to the disciplines of science and spirit, the primary themes explored in this film. And, as noted earlier, striking a balance between the two is crucial to make the practice work effectively. Indeed, refusing to acknowledge the functioning or existence of either component provides a skewed and often-bewildering impression of how things work.
This is a challenge Ian obviously must come to terms with. His stubborn denial of the spirit world hampers his progress in making use of conscious creation, not to mention his understanding of how his reality comes into being. His resolve is so strong that he’s reluctant to acknowledge the influence of the metaphysical, even when it impacts him directly. He demands extraordinary proof of these concepts before he’ll even consider them. But, thankfully, for his sake, he’s also unwittingly adept at manifesting such proof just when he needs it most.
Sofi plays a key role in helping to make Ian aware of these ideas. She makes a particularly convincing argument when she asserts that all creatures perceive their reality based on whatever sensory capabilities they’ve created for themselves. She observes, for instance, that worms, the subject of one of Ian’s evolution experiments, perceive their world with only two senses, smell and touch. Humans, by contrast, generally assess their existence with the benefit of the five senses we all know. However, Sofi suggests, what if some of us have developed additional sensory capabilities that go beyond the basic five faculties most of us possess? Are such individuals to be dismissed for having a sixth sense? We would never fault the worms for having only two senses, so why should we assume that the five senses we’re familiar with are the maximum we’re capable of materializing?
Molecular biologist Dr. Ian Gray (Michael Pitt, center) seeks to definitively prove the theory of evolution with the aid of his research assistant, Karen (Brit Marling, left), and fellow grad student, Kenny (Steven Yeun, right), in the unusual new science fiction release, “I Origins.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.Ian, of course, yet again demands proof of such a contention, but, Sofi counters, how can we produce proof for something that someone with lesser capabilities isn’t even capable of comprehending in the first place? How could a worm, with no eyes, comprehend a concept like light? Yet light, as we all know, is a phenomenon that exists, one we perceive with our sense of sight, and we would never consider denying its existence. The lack of “proof” of an extraordinary sense to someone lacking it, she asserts, doesn’t mean the faculty doesn’t exist; it just can’t be substantiated by conventional means.
To further bolster her metaphysical contentions, Sofi points to the synchronicities that reunited them. She knows that he’s aware of them on some level and that they quietly captivate him. Which is why it also puzzles her that he’s unwilling to embrace them. Their significance has been clearly demonstrated to him, so doesn’t that constitute the kind of “proof” he seeks? Why, she wonders, would scientific proof be considered valid but metaphysical proof isn’t? Is it because metaphysical proof can’t readily be replicated? Or is it another case of just plain stubbornness?
Synchronicities are significant, because they shed light on the inherent connectedness of all things in the Universe. This is an integral component of conscious creation philosophy. But it’s also a key consideration in quantum physics, conscious creation’s scientific cousin. The principle of quantum entanglement, for example, implies an innate connection between anything and everything, and synchronicities lend credence to the validity of this notion. Indeed, if related quantum elements can exist across the span of space (as Ian’s and Sofi’s experience suggests), what’s to say that they also couldn’t exist across the span of time (as Sofi’s reincarnational beliefs propose)? Once again, Ian demands proof of this notion, and, one would think that, as a scientist, he should readily be able to recognize such evidence when it appears. And, if materializing proof of such ideas is so important to him, one can only begin to imagine how amazed he will be if he’s actually able to achieve that. Sofi would undoubtedly take it all in stride, but, for Ian, it would be quite a revelation, to be sure.
After a series of unexpected interactions, such as an encounter with an Indian community center worker (Archie Panjabi, right), molecular biologist Dr. Ian Gray (Michael Pitt, left) is on the verge of an earth-shattering discovery in director Mike Cahill’s “I Origins.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.“I Origins” is an intriguing film that effectively weaves together elements of science fiction and interpersonal relationships, much like Cahill’s previous offering, “Another Earth” (2011). The story is solid and engaging, exploring its heady themes with sublime elegance. Admittedly, the writing is a bit too technical at times, the pacing is a little slow at the outset and some of the picture’s attempts at humor don’t always work. However, the overall narrative is captivating and generally well presented, providing viewers with much to ponder about the nature of existence and what makes it work.
The dance of life – both in its current form and across the ages – is a wondrous creation in all its various permutations. We’d serve ourselves well by enjoying – and embracing – all it has to offer. But, to do that, we must leave ourselves open to all of the metaphysical resources at our disposal. Cutting ourselves off from the elements available to us only harms us in the long run, robbing us of the opportunity to show off what we’re really capable of achieving on that Universal dance floor.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
