Brent Marchant's Blog, page 139
August 1, 2014
‘Lucy’ asks, ‘What are we doing with our lives?’
“Lucy” (2014). Cast: Scarlett Johansson, Morgan Freeman, Min-sik Choi, Amr Waked, Pilou Asbæk, Julian Rhind-Tutt, Jan Oliver Schroeder, Luca Angeletti, Analeigh Tipton, Paul Chan. Director: Luc Besson. Screenplay: Luc Besson. Web site. Trailer.
A heightened sense of self-awareness is often accompanied by the realization that we each have a destiny in life. Even if we can’t always pinpoint what we’re supposed to accomplish, many of us nevertheless have an undeniable sense that we’re supposed to achieve something during our terrestrial visit. But, once we begin to understand what we’re meant to do, it’s up to us to carry through on our objectives, even if we don’t know precisely how. That’s particularly crucial when our time runs short, a concern not unlike that faced by a supremely gifted but seriously challenged protagonist in director Luc Besson’s new metaphysically themed action-adventure, “Lucy.”
When Lucy (Scarlett Johansson), a carefree American student living in Taiwan, is tricked by her shady new boyfriend (Pilou Asbæk) into delivering a locked briefcase to a mysterious recipient, Mr. Jang (Min-sik Choi), she can’t begin to fathom what she’s gotten herself into. Before she knows it, Lucy is seized and drugged. Upon waking, she discovers something has been surgically implanted in her abdomen, a plastic bag filled with a powdery blue substance, the same material previously locked up in that ill-fated briefcase.
Lucy soon learns that she’s been forced into becoming a drug mule ordered to smuggle the substance, a potent new synthetic chemical known as CPH4, overseas. She and three other similarly equipped mules have been coerced by Mr. Jang to transport their illicit cargo to eager markets in Europe and the U.S. And, to make sure the unwitting couriers carry out their tasks, Jang and his thugs have threatened their lives – and those of their families – to ensure compliance.
Not long after Lucy embarks on her journey, the plastic bag containing the drug ruptures, and she’s inadvertently dosed with an enormous amount of the mystery substance. But CPH4 is more than just your garden variety hallucinogen. Lucy learns that it’s a chemical produced in pregnant women to jump-start the growth and development of fetuses. In its natural form, even small quantities of the substance can yield seemingly miraculous results. However, in an enhanced synthetic form, CPH4 significantly amplifies those effects. What’s more, while it’s known what CPH4 does for an unborn child, it’s not at all clear what it will do to a fully grown adult. And now that Lucy has absorbed an amount far in excess of what a developing fetus would absorb or what an addict would snort during a typical fix, all bets are off as to what it will do to her as it courses through her bloodstream.
In no time, the drug begins transforming Lucy in inconceivable ways. Most notably, the substance significantly enhances how much of her brain she utilizes. While most humans are thought to use approximately 10% of their cerebral cortexes, Lucy’s capability quickly reaches 20%, a figure that quickly, continually and exponentially rises. She develops a range of new powers, such as the ability to control her metabolism and bodily organs, as well as the means to sense gravity and affect ambient electromagnetic fields. Her intellect and comprehension skills soar, too, a development that affords her access to all manner of cosmic wisdom. Within hours, she easily becomes the most advanced human being ever to have walked the face of the Earth.
So what is someone to do with such powers? Well, for starters, Lucy seeks to exact revenge against those who put her in these circumstances. She learns that one of the couriers is headed for Paris, so she contacts a local detective, Capt. Pierre Del Rio (Amr Waked), informing him how he and his colleagues can apprehend the other mules upon their arrival in Europe, an action intended to help authorities find those heading up the operation. But, with powers – and wisdom – like this, is vengeance all that they’re to be used for?
Given her expanded consciousness, Lucy decides it’s important to share what she knows with all of mankind. Through an incredibly accelerated Internet search, she learns of the work of Professor Samuel Norman (Morgan Freeman), a researcher focused on evolution and brain development. She discovers that he, too, is currently in Paris and agrees to meet with him to impart her newfound wisdom.
But, as Lucy’s odyssey unfolds, she also realizes she’s in a race against time. With her mental capacity continually expanding, she’s losing touch with her humanity. She’s also not sure what will happen as she approaches 100% use of her brain capacity. With her consciousness so expanded, she fears that she may no longer be human – or even physical – by the time she reaches that point of development. With the aid of Capt. Del Rio and Professor Norman, Lucy’s trip to Paris is about to become an appointment with destiny, both in terms of confronting her foes and fulfilling her purpose in life, circumstances that carry ramifications of a magnitude no one can possibly predict.
With one’s very existence threatened, be it from “outside” sources or one’s own consciousness-generated materializations, many of us may become obsessed with accomplishing what we set out to achieve in this life before the clock gets us. Ideally, we should probably think more about our destiny before the temporal pressure mounts, making use of as much of our gray matter (and the consciousness that drives it) to fulfill these goals while we have ample time. But how many of us really do that?
The question of what are we to do with our lives probably seems like it should be a no-brainer, yet it’s amazing how many of us fail to seriously consider it until it’s almost too late, if at all. Lucy brings this concern into sharp focus, and it’s very important to her given the depth of knowledge she has to impart once her transformation begins. That truly is her destiny, and she needs to draw upon all of her conscious creation skills to make it happen while she still has the chance.
Fortunately, the kinds of cosmic wisdom to which Lucy now has access probably help to make that process easier for her. But, considering the sheer volume of what she has to share, she’ll undoubtedly have to draw upon all her metaphysical wherewithal if she’s to make that happen in time and in a form that the rest of us can access. This requires ingenuity on her part, pushing past her personal limitations – and perhaps even those of humanity itself – if she’s to succeed. But, then, this is one of the inherent aims of conscious creation itself, and, given her immensely expanded consciousness, the means for this should now be more than readily apparent to her.
To move beyond where she has been all of her life, Lucy must evolve, another of conscious creation’s cornerstone principles. This is something that, obviously, occurs during her personal transformation. But it’s important that her awareness of this change, not to mention its relevance, also take place while her physical and intellectual capabilities transform. This consideration, as Professor Norman eloquently points out, has played a crucial role in the development of all life on the planet since its inception, from the earliest of single-cell organisms to the first invertebrates to the earliest mammals and even the first-known human (a woman ironically nicknamed “Lucy”), the first Earth creature to advance knowledge beyond such simple acts as mere survival. In many ways, then, the protagonist thus represents an echo of her ancient ancestor, playing a role as significant to the forward development of contemporary man as her predecessor did in the evolution of us. She sets an inspiring example for all of us to follow.
In the course of evolving, Lucy’s expanded consciousness enables her to envision a broader range of probabilities than she – or likely anyone else – has ever been able to do. In that regard, she can see for herself – quite literally and perhaps more clearly than ever before – what conscious creation (and quantum physics, for that matter) postulates, namely, that we all have access to an infinite range of choices for existence at any given moment, based on where we put our focus. In conjunction with that, she’s also able to understand and appreciate the connectedness of everything in the cosmos across the spans of space and time. And, in this way, Lucy is able to grasp the very meaning of being in its myriad permutations and, most importantly, in its simplest and most essential nature. Talk about evolution!
If it sounds like there’s a lot going on in this movie, you’re right. “Lucy” is one of the most innovatively jam-packed pictures I’ve seen in a long time. It’s a kickass sci-fi/metaphysical thriller that packs a wallop, both in its visuals and its content. The film’s depiction of complex metaphysical concepts (many of which have likely never been examined on screen before) is handled cogently and beautifully. And its action sequences never disappoint, with Johansson serving up an intelligent, sexy, determined heroine who comes across like a badass Debbie Harry on steroids.
Regrettably, the film has come under a great deal of unfair criticism for being “unrealistic,” a disparagement I find more than a little perplexing. The picture undeniably operates from a fundamental premise of pushing the boundaries of consciousness and awareness, unexplored territory where even experts like Professor Norman are unable to speculate as to what might transpire. So, given that, then, how can the ideas being put forth here realistically be considered unbelievable? How can we presume to know what might happen if we don’t even know what’s possible under such circumstances? I, for one, find such ridicule, ironically enough, unrealistic in itself.
If I were to have a criticism of “Lucy,” it would be that it sometimes leans a little too heavily on action and violence to carry the story. While the film never becomes blatantly gratuitous in this regard, it nevertheless pushes the limits on these fronts, regardless of how well these sequences are depicted. Still, despite this minor shortcoming, the picture is nonetheless a cinematic thrill ride that also delivers on its profound, thought-provoking subject matter. Indeed, if you want some depth from an action-adventure film, go see this one – you won’t be disappointed. Just be sure to tune out the naysayers – and keep an open mind.
While not all of us are meant to fulfill a destiny as utterly groundbreaking as Lucy, we all nevertheless have something to contribute to the ever-unfolding expression of existence, and one could easily argue that it’s incumbent upon each of us to see things through. If we fail on this point, we miss our chance to realize that aspect of our being, depriving the world of our unique contribution to the creation of its reality. Whether we allow ourselves to be restrained by fear, doubt, cloudy thinking, a preoccupation with irrelevancies or a simple lack of initiative, in each case we let our potential slip away from us and those who might benefit from our singular gifts, talents and ingenuity. And that would be a shame indeed. So, to get matters right, no matter how great or how small our contributions are destined to be, it would behoove us to pay attention to Lucy and follow her lead, making the most out of our lives while we have the opportunity to do so. To do any less would be a waste of our consciousness and humanity, a genuine tragedy if there ever were one.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
A heightened sense of self-awareness is often accompanied by the realization that we each have a destiny in life. Even if we can’t always pinpoint what we’re supposed to accomplish, many of us nevertheless have an undeniable sense that we’re supposed to achieve something during our terrestrial visit. But, once we begin to understand what we’re meant to do, it’s up to us to carry through on our objectives, even if we don’t know precisely how. That’s particularly crucial when our time runs short, a concern not unlike that faced by a supremely gifted but seriously challenged protagonist in director Luc Besson’s new metaphysically themed action-adventure, “Lucy.”
When Lucy (Scarlett Johansson), a carefree American student living in Taiwan, is tricked by her shady new boyfriend (Pilou Asbæk) into delivering a locked briefcase to a mysterious recipient, Mr. Jang (Min-sik Choi), she can’t begin to fathom what she’s gotten herself into. Before she knows it, Lucy is seized and drugged. Upon waking, she discovers something has been surgically implanted in her abdomen, a plastic bag filled with a powdery blue substance, the same material previously locked up in that ill-fated briefcase.
Lucy soon learns that she’s been forced into becoming a drug mule ordered to smuggle the substance, a potent new synthetic chemical known as CPH4, overseas. She and three other similarly equipped mules have been coerced by Mr. Jang to transport their illicit cargo to eager markets in Europe and the U.S. And, to make sure the unwitting couriers carry out their tasks, Jang and his thugs have threatened their lives – and those of their families – to ensure compliance.
Not long after Lucy embarks on her journey, the plastic bag containing the drug ruptures, and she’s inadvertently dosed with an enormous amount of the mystery substance. But CPH4 is more than just your garden variety hallucinogen. Lucy learns that it’s a chemical produced in pregnant women to jump-start the growth and development of fetuses. In its natural form, even small quantities of the substance can yield seemingly miraculous results. However, in an enhanced synthetic form, CPH4 significantly amplifies those effects. What’s more, while it’s known what CPH4 does for an unborn child, it’s not at all clear what it will do to a fully grown adult. And now that Lucy has absorbed an amount far in excess of what a developing fetus would absorb or what an addict would snort during a typical fix, all bets are off as to what it will do to her as it courses through her bloodstream.
In no time, the drug begins transforming Lucy in inconceivable ways. Most notably, the substance significantly enhances how much of her brain she utilizes. While most humans are thought to use approximately 10% of their cerebral cortexes, Lucy’s capability quickly reaches 20%, a figure that quickly, continually and exponentially rises. She develops a range of new powers, such as the ability to control her metabolism and bodily organs, as well as the means to sense gravity and affect ambient electromagnetic fields. Her intellect and comprehension skills soar, too, a development that affords her access to all manner of cosmic wisdom. Within hours, she easily becomes the most advanced human being ever to have walked the face of the Earth.
So what is someone to do with such powers? Well, for starters, Lucy seeks to exact revenge against those who put her in these circumstances. She learns that one of the couriers is headed for Paris, so she contacts a local detective, Capt. Pierre Del Rio (Amr Waked), informing him how he and his colleagues can apprehend the other mules upon their arrival in Europe, an action intended to help authorities find those heading up the operation. But, with powers – and wisdom – like this, is vengeance all that they’re to be used for?
Given her expanded consciousness, Lucy decides it’s important to share what she knows with all of mankind. Through an incredibly accelerated Internet search, she learns of the work of Professor Samuel Norman (Morgan Freeman), a researcher focused on evolution and brain development. She discovers that he, too, is currently in Paris and agrees to meet with him to impart her newfound wisdom.
But, as Lucy’s odyssey unfolds, she also realizes she’s in a race against time. With her mental capacity continually expanding, she’s losing touch with her humanity. She’s also not sure what will happen as she approaches 100% use of her brain capacity. With her consciousness so expanded, she fears that she may no longer be human – or even physical – by the time she reaches that point of development. With the aid of Capt. Del Rio and Professor Norman, Lucy’s trip to Paris is about to become an appointment with destiny, both in terms of confronting her foes and fulfilling her purpose in life, circumstances that carry ramifications of a magnitude no one can possibly predict.
With one’s very existence threatened, be it from “outside” sources or one’s own consciousness-generated materializations, many of us may become obsessed with accomplishing what we set out to achieve in this life before the clock gets us. Ideally, we should probably think more about our destiny before the temporal pressure mounts, making use of as much of our gray matter (and the consciousness that drives it) to fulfill these goals while we have ample time. But how many of us really do that?
The question of what are we to do with our lives probably seems like it should be a no-brainer, yet it’s amazing how many of us fail to seriously consider it until it’s almost too late, if at all. Lucy brings this concern into sharp focus, and it’s very important to her given the depth of knowledge she has to impart once her transformation begins. That truly is her destiny, and she needs to draw upon all of her conscious creation skills to make it happen while she still has the chance.
Fortunately, the kinds of cosmic wisdom to which Lucy now has access probably help to make that process easier for her. But, considering the sheer volume of what she has to share, she’ll undoubtedly have to draw upon all her metaphysical wherewithal if she’s to make that happen in time and in a form that the rest of us can access. This requires ingenuity on her part, pushing past her personal limitations – and perhaps even those of humanity itself – if she’s to succeed. But, then, this is one of the inherent aims of conscious creation itself, and, given her immensely expanded consciousness, the means for this should now be more than readily apparent to her.
To move beyond where she has been all of her life, Lucy must evolve, another of conscious creation’s cornerstone principles. This is something that, obviously, occurs during her personal transformation. But it’s important that her awareness of this change, not to mention its relevance, also take place while her physical and intellectual capabilities transform. This consideration, as Professor Norman eloquently points out, has played a crucial role in the development of all life on the planet since its inception, from the earliest of single-cell organisms to the first invertebrates to the earliest mammals and even the first-known human (a woman ironically nicknamed “Lucy”), the first Earth creature to advance knowledge beyond such simple acts as mere survival. In many ways, then, the protagonist thus represents an echo of her ancient ancestor, playing a role as significant to the forward development of contemporary man as her predecessor did in the evolution of us. She sets an inspiring example for all of us to follow.
In the course of evolving, Lucy’s expanded consciousness enables her to envision a broader range of probabilities than she – or likely anyone else – has ever been able to do. In that regard, she can see for herself – quite literally and perhaps more clearly than ever before – what conscious creation (and quantum physics, for that matter) postulates, namely, that we all have access to an infinite range of choices for existence at any given moment, based on where we put our focus. In conjunction with that, she’s also able to understand and appreciate the connectedness of everything in the cosmos across the spans of space and time. And, in this way, Lucy is able to grasp the very meaning of being in its myriad permutations and, most importantly, in its simplest and most essential nature. Talk about evolution!
If it sounds like there’s a lot going on in this movie, you’re right. “Lucy” is one of the most innovatively jam-packed pictures I’ve seen in a long time. It’s a kickass sci-fi/metaphysical thriller that packs a wallop, both in its visuals and its content. The film’s depiction of complex metaphysical concepts (many of which have likely never been examined on screen before) is handled cogently and beautifully. And its action sequences never disappoint, with Johansson serving up an intelligent, sexy, determined heroine who comes across like a badass Debbie Harry on steroids.
Regrettably, the film has come under a great deal of unfair criticism for being “unrealistic,” a disparagement I find more than a little perplexing. The picture undeniably operates from a fundamental premise of pushing the boundaries of consciousness and awareness, unexplored territory where even experts like Professor Norman are unable to speculate as to what might transpire. So, given that, then, how can the ideas being put forth here realistically be considered unbelievable? How can we presume to know what might happen if we don’t even know what’s possible under such circumstances? I, for one, find such ridicule, ironically enough, unrealistic in itself.
If I were to have a criticism of “Lucy,” it would be that it sometimes leans a little too heavily on action and violence to carry the story. While the film never becomes blatantly gratuitous in this regard, it nevertheless pushes the limits on these fronts, regardless of how well these sequences are depicted. Still, despite this minor shortcoming, the picture is nonetheless a cinematic thrill ride that also delivers on its profound, thought-provoking subject matter. Indeed, if you want some depth from an action-adventure film, go see this one – you won’t be disappointed. Just be sure to tune out the naysayers – and keep an open mind.
While not all of us are meant to fulfill a destiny as utterly groundbreaking as Lucy, we all nevertheless have something to contribute to the ever-unfolding expression of existence, and one could easily argue that it’s incumbent upon each of us to see things through. If we fail on this point, we miss our chance to realize that aspect of our being, depriving the world of our unique contribution to the creation of its reality. Whether we allow ourselves to be restrained by fear, doubt, cloudy thinking, a preoccupation with irrelevancies or a simple lack of initiative, in each case we let our potential slip away from us and those who might benefit from our singular gifts, talents and ingenuity. And that would be a shame indeed. So, to get matters right, no matter how great or how small our contributions are destined to be, it would behoove us to pay attention to Lucy and follow her lead, making the most out of our lives while we have the opportunity to do so. To do any less would be a waste of our consciousness and humanity, a genuine tragedy if there ever were one.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
July 30, 2014
A Promising Trend?
What a weekend at the movies it was! This past weekend marked the release of three titles -- "Lucy," "I Origins" and "Magic in the Moonlight" -- all dealing with topics of a metaphysical/spiritual nature. And, even though their quality levels varied, it was very interesting to see such a bumper crop (relatively speaking) of films come out all at once with subject matter of this nature.
Is this a trend? I would certainly like to hope so! Given the seemingly endless plethora of mindless comedies and explosion-ridden action-adventure flicks being released these days, it's truly encouraging to see movies with more thoughtful, more substantive material making their way into theaters. And, while these thought-provoking pictures may represent only a fraction of new offerings, at least they're getting out there, and, based on this trio of simultaneous releases, such films would appear to be on their way to occupying a more prominent position in the movie marketplace.
But are viewers buying it? Considering the alternative subject matter of such pictures (and the seemingly inherent financial risk associated with them), it's easy to understand why studios and distributors might want to take an arm's-length -- or even hands-off -- approach to these kinds of projects. What if they spend the money on producing or acquiring the rights to these titles and they don't pay off at the box office or other distribution channels? Indeed, will audiences flock to them?
That kind of thinking has sometimes hurt the chances of such projects making it into production, let alone theaters. But is the market potential really being assessed accurately? Are there more would-be viewers for these kinds of films than thought? In my view, the answer to that last question would be a resounding "yes."
A number of developments lend credence to the notion that there's a much larger (and underserved) audience for films of this nature. For starters, despite their still-small numbers overall, there has been a steady increase in the volume of releases with alternative storylines among independent filmmakers and even major studios and distributors. Then there's the success of movie subscription programs, like the Spiritual Cinema Circle, which have demonstrated an ongoing audience for thoughtful entertainment.
But, if that weren't enough, consider the box office results, too. A number of this summer's big-budget blockbusters, for example, have underperformed, falling short of expectations and making hasty exits from the nation's multiplexes. And this past weekend's results were especially surprising. The top-grossing film was "Lucy," one of the titles noted above, which came up an unexpected winner over the highly touted "Hercules" movie by a substantial margin. That's quite a feat: Who would have expected that a metaphysically oriented action-adventure with a female lead (Scarlett Johansson) would top a traditional summer blockbuster with a big-name box office star (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson)? Now, this is not to suggest that "Hercules" is a bad film nor that viewers should avoid it (it actually fared reasonably well with critics), but the ticket sales results speak volumes about what viewers chose to see, and they represent a potentially significant shift in audience choices and priorities.
Let's hope that trend continues.
In upcoming blogs, watch for my reviews of the three films in question. And, with summer only partly over, watch for more new releases with metaphysical/spiritual themes. I'll be sure to review them as well.
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,” one of three new films with metaphysical/spiritual themes that opened this past weekend. Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Is this a trend? I would certainly like to hope so! Given the seemingly endless plethora of mindless comedies and explosion-ridden action-adventure flicks being released these days, it's truly encouraging to see movies with more thoughtful, more substantive material making their way into theaters. And, while these thought-provoking pictures may represent only a fraction of new offerings, at least they're getting out there, and, based on this trio of simultaneous releases, such films would appear to be on their way to occupying a more prominent position in the movie marketplace.
But are viewers buying it? Considering the alternative subject matter of such pictures (and the seemingly inherent financial risk associated with them), it's easy to understand why studios and distributors might want to take an arm's-length -- or even hands-off -- approach to these kinds of projects. What if they spend the money on producing or acquiring the rights to these titles and they don't pay off at the box office or other distribution channels? Indeed, will audiences flock to them?
That kind of thinking has sometimes hurt the chances of such projects making it into production, let alone theaters. But is the market potential really being assessed accurately? Are there more would-be viewers for these kinds of films than thought? In my view, the answer to that last question would be a resounding "yes."
A number of developments lend credence to the notion that there's a much larger (and underserved) audience for films of this nature. For starters, despite their still-small numbers overall, there has been a steady increase in the volume of releases with alternative storylines among independent filmmakers and even major studios and distributors. Then there's the success of movie subscription programs, like the Spiritual Cinema Circle, which have demonstrated an ongoing audience for thoughtful entertainment.
But, if that weren't enough, consider the box office results, too. A number of this summer's big-budget blockbusters, for example, have underperformed, falling short of expectations and making hasty exits from the nation's multiplexes. And this past weekend's results were especially surprising. The top-grossing film was "Lucy," one of the titles noted above, which came up an unexpected winner over the highly touted "Hercules" movie by a substantial margin. That's quite a feat: Who would have expected that a metaphysically oriented action-adventure with a female lead (Scarlett Johansson) would top a traditional summer blockbuster with a big-name box office star (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson)? Now, this is not to suggest that "Hercules" is a bad film nor that viewers should avoid it (it actually fared reasonably well with critics), but the ticket sales results speak volumes about what viewers chose to see, and they represent a potentially significant shift in audience choices and priorities.
Let's hope that trend continues.
In upcoming blogs, watch for my reviews of the three films in question. And, with summer only partly over, watch for more new releases with metaphysical/spiritual themes. I'll be sure to review them as well.
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,” one of three new films with metaphysical/spiritual themes that opened this past weekend. Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
July 25, 2014
The mystery of growing up explored in uneven ‘Boyhood’
“Boyhood” (2014). Cast: Ellar Coltrane, Patricia Arquette, Ethan Hawke, Lorelei Linklater, Libby Villari, Marco Perella, Jamie Howard, Andrew Villarreal, Barbara Chisholm, Brad Hawkins, Angela Rawna, Jenni Tooley, Tom McTigue, Zoe Graham, Richard Robichaux, Roland Ruiz, Charlie Sexton, Maximillian McNamara, Jessi Mechler. Director: Richard Linklater. Screenplay: Richard Linklater. Web site. Trailer.
Figuring out what makes life work occupies much of our time and attention in our formative years. Coming to understand the world around us and how it emerges into being is a formidable task for our young minds, especially when it doesn’t seem to make sense. A noble attempt at broaching that subject provides the focus of one of the summer’s most anticipated new releases, director Richard Linklater’s “Boyhood.”
Growing up is quite an experience, to say the least. It’s a time for learning about the world in all its magic, mystery and wonder. And observing how that process unfolds before us is something we each go through in our own unique way.
For six-year-old Mason (Ellar Coltrane) and his older sister Samantha (Lorelei Linklater), that odyssey begins in a household headed by their divorced single mother, Olivia (Patricia Arquette), who struggles to provide for them. But caring for them is indeed difficult, and out of seemingly incessant frustration, she at last resolves to better their circumstances by moving the family from their small Texas town to Houston, where she plans to enroll in a local university to complete her college degree. The move also gives Mason and Samantha an opportunity to reunite with their father, Mason Sr. (Ethan Hawke), a would-be musician and jack-of-all-trades who has recently returned to the Lone Star State after an extended stay in Alaska trying to find himself. The kids are thrilled to have both parents back in their lives, but the likelihood of mom and dad reconciling is almost assuredly too much to hope for.
As Mason and Samantha grow older, their lives begin to change, especially when Olivia remarries, this time to Bill (Marco Perella), one of her professors. In addition to a new father figure, the children also have new step-siblings in their lives, Randy (Andrew Villarreal) and Mindy (Jamie Howard). But this new sense of domestic bliss is quickly shattered when it becomes apparent that Bill is an abusive, alcoholic control freak, a development that leads to yet another disruptive uprooting.
Olivia’s plan to complete her degree program succeeds, and, by the time Mason and Samantha are in their teens, she lands a teaching job at a small university in the college town of San Marcos. And, as Mason enters his adolescence, he begins defining himself as an artist and photographer, one who has a strong observational curiosity about life and all it has to offer. He begins to become his own person, despite the changes his family members go through, such as his mom’s new relationship with a returning Iraq War vet (Brad Hawkins) and his dad’s marriage to a sweet new wife, Annie (Jenni Tooley). He even finds a love of his own through a relationship with his high school sweetheart, Sheena (Zoe Graham). And, before long, he’s ready to leave the nest as an 18-year-old college freshman, completing the cycle of what we call boyhood.
If much of this sounds rather ordinary, that’s because it is. “Boyhood” charts Mason’s personal growth and evolution, illustrating the kinds of experiences we all typically go through by following the protagonist over a 12-year span in his life. We watch the young Mason grow into the adolescent Mason and finally the adult Mason before our eyes. We also witness his parents and sister grow older as they experience their own unique journeys, and they all do so against the backdrop of the events of the times that occurred during the picture’s protracted filming schedule, adding a touch of temporal realism that further serves to define the project’s sense of authenticity.
Mason’s reactions to his circumstances impliedly illustrate his conscious creation skills at work. His reactions to what he draws into his life shape the beliefs he uses to further characterize the reality he experiences on an ongoing basis. He learns lessons and formulates responses to everything from the mundane, such as taking responsibility, standing one’s ground in the face of oppressive intimidation and dealing with consequences of repeating mistakes, to the extraordinary, like staking a claim to one’s destiny. All of this serves to define his personal growth and evolution and his continual exploration of his constant state of becoming, an experience that those around him share as well.
Interestingly, as an observer and documentarian of his existence, Mason creates works of art that reflect what he sees, which, in turn, are reflections of the beliefs he puts out to create those manifestations in the first place. His physical creations thus mirror the mirrors of his inner self, and the film chronicles his journey in coming to understand this concept and how it’s reflected in what he materializes in his life, especially artistically. It’s an intriguing example of art imitating life and vice versa, twice over.
As lofty and ambitious as these notions are, however, unfortunately, the film doesn’t live up to its objective (or its hype) as well as it might. In fact, perhaps the picture’s greatest accomplishment lies in its intent to push the boundaries of cinematic creativity, something director Richard Linklater is known for. In doing so, the filmmaker has created a picture unlike virtually anything else (except perhaps Michael Apted’s “Up” documentary series and, of course, the long-running and eminently enjoyable TV series The Wonder Years).
However, the film’s novel approach isn’t enough to overcome its innate episodic nature and its pedestrian performance by a dull, insipid protagonist surrounded by an array of characters who are far more interesting than he is (particularly Arquette and Hawke, who are clearly at the top of their game here). The insights the picture offers come too few and far between and aren’t especially revelatory when they do. All in all, “Boyhood” is an underwhelming effort that leans a little too heavily on its own self-congratulatory nature. It would make a decent option for DVD viewing on a rainy Saturday afternoon, but it’s certainly not worth nearly three hours of premium-priced theater time.
The process of self-discovery and the discernment of the meaning of life are grand adventures, to be sure, which is why it’s disappointing those notions failed to receive more engaging treatment in this cinematic offering. Employing an inventive approach to the subject, though laudable, unfortunately is not enough to do justice to a crucial rite of passage we all experience, one that shapes our views, beliefs and outlooks for what the real test that follows – and that will be with us for the rest of our days.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Figuring out what makes life work occupies much of our time and attention in our formative years. Coming to understand the world around us and how it emerges into being is a formidable task for our young minds, especially when it doesn’t seem to make sense. A noble attempt at broaching that subject provides the focus of one of the summer’s most anticipated new releases, director Richard Linklater’s “Boyhood.”
Growing up is quite an experience, to say the least. It’s a time for learning about the world in all its magic, mystery and wonder. And observing how that process unfolds before us is something we each go through in our own unique way.
For six-year-old Mason (Ellar Coltrane) and his older sister Samantha (Lorelei Linklater), that odyssey begins in a household headed by their divorced single mother, Olivia (Patricia Arquette), who struggles to provide for them. But caring for them is indeed difficult, and out of seemingly incessant frustration, she at last resolves to better their circumstances by moving the family from their small Texas town to Houston, where she plans to enroll in a local university to complete her college degree. The move also gives Mason and Samantha an opportunity to reunite with their father, Mason Sr. (Ethan Hawke), a would-be musician and jack-of-all-trades who has recently returned to the Lone Star State after an extended stay in Alaska trying to find himself. The kids are thrilled to have both parents back in their lives, but the likelihood of mom and dad reconciling is almost assuredly too much to hope for.
As Mason and Samantha grow older, their lives begin to change, especially when Olivia remarries, this time to Bill (Marco Perella), one of her professors. In addition to a new father figure, the children also have new step-siblings in their lives, Randy (Andrew Villarreal) and Mindy (Jamie Howard). But this new sense of domestic bliss is quickly shattered when it becomes apparent that Bill is an abusive, alcoholic control freak, a development that leads to yet another disruptive uprooting.
Olivia’s plan to complete her degree program succeeds, and, by the time Mason and Samantha are in their teens, she lands a teaching job at a small university in the college town of San Marcos. And, as Mason enters his adolescence, he begins defining himself as an artist and photographer, one who has a strong observational curiosity about life and all it has to offer. He begins to become his own person, despite the changes his family members go through, such as his mom’s new relationship with a returning Iraq War vet (Brad Hawkins) and his dad’s marriage to a sweet new wife, Annie (Jenni Tooley). He even finds a love of his own through a relationship with his high school sweetheart, Sheena (Zoe Graham). And, before long, he’s ready to leave the nest as an 18-year-old college freshman, completing the cycle of what we call boyhood.
If much of this sounds rather ordinary, that’s because it is. “Boyhood” charts Mason’s personal growth and evolution, illustrating the kinds of experiences we all typically go through by following the protagonist over a 12-year span in his life. We watch the young Mason grow into the adolescent Mason and finally the adult Mason before our eyes. We also witness his parents and sister grow older as they experience their own unique journeys, and they all do so against the backdrop of the events of the times that occurred during the picture’s protracted filming schedule, adding a touch of temporal realism that further serves to define the project’s sense of authenticity.
Mason’s reactions to his circumstances impliedly illustrate his conscious creation skills at work. His reactions to what he draws into his life shape the beliefs he uses to further characterize the reality he experiences on an ongoing basis. He learns lessons and formulates responses to everything from the mundane, such as taking responsibility, standing one’s ground in the face of oppressive intimidation and dealing with consequences of repeating mistakes, to the extraordinary, like staking a claim to one’s destiny. All of this serves to define his personal growth and evolution and his continual exploration of his constant state of becoming, an experience that those around him share as well.
Interestingly, as an observer and documentarian of his existence, Mason creates works of art that reflect what he sees, which, in turn, are reflections of the beliefs he puts out to create those manifestations in the first place. His physical creations thus mirror the mirrors of his inner self, and the film chronicles his journey in coming to understand this concept and how it’s reflected in what he materializes in his life, especially artistically. It’s an intriguing example of art imitating life and vice versa, twice over.
As lofty and ambitious as these notions are, however, unfortunately, the film doesn’t live up to its objective (or its hype) as well as it might. In fact, perhaps the picture’s greatest accomplishment lies in its intent to push the boundaries of cinematic creativity, something director Richard Linklater is known for. In doing so, the filmmaker has created a picture unlike virtually anything else (except perhaps Michael Apted’s “Up” documentary series and, of course, the long-running and eminently enjoyable TV series The Wonder Years).
However, the film’s novel approach isn’t enough to overcome its innate episodic nature and its pedestrian performance by a dull, insipid protagonist surrounded by an array of characters who are far more interesting than he is (particularly Arquette and Hawke, who are clearly at the top of their game here). The insights the picture offers come too few and far between and aren’t especially revelatory when they do. All in all, “Boyhood” is an underwhelming effort that leans a little too heavily on its own self-congratulatory nature. It would make a decent option for DVD viewing on a rainy Saturday afternoon, but it’s certainly not worth nearly three hours of premium-priced theater time.
The process of self-discovery and the discernment of the meaning of life are grand adventures, to be sure, which is why it’s disappointing those notions failed to receive more engaging treatment in this cinematic offering. Employing an inventive approach to the subject, though laudable, unfortunately is not enough to do justice to a crucial rite of passage we all experience, one that shapes our views, beliefs and outlooks for what the real test that follows – and that will be with us for the rest of our days.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
July 19, 2014
‘Snowpiercer’ examines the inevitability of evolution
“Snowpiercer” (2014). Cast: Chris Evans, Song Kang-ho, Ed Harris, John Hurt, Tilda Swinton, Jamie Bell, Octavia Spencer, Ewen Bremner, Ko Ah-sung, Alison Pill, Vlad Ivanov, Adnan Haskovic, Stephen Park, Marcanthonee Jon Reis, Emma Levie. Director: Bong Joon-ho. Screenplay: Bong Joon-ho and Kelly Masterson. Screen Story: Bong Joon-ho. Graphic Novel: La Transperceneige, Jacques Lob, Benjamin Legrand and Jean-Marc Rochette. Web site. Trailer.
It’s been said that there’s no stopping a train. The forward momentum generated by such a potent force is hard to contain, especially when fueled by the power of belief. And it’s even more ironic that a new film drives home this point by way of one of those namesake vehicles. Such is the focus of the thrilling new futurist adventure, “Snowpiercer,” now showing in theaters and on video on demand.
When an atmospheric spraying program aimed at curtailing global warming goes terribly awry, the Earth is plunged into an ice age in which everything freezes over, making life on the planet’s surface impossible. In fact, the only survivors of this calamity are the inhabitants of a massive, specially equipped train known as the Snowpiercer, a kind of Noah’s Ark on rails that endlessly circles the globe powered by a perpetual motion engine. Inside the confines of the train, the passengers are safe from the harsh conditions of the external environment, and some might say they’re the lucky ones. But that all depends on which passengers one asks, because not everyone benefits from everything the Snowpiercer has to offer.
Just as pre-ice age society was segmented into distinct classes, so, too, is the population of the Snowpiercer. But, with survival on the line and resource management a critical priority, the distinctions between the life-styles of the elite and the underprivileged classes of train society are even more pronounced, and those who are unfortunate enough to be reconciled to the back of the train are kept in line with brutal intimidation tactics. While the privileged few at the front of the train dine on gourmet food and live in elegant compartments, the steerage classes must settle for mass-produced gelatinous protein bars and cramped living conditions, with punishment routinely and harshly doled out to those who dare question their circumstances. It’s enough to spark a revolt, and, after 17 years of such deplorable conditions, that’s precisely what’s about to happen.
The rigid class segregation of passengers aboard a post-apocalyptic survival train prompts a revolt of the underprivileged against the power elite, led by insurgent leader Curtis (Chris Evans, center) and his compatriots, Edgar (Jamie Bell, right) and Gilliam (John Hurt, left), in the thrilling new action adventure, “Snowpiercer.” Photo courtesy of Radius-TWC.
Desperate for change, the residents of the tail section plan to move forward to the front of the train to confront those in control, most notably the Snowpiercer’s creator, Mr. Wilford (Ed Harris). The looming revolt is led by Curtis (Chris Evans), a charismatic freedom fighter, with the aid of his compatriots Edgar (Jamie Bell), Gilliam (John Hurt) and Tanya (Octavia Spencer), who has an added incentive to become involved when her young son, Tim (Marcanthonee Jon Reis), is seized by the authorities without explanation. But, to make their plan work, the rebels must first crack the codes for the locks that keep them trapped in their compartment. And, to accomplish that, they require assistance from the designer of the train’s security system, Namgoong Minsu (Song Kang-ho), whose efforts were rewarded by the powers-that-be with confinement to the Snowpiercer’s prison car. Namgoong agrees to aid the insurgents, but his help comes at a price. In addition to his own freedom, the master locksmith insists that the rebels liberate his psychically gifted daughter, Yona (Ko Ah-sung). And, on top of that, he demands that his assistance be rewarded with doses of kronol, a drug made from chemical waste, a substance almost as volatile as the addiction Namgoong has developed to it.
With their team in place, the rebels thus begin their ascent to the front of the train. Their efforts, however, are met with numerous challenges, including resistance from armed guards led by a ruthless commander (Stephen Park), the strong-arm tactics of a pair of sadistic henchmen (Vlad Ivanov, Adnan Haskovic), the platitudinous but menacing threats of one of Wilford’s chief minions, Mason (Tilda Swinton), and even the seemingly benign but decidedly deadly acts of a school teacher to the children of the elite (Alison Pill). But the insurgents’ resolve is so strong that there’s precious little that will hold them back. And, as they make their way forward, they discover an amazing world of wonder aboard the train that they never knew existed (and probably never even envisioned). However, the closer the rebels get to reaching their goal, the more one can’t help but wonder, will they attain it? And, if so, then what? Indeed, what ensues will inevitably surprise everybody, including those both on and off the screen.
An unjustly imprisoned security system designer, Namgoong Minsu (Song Kang-ho), comes to the aid of a rebel faction seeking to change the deplorable conditions of daily life aboard a post-apocalyptic survival train in director Bong Joon-ho’s “Snowpiercer.” Photo courtesy of Radius-TWC.
As anyone who practices conscious creation knows, we manifest the reality we experience through our thoughts, beliefs and intents, and they serve to lead us down a particular line of probable existence, one of an infinite number of possibilities available for expression at any moment. And, given the foregoing, the train provides a fitting metaphor for illustrating how that concept works. The train runs on tracks, following a predetermined “path” created by those who initially conceived of it. It thus symbolically exemplifies the depiction of a specific probability as it transitions from the realm of potential into the world of manifestation – and one that has persisted stubbornly, despite efforts from within to reshape it.
Resilience issues aside, the specific probability that the Snowpiercer embodies nevertheless represents a reality sorely in need of change, for a variety of reasons. For example, considering that the train came into existence in response to the onset of the ice age, its emergence signifies a makeshift solution to a larger, more dire challenge, a sort of bandage on a gaping metaphysical wound (and one whose efficacy at treating that injury is questionable at best). What’s more, the Snowpiercer was intentionally set up to mimic the ways of the society out of which it was born, a probability that seeks to perpetuate the inequalities and divisions that kept its citizens apart in the days before the global calamity – only worse. And it all comes at a time when everyone on board should arguably be pulling together for the common good – indeed, the very survival – of the human race. In short, the Snowpiercer is an attempt to prop up the ways of an old world in a new one in which its inhabitants don’t have the luxury of realistically being able to maintain what they once had. It reflects a way of life whose time has come and gone but whose creators desperately attempt to hold onto, a recipe for the imposition of change if there ever were one.
Rebel leader Curtis (Chris Evans, left) attempts to orchestrate a rebellion to improve living conditions aboard a post-apocalyptic survival train with a ragtag band of followers, including a young psychic girl, Yona (Ko Ah-sung, right), in “Snowpiercer.” Photo courtesy of Radius-TWC.
In that sense, then, the Snowpiercer represents an affront to one of the key concepts of conscious creation, namely, that we’re continually evolving, that we’re all in a constant state of becoming. If the old way of life were meant to die away in the wake of the ice age, its attempted perpetuation through the Snowpiercer is a futile effort to stave off what the masses have collectively created (not to mention what must inevitably happen). The efforts of Wilford and his cohorts to preserve their way of life is thus a sort of metaphysical obscenity, one that seeks to deny the forces of our inherent nature. But artificially maintaining the status quo is unlikely to withstand the tremendous power of impending change, for the beliefs driving the wave of revolution and transformation are far more potent than any of the weapons supposedly designed to oppose it. And, when those forces of change are let loose, they might well unleash powers no one ever imagined, with outcomes exceeding anything that anyone ever saw coming.
In addition to the changes that the rebels seek to invoke for their society at large, they also bring about changes within themselves. The vision they hold for what could be prompts them to push past their own personal limitations. It drives them to stretch, to become more than they could have imagined. But, given the evolutionary nature of conscious creation, that shouldn’t come as any surprise, either. Whether that principle is applied on a macro or micro level, one thing is certain – it ultimately won’t be denied.
Mason (Tilda Swinton, center), a perfunctory minion of the power elite aboard a post-apocalyptic survival train, does battle with a band of rebels led by Curtis (Chris Evans, left) and his compatriot Tanya (Octavia Spencer, right) in their efforts to improve the living conditions of the underprivileged in director Bong Joon-ho’s incredible cinematic thrill ride, “Snowpiercer.” Photo courtesy of Radius-TWC.
“Snowpiercer” is an incredible thrill ride, to say the least, one of the most innovative films to come out in a very long time. It serves up a storyline all its own, yet it also contains elements reminiscent of a number of other familiar offerings, including Battlestar Gallactica, the “Mad Max” movie franchise, and films like “2012” (2009), “The Hunger Games” (2012) and even “The Truman Show” (1998). The picture features great special effects and action sequences, but it doesn’t rely on them to carry the narrative. It also includes ample humor, along with a host of terrific performances, particularly by Swinton, Spencer, Harris and Pill.
In approaching this film, it’s crucial that viewers suspend belief regarding the story since it’s clearly implausible on many levels. However, if you consider the plot metaphorically, you’ll enjoy it immensely. Sensitive viewers should be aware that the film is quite violent at times, but its imagery is never gratuitous, thanks to director Bong Joon-ho’s successful implementation of Hitchcock’s rule of showing the aftermath (but not the actual occurrence) of disturbing events. The picture probably could have benefited from a little editing during the first 30 minutes, which drag a bit in spots, but, once the film gets past that point, it takes off like a shot and never looks back – nor disappoints.
The sudden appearance of a worldwide ice age would undoubtedly be a disaster of Biblical proportions. But, as the Good Book also states in Ecclesiastes 3, “to every thing there is a season,” including all of the probabilities that are ultimately made manifest. “Snowpiercer” serves as a valuable reminder of this wisdom, of knowing when to let go when the time comes to do so. Seeing our plans getting derailed may come as a shock or disappointment, but the doors that open as a result may also hold tremendous promise for fresh new beginnings that bring us – all of us – blessings beyond what we can comprehend.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
It’s been said that there’s no stopping a train. The forward momentum generated by such a potent force is hard to contain, especially when fueled by the power of belief. And it’s even more ironic that a new film drives home this point by way of one of those namesake vehicles. Such is the focus of the thrilling new futurist adventure, “Snowpiercer,” now showing in theaters and on video on demand.
When an atmospheric spraying program aimed at curtailing global warming goes terribly awry, the Earth is plunged into an ice age in which everything freezes over, making life on the planet’s surface impossible. In fact, the only survivors of this calamity are the inhabitants of a massive, specially equipped train known as the Snowpiercer, a kind of Noah’s Ark on rails that endlessly circles the globe powered by a perpetual motion engine. Inside the confines of the train, the passengers are safe from the harsh conditions of the external environment, and some might say they’re the lucky ones. But that all depends on which passengers one asks, because not everyone benefits from everything the Snowpiercer has to offer.
Just as pre-ice age society was segmented into distinct classes, so, too, is the population of the Snowpiercer. But, with survival on the line and resource management a critical priority, the distinctions between the life-styles of the elite and the underprivileged classes of train society are even more pronounced, and those who are unfortunate enough to be reconciled to the back of the train are kept in line with brutal intimidation tactics. While the privileged few at the front of the train dine on gourmet food and live in elegant compartments, the steerage classes must settle for mass-produced gelatinous protein bars and cramped living conditions, with punishment routinely and harshly doled out to those who dare question their circumstances. It’s enough to spark a revolt, and, after 17 years of such deplorable conditions, that’s precisely what’s about to happen.
The rigid class segregation of passengers aboard a post-apocalyptic survival train prompts a revolt of the underprivileged against the power elite, led by insurgent leader Curtis (Chris Evans, center) and his compatriots, Edgar (Jamie Bell, right) and Gilliam (John Hurt, left), in the thrilling new action adventure, “Snowpiercer.” Photo courtesy of Radius-TWC.Desperate for change, the residents of the tail section plan to move forward to the front of the train to confront those in control, most notably the Snowpiercer’s creator, Mr. Wilford (Ed Harris). The looming revolt is led by Curtis (Chris Evans), a charismatic freedom fighter, with the aid of his compatriots Edgar (Jamie Bell), Gilliam (John Hurt) and Tanya (Octavia Spencer), who has an added incentive to become involved when her young son, Tim (Marcanthonee Jon Reis), is seized by the authorities without explanation. But, to make their plan work, the rebels must first crack the codes for the locks that keep them trapped in their compartment. And, to accomplish that, they require assistance from the designer of the train’s security system, Namgoong Minsu (Song Kang-ho), whose efforts were rewarded by the powers-that-be with confinement to the Snowpiercer’s prison car. Namgoong agrees to aid the insurgents, but his help comes at a price. In addition to his own freedom, the master locksmith insists that the rebels liberate his psychically gifted daughter, Yona (Ko Ah-sung). And, on top of that, he demands that his assistance be rewarded with doses of kronol, a drug made from chemical waste, a substance almost as volatile as the addiction Namgoong has developed to it.
With their team in place, the rebels thus begin their ascent to the front of the train. Their efforts, however, are met with numerous challenges, including resistance from armed guards led by a ruthless commander (Stephen Park), the strong-arm tactics of a pair of sadistic henchmen (Vlad Ivanov, Adnan Haskovic), the platitudinous but menacing threats of one of Wilford’s chief minions, Mason (Tilda Swinton), and even the seemingly benign but decidedly deadly acts of a school teacher to the children of the elite (Alison Pill). But the insurgents’ resolve is so strong that there’s precious little that will hold them back. And, as they make their way forward, they discover an amazing world of wonder aboard the train that they never knew existed (and probably never even envisioned). However, the closer the rebels get to reaching their goal, the more one can’t help but wonder, will they attain it? And, if so, then what? Indeed, what ensues will inevitably surprise everybody, including those both on and off the screen.
An unjustly imprisoned security system designer, Namgoong Minsu (Song Kang-ho), comes to the aid of a rebel faction seeking to change the deplorable conditions of daily life aboard a post-apocalyptic survival train in director Bong Joon-ho’s “Snowpiercer.” Photo courtesy of Radius-TWC.As anyone who practices conscious creation knows, we manifest the reality we experience through our thoughts, beliefs and intents, and they serve to lead us down a particular line of probable existence, one of an infinite number of possibilities available for expression at any moment. And, given the foregoing, the train provides a fitting metaphor for illustrating how that concept works. The train runs on tracks, following a predetermined “path” created by those who initially conceived of it. It thus symbolically exemplifies the depiction of a specific probability as it transitions from the realm of potential into the world of manifestation – and one that has persisted stubbornly, despite efforts from within to reshape it.
Resilience issues aside, the specific probability that the Snowpiercer embodies nevertheless represents a reality sorely in need of change, for a variety of reasons. For example, considering that the train came into existence in response to the onset of the ice age, its emergence signifies a makeshift solution to a larger, more dire challenge, a sort of bandage on a gaping metaphysical wound (and one whose efficacy at treating that injury is questionable at best). What’s more, the Snowpiercer was intentionally set up to mimic the ways of the society out of which it was born, a probability that seeks to perpetuate the inequalities and divisions that kept its citizens apart in the days before the global calamity – only worse. And it all comes at a time when everyone on board should arguably be pulling together for the common good – indeed, the very survival – of the human race. In short, the Snowpiercer is an attempt to prop up the ways of an old world in a new one in which its inhabitants don’t have the luxury of realistically being able to maintain what they once had. It reflects a way of life whose time has come and gone but whose creators desperately attempt to hold onto, a recipe for the imposition of change if there ever were one.
Rebel leader Curtis (Chris Evans, left) attempts to orchestrate a rebellion to improve living conditions aboard a post-apocalyptic survival train with a ragtag band of followers, including a young psychic girl, Yona (Ko Ah-sung, right), in “Snowpiercer.” Photo courtesy of Radius-TWC.In that sense, then, the Snowpiercer represents an affront to one of the key concepts of conscious creation, namely, that we’re continually evolving, that we’re all in a constant state of becoming. If the old way of life were meant to die away in the wake of the ice age, its attempted perpetuation through the Snowpiercer is a futile effort to stave off what the masses have collectively created (not to mention what must inevitably happen). The efforts of Wilford and his cohorts to preserve their way of life is thus a sort of metaphysical obscenity, one that seeks to deny the forces of our inherent nature. But artificially maintaining the status quo is unlikely to withstand the tremendous power of impending change, for the beliefs driving the wave of revolution and transformation are far more potent than any of the weapons supposedly designed to oppose it. And, when those forces of change are let loose, they might well unleash powers no one ever imagined, with outcomes exceeding anything that anyone ever saw coming.
In addition to the changes that the rebels seek to invoke for their society at large, they also bring about changes within themselves. The vision they hold for what could be prompts them to push past their own personal limitations. It drives them to stretch, to become more than they could have imagined. But, given the evolutionary nature of conscious creation, that shouldn’t come as any surprise, either. Whether that principle is applied on a macro or micro level, one thing is certain – it ultimately won’t be denied.
Mason (Tilda Swinton, center), a perfunctory minion of the power elite aboard a post-apocalyptic survival train, does battle with a band of rebels led by Curtis (Chris Evans, left) and his compatriot Tanya (Octavia Spencer, right) in their efforts to improve the living conditions of the underprivileged in director Bong Joon-ho’s incredible cinematic thrill ride, “Snowpiercer.” Photo courtesy of Radius-TWC.“Snowpiercer” is an incredible thrill ride, to say the least, one of the most innovative films to come out in a very long time. It serves up a storyline all its own, yet it also contains elements reminiscent of a number of other familiar offerings, including Battlestar Gallactica, the “Mad Max” movie franchise, and films like “2012” (2009), “The Hunger Games” (2012) and even “The Truman Show” (1998). The picture features great special effects and action sequences, but it doesn’t rely on them to carry the narrative. It also includes ample humor, along with a host of terrific performances, particularly by Swinton, Spencer, Harris and Pill.
In approaching this film, it’s crucial that viewers suspend belief regarding the story since it’s clearly implausible on many levels. However, if you consider the plot metaphorically, you’ll enjoy it immensely. Sensitive viewers should be aware that the film is quite violent at times, but its imagery is never gratuitous, thanks to director Bong Joon-ho’s successful implementation of Hitchcock’s rule of showing the aftermath (but not the actual occurrence) of disturbing events. The picture probably could have benefited from a little editing during the first 30 minutes, which drag a bit in spots, but, once the film gets past that point, it takes off like a shot and never looks back – nor disappoints.
The sudden appearance of a worldwide ice age would undoubtedly be a disaster of Biblical proportions. But, as the Good Book also states in Ecclesiastes 3, “to every thing there is a season,” including all of the probabilities that are ultimately made manifest. “Snowpiercer” serves as a valuable reminder of this wisdom, of knowing when to let go when the time comes to do so. Seeing our plans getting derailed may come as a shock or disappointment, but the doors that open as a result may also hold tremendous promise for fresh new beginnings that bring us – all of us – blessings beyond what we can comprehend.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
July 15, 2014
Ask the Author
Got a question about one of my books or my other writing projects? Well, if you're a GoodReads member, you can now get answers straight from the author's mouth. Visit my GoodReads.com profile page and check out the new "Ask the Author" feature. I've already answered a few sample questions, but, if there's something specific you'd like to know, fire me a query and I'll get back to you. Happy reading!
July 12, 2014
‘Life Itself’: Ode to a cinematic game changer
“Life Itself” (2014). Cast: Roger Ebert, Chaz Ebert, Gene Siskel (archive footage), Martin Scorsese, Errol Morris, Werner Herzog, Ramin Bahrani, Greg Nava, Ava Duvernay, A.O. Scott, Richard Corliss, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Marlene Iglitzen, Thea Flaum, Nancy De Los Santos, Roger Simon, John McHugh, Stephen Stanton (voice). Director: Steve James. Book: Life Itself: A Memoir, Roger Ebert. Web site. Trailer.
It’s a rare occasion when someone comes along who ends up being a genuine game changer in his or her particular field of endeavor. But, when such individuals make their presence felt, they leave an indelible mark on their craft, changing it forever. In the field of film criticism, that distinction belongs to Roger Ebert (1942-2013), who almost single-handedly altered the way we look at movies and whose storied life is now the subject of the engaging new documentary, “Life Itself.”
Based on Ebert’s autobiography, director Steve James’s documentary chronicles his subject’s life story from his teenage years as neighborhood reporter for a self-published newspaper to his acclaimed career as America’s top movie critic to his heartbreaking yet ever-hopeful battle against terminal cancer. In presenting Roger’s story, James serves up a wealth of archival material, coupled with narrated segments from Ebert’s memoir, interviews with family, friends and colleagues, and candid footage of the difficulties his subject faced in his final days. The result is a remarkable and surprisingly forthright depiction of Ebert’s life, something he insisted on before agreeing to be involved in the project.
Ebert’s contributions to the field of film criticism are almost too numerous to mention. His 46-year career included positions as Chicago Sun-Times movie critic, as co-host of several TV series (most notably Sneak Previews, At the Movies and Siskel & Ebert & The Movies) and as the author of numerous books. He was also a regular presenter about cinema at the Conference on World Affairs and even co-wrote the screenplay for the Russ Meyer cult classic “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls” (1970). And his efforts didn’t go unnoticed, either. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism, the first film critic ever to receive this prestigious award. Then, in 2005, he was honored again, this time with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, the only film critic ever so recognized. (Not bad for a middle-class kid from Urbana, Illinois.)
Film critics Roger Ebert (right) and Gene Siskel (left) take on one another during one of their many televised movie review duels in director Steve James’s engaging new documentary, “Life Itself.” Photo by Kevin Horan, courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.
While the picture covers the entire spectrum of Ebert’s career, much of it examines his famous (some might say infamous) relationship with film critic Gene Siskel (1946-1999) of The Chicago Tribune. As rivals at Chicago’s two daily newspapers, they initially vied for the attention of the Windy City’s moviegoing public. But that was just the beginning. The duo would later go on to host the aforementioned TV series, which often featured spirited – sometimes downright nasty – debates about current film releases. Their colorful arguments made for great television, but those disagreements (and the shows themselves) also changed the way movie lovers viewed the cinematic landscape. They brought film criticism out of the pages of the newspaper and made it more available to a wider audience. In doing so, they became the best known (and some would say most influential) film critics in America, as well as celebrities in their own right. Yet, for all the fame and fortune they built together, they never much cared for one another, their contentious rivalry characterizing much of the nature of their relationship (some of which becomes plainly apparent in outtakes from promos for their TV series and in interviews with Siskel’s widow, Marlene Iglitzen, and several of their shows’ producers).
The film also focuses heavily on the other significant relationship in Ebert’s life, that of his marriage to his wife, Chaz. Roger met Chaz late in life after years of dating women who, according to some of his friends, were of “questionable character.” But Chaz changed Roger’s life, introducing him to the love that always eluded him in his younger years. She would prove to be his rock in his waning days, too, remaining loyal and upbeat through all of his travails, which were much more taxing than most people knew, despite his very public presence almost right up until the end.
But what’s perhaps most illuminating about this film is its portrayal of the relationship Roger had with himself. He was very much in touch with who he was and how his life unfolded. In fact, he believed that we each compose the script of our own lives, that they’re like our own personal movies in which we’re actor, director and screenwriter all rolled into one. And, even though he was quite outspoken in his criticism of alternative life philosophies (such as New Age thought), his own outlook nevertheless seems remarkably consistent with the principles of conscious creation, the notion that we create our own reality with our thoughts, beliefs and intents. Some might argue that there are discrepancies between his views and those who practice conscious creation, but, in my opinion, I believe any such differences are mostly semantic, particularly given the similarities in the outcomes that each outlook propounds to evoke.
The creations Ebert materialized were quite impressive, to say the least. For instance, through his TV series, he brought film criticism to the masses, and, in doing so, he made it accessible to those who may have previously seen the subject as too high-brow or aloof. In fact, he was so successful at this that industry insiders were initially reluctant to embrace these shows (or even to measure their impact) simply because they were hosted by “Midwestern” film critics, presenters viewed as folksy rubes who couldn’t possibly possess the sophistication and clout of New York or Los Angeles critics like Pauline Kael. How wrong the detractors were, especially when the shows took off and became hits in the ratings.
Film critics Roger Ebert (left) and Gene Siskel (right) screen a picture for review in director Steve James’s “Life Itself.” Photo by Kevin Horan, courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.
By broadening the audience for serious film criticism, Ebert also helped to broaden the profession itself. This is most evident on his web site, www.rogerebert.com, which became his “voice” after his cancerous lower jaw was surgically removed and left him unable to speak. But, in addition to providing a venue for Ebert’s output, the site also became a platform for upcoming film critics whose words might not otherwise have been given voice. By mentoring a new generation of reviewers, Roger furthered the reach of his calling and those who would take up the gauntlet in his wake. His efforts in this regard are praised in the film, too, in interviews with fellow critics like A.O. Scott and Richard Corliss.
Roger’s generosity of spirit was apparent not only in the nurturing of new critics, but also in the development of new cinematic talent. Throughout his career, Ebert was famous for giving press to the works of aspiring or little-known directors, such as Martin Scorsese, Errol Morris, Werner Herzog, Ramin Bahrani, Greg Nava and Ava Duvernay, all of whom are interviewed in the film. He was instrumental in helping to make their careers, something that benefitted both those artists and the moviegoing public.
However, despite Ebert’s willingness to support the works of up-and-coming directors (and even to befriend them in some cases), he maintained a scrupulous degree of integrity when it came to assessing their pictures. Scorsese, for example, discusses Ebert’s harsh (and disheartening) criticism of his film “The Color of Money” (1986). Despite four Academy Award nominations (including a best actor win for Paul Newman), Ebert tore into his friend’s picture. Scorsese confesses that he was disappointed at the time, but he also admits how he later recognized that Ebert’s criticisms helped make him a better filmmaker, a “gift” that would prove valuable in his future projects. In being honest, Ebert may have ruffled some feathers in the short run, but his wisdom subsequently helped elevate the art form he so loved, another of his inspired creations, to be sure.
But, for all his professional accomplishments, his personal triumphs were amazing achievements as well. Just ask Chaz and her family, many of whom are interviewed in the film and serve as a topic of discussion in voiceover narrations from Roger’s memoir. Through them, he built a family for himself. And that accomplishment, as fulfilling as it was, wouldn’t have happened if it hadn’t been for another of his achievements – kicking the drinking habit – for it was through his association with Alcoholics Anonymous that he would meet his future bride (and everything that came with that). Indeed, to paraphrase Clarence, the lovable guardian angel from Frank Capra’s legendary Christmas classic, “Roger, you’ve truly had a wonderful life.” And, fortunately for Roger, he recognized this, too, regardless of whatever difficulties may have graced his path along the way.
Film critic Roger Ebert (right) and the love of his life, Chaz (left), smile for the cameras on their wedding day in the engaging new documentary, “Life Itself.” Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.
“Life Itself” paints a beautiful portrait of a towering figure, and it does so with sequences that are both heartbreaking and heartwarming. Its selection of archive, interview and recent footage tells a balanced, frank and compelling story, warts and all. There are both ample laughs and touching moments, as well as film clips from many of Ebert’s favorite movies, all combining to create one of the most complete pictures I’ve seen in quite a long time. The film is a sure-fire contender in the documentary categories for this year’s awards competitions.
As a longtime Chicago resident, I became well-acquainted with Roger Ebert over the years through his work as a critic for the Sun-Times, a movie reviewer for the local ABC-TV affiliate and as a co-host of Sneak Previews, the PBS series produced by the network’s Chicago affiliate, WTTW. But, beyond his published and broadcast works, I came to admire Roger’s approach to film criticism, one that was thought-provoking but that never went beyond the audience’s comprehension. And, just as Roger saw himself as the creator of the movie of his own life, I frequently offer comparable observations in my own writings – but, then, I had a good source of inspiration to draw from.
Roger Ebert left an incredible mark on an industry, an art form, even the nation’s culture. He helped transform a casual pastime into something more, something that both entertains and enlightens but that also maintains a certain familiarity we can all relate to. That’s quite an accomplishment, one for which all moviegoers should be grateful.
Take a bow, Roger.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
It’s a rare occasion when someone comes along who ends up being a genuine game changer in his or her particular field of endeavor. But, when such individuals make their presence felt, they leave an indelible mark on their craft, changing it forever. In the field of film criticism, that distinction belongs to Roger Ebert (1942-2013), who almost single-handedly altered the way we look at movies and whose storied life is now the subject of the engaging new documentary, “Life Itself.”
Based on Ebert’s autobiography, director Steve James’s documentary chronicles his subject’s life story from his teenage years as neighborhood reporter for a self-published newspaper to his acclaimed career as America’s top movie critic to his heartbreaking yet ever-hopeful battle against terminal cancer. In presenting Roger’s story, James serves up a wealth of archival material, coupled with narrated segments from Ebert’s memoir, interviews with family, friends and colleagues, and candid footage of the difficulties his subject faced in his final days. The result is a remarkable and surprisingly forthright depiction of Ebert’s life, something he insisted on before agreeing to be involved in the project.
Ebert’s contributions to the field of film criticism are almost too numerous to mention. His 46-year career included positions as Chicago Sun-Times movie critic, as co-host of several TV series (most notably Sneak Previews, At the Movies and Siskel & Ebert & The Movies) and as the author of numerous books. He was also a regular presenter about cinema at the Conference on World Affairs and even co-wrote the screenplay for the Russ Meyer cult classic “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls” (1970). And his efforts didn’t go unnoticed, either. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism, the first film critic ever to receive this prestigious award. Then, in 2005, he was honored again, this time with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, the only film critic ever so recognized. (Not bad for a middle-class kid from Urbana, Illinois.)
Film critics Roger Ebert (right) and Gene Siskel (left) take on one another during one of their many televised movie review duels in director Steve James’s engaging new documentary, “Life Itself.” Photo by Kevin Horan, courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.While the picture covers the entire spectrum of Ebert’s career, much of it examines his famous (some might say infamous) relationship with film critic Gene Siskel (1946-1999) of The Chicago Tribune. As rivals at Chicago’s two daily newspapers, they initially vied for the attention of the Windy City’s moviegoing public. But that was just the beginning. The duo would later go on to host the aforementioned TV series, which often featured spirited – sometimes downright nasty – debates about current film releases. Their colorful arguments made for great television, but those disagreements (and the shows themselves) also changed the way movie lovers viewed the cinematic landscape. They brought film criticism out of the pages of the newspaper and made it more available to a wider audience. In doing so, they became the best known (and some would say most influential) film critics in America, as well as celebrities in their own right. Yet, for all the fame and fortune they built together, they never much cared for one another, their contentious rivalry characterizing much of the nature of their relationship (some of which becomes plainly apparent in outtakes from promos for their TV series and in interviews with Siskel’s widow, Marlene Iglitzen, and several of their shows’ producers).
The film also focuses heavily on the other significant relationship in Ebert’s life, that of his marriage to his wife, Chaz. Roger met Chaz late in life after years of dating women who, according to some of his friends, were of “questionable character.” But Chaz changed Roger’s life, introducing him to the love that always eluded him in his younger years. She would prove to be his rock in his waning days, too, remaining loyal and upbeat through all of his travails, which were much more taxing than most people knew, despite his very public presence almost right up until the end.
But what’s perhaps most illuminating about this film is its portrayal of the relationship Roger had with himself. He was very much in touch with who he was and how his life unfolded. In fact, he believed that we each compose the script of our own lives, that they’re like our own personal movies in which we’re actor, director and screenwriter all rolled into one. And, even though he was quite outspoken in his criticism of alternative life philosophies (such as New Age thought), his own outlook nevertheless seems remarkably consistent with the principles of conscious creation, the notion that we create our own reality with our thoughts, beliefs and intents. Some might argue that there are discrepancies between his views and those who practice conscious creation, but, in my opinion, I believe any such differences are mostly semantic, particularly given the similarities in the outcomes that each outlook propounds to evoke.
The creations Ebert materialized were quite impressive, to say the least. For instance, through his TV series, he brought film criticism to the masses, and, in doing so, he made it accessible to those who may have previously seen the subject as too high-brow or aloof. In fact, he was so successful at this that industry insiders were initially reluctant to embrace these shows (or even to measure their impact) simply because they were hosted by “Midwestern” film critics, presenters viewed as folksy rubes who couldn’t possibly possess the sophistication and clout of New York or Los Angeles critics like Pauline Kael. How wrong the detractors were, especially when the shows took off and became hits in the ratings.
Film critics Roger Ebert (left) and Gene Siskel (right) screen a picture for review in director Steve James’s “Life Itself.” Photo by Kevin Horan, courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.By broadening the audience for serious film criticism, Ebert also helped to broaden the profession itself. This is most evident on his web site, www.rogerebert.com, which became his “voice” after his cancerous lower jaw was surgically removed and left him unable to speak. But, in addition to providing a venue for Ebert’s output, the site also became a platform for upcoming film critics whose words might not otherwise have been given voice. By mentoring a new generation of reviewers, Roger furthered the reach of his calling and those who would take up the gauntlet in his wake. His efforts in this regard are praised in the film, too, in interviews with fellow critics like A.O. Scott and Richard Corliss.
Roger’s generosity of spirit was apparent not only in the nurturing of new critics, but also in the development of new cinematic talent. Throughout his career, Ebert was famous for giving press to the works of aspiring or little-known directors, such as Martin Scorsese, Errol Morris, Werner Herzog, Ramin Bahrani, Greg Nava and Ava Duvernay, all of whom are interviewed in the film. He was instrumental in helping to make their careers, something that benefitted both those artists and the moviegoing public.
However, despite Ebert’s willingness to support the works of up-and-coming directors (and even to befriend them in some cases), he maintained a scrupulous degree of integrity when it came to assessing their pictures. Scorsese, for example, discusses Ebert’s harsh (and disheartening) criticism of his film “The Color of Money” (1986). Despite four Academy Award nominations (including a best actor win for Paul Newman), Ebert tore into his friend’s picture. Scorsese confesses that he was disappointed at the time, but he also admits how he later recognized that Ebert’s criticisms helped make him a better filmmaker, a “gift” that would prove valuable in his future projects. In being honest, Ebert may have ruffled some feathers in the short run, but his wisdom subsequently helped elevate the art form he so loved, another of his inspired creations, to be sure.
But, for all his professional accomplishments, his personal triumphs were amazing achievements as well. Just ask Chaz and her family, many of whom are interviewed in the film and serve as a topic of discussion in voiceover narrations from Roger’s memoir. Through them, he built a family for himself. And that accomplishment, as fulfilling as it was, wouldn’t have happened if it hadn’t been for another of his achievements – kicking the drinking habit – for it was through his association with Alcoholics Anonymous that he would meet his future bride (and everything that came with that). Indeed, to paraphrase Clarence, the lovable guardian angel from Frank Capra’s legendary Christmas classic, “Roger, you’ve truly had a wonderful life.” And, fortunately for Roger, he recognized this, too, regardless of whatever difficulties may have graced his path along the way.
Film critic Roger Ebert (right) and the love of his life, Chaz (left), smile for the cameras on their wedding day in the engaging new documentary, “Life Itself.” Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.“Life Itself” paints a beautiful portrait of a towering figure, and it does so with sequences that are both heartbreaking and heartwarming. Its selection of archive, interview and recent footage tells a balanced, frank and compelling story, warts and all. There are both ample laughs and touching moments, as well as film clips from many of Ebert’s favorite movies, all combining to create one of the most complete pictures I’ve seen in quite a long time. The film is a sure-fire contender in the documentary categories for this year’s awards competitions.
As a longtime Chicago resident, I became well-acquainted with Roger Ebert over the years through his work as a critic for the Sun-Times, a movie reviewer for the local ABC-TV affiliate and as a co-host of Sneak Previews, the PBS series produced by the network’s Chicago affiliate, WTTW. But, beyond his published and broadcast works, I came to admire Roger’s approach to film criticism, one that was thought-provoking but that never went beyond the audience’s comprehension. And, just as Roger saw himself as the creator of the movie of his own life, I frequently offer comparable observations in my own writings – but, then, I had a good source of inspiration to draw from.
Roger Ebert left an incredible mark on an industry, an art form, even the nation’s culture. He helped transform a casual pastime into something more, something that both entertains and enlightens but that also maintains a certain familiarity we can all relate to. That’s quite an accomplishment, one for which all moviegoers should be grateful.
Take a bow, Roger.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
July 8, 2014
Check Out New Age News!
I'm pleased to announce that the July edition of New Age News magazine containing my first article, Conscious Creation and the Silver Screen, is now available from the iTunes Store! Check out this jam-packed issue by clicking here.
July 3, 2014
Two documentaries examine the nature of life’s essentials
“Ivory Tower” (2014). Featured Experts: Richard Arum, Bennet Bergman, Jamshed Bharucha, David Boone, Brooke Brewster, Governor Jerry Brown, Kyrie Byer, Anthony Carnevale, Clayton Christensen, Michael Crow, Andrew Delbanco, Bob Estrin, Drew Faust, Stefanie Gray, John Hennessy, Anya Kamenetz, Daphne Koller, David Malan, Amirah Mitchell, Michael Roth, Lisa Rucinski, Victoria Sobel, Elizabeth Stark, Catherine Stevens, John Stuart, Peter Thiel, Sebastian Thurn, Ben Weeks. Director: Andrew Rossi. Writer: Andrew Rossi. Web site. Trailer.
“Fed Up” (2014). Narrator: Katie Couric. Featured Experts: Kelly Brownell, President Bill Clinton, Senator Tom Harkin, Mark Hyman, David Kessler, Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, Robert Lustig, Michael Pollan, Michele Simon, Margo Wootan. Director: Stephanie Soechtig. Writers: Mark Monroe and Stephanie Soechtig. Web site. Trailer.
Our everyday existence has many components that we consider essential for our personal growth, if not our very survival. Many times, however, we take these things for granted, giving little thought to them, including why they’ve taken the forms that they have (or that we’ve had a substantial hand in their realization). So, when these creations start to go awry, we’re often befuddled at how they’ve materialized as they have. “Why,” we rhetorically ask ourselves, “have these staples of existence assumed such unsuitable forms?” That’s a heady metaphysical question, one that provides a potent undercurrent in two new documentaries that deal with some of life’s essentials, “Ivory Tower” and “Fed Up.”
Education in America is frequently looked upon as an inalienable right, something to which we’re all entitled to have access, especially since it’s considered central to our development as productive, contributing members of society. At the very least, we assume that we’re entitled to a high school diploma, if not a college degree. That wisdom has occupied a prominent place in our beliefs for decades, too, and, over the years, various public and private programs have been established to further those objectives, noble ventures, to be sure.
However, over roughly the past 35 years, the pursuit of a university education has become an increasingly arduous undertaking, particularly financially. What was once seen as a realistically attainable goal has, in recent years, morphed into a fiscal calamity for many students and their families. Student loan debt, for example, has exploded to the point where graduates often face the prospect of having to pay off their obligations for the rest of their lives, a sort of modern-day form of indentured servitude.
The hallowed halls of Harvard University are one of the featured colleges in the new documentary, “Ivory Tower.” Photo courtesy of Samuel Goldwyn Films.
How did we go from the point where students could pay for their educations by working summer jobs and taking out modest loans to the nightmare of being overwhelmed with debt in near perpetuity? That’s one of the key questions that “Ivory Tower” seeks to address. Through interviews with students, professors, administrators and politicians, coupled with a plethora of statistical data, the filmmakers explore this issue and document the reasons for this debacle, many of which have surprisingly little to do with the actual cost of educating pupils. By focusing on such issues as shelling out huge sums for expensive campus construction programs aimed at luring would-be students (often in an attempt at little more than one-upping competing universities) and paying administrators salaries in excess of what they’re likely worth, the nation’s colleges have unwittingly ballooned tuition and living costs beyond reason. Students, consequently, are saddled with debts they’re likely to have considerable difficulty paying off after graduation (if that even happens), especially since starting salaries have not kept pace with what they owe. In fact, the increasingly dire nature of these circumstances has even prompted a growing number of university candidates to question whether attending college is still worth the investment.
The foregoing concerns thus raise an even bigger question – what exactly do we want out of our educational institutions these days? That’s the issue “Ivory Tower” takes up after addressing the core problem. By examining the educational objectives being pursued by a number of the nation’s colleges – some well known, some not – the filmmakers attempt to examine this question, which has myriad ramifications in terms of what subjects are taught, how those lessons are delivered, what facilities and instructors are necessary for said programs, and what alternatives are possible. With a bloated, overpriced system on the brink of collapse, these are significant considerations that educators seriously need to examine – before it’s too late.
Graduation day should be a time of joy, but, for many debt-burdened students and parents these days, it may be a short-lived joy, as detailed in the new documentary, “Ivory Tower.” Photo courtesy of Samuel Goldwyn Films.
While education may nourish the soul, something that’s even more essential to our sustenance is food, and it, too, is something that has become a problematic staple for us today. That’s the issue explored in “Fed Up.”
How is it that something that’s supposed to sustain us is making us so sick? With childhood obesity at record levels and rates of chronic illnesses like diabetes and heart disease skyrocketing, the food processing industry has come under serious scrutiny as the chief culprit in these problems, particularly for its products that contain added sugar (roughly 80% of the processed food items on the US market today). These problems have been compounded by a medical profession that has clung to outmoded recommendations for combating these conditions, by food manufacturers who skillfully manipulate and entice the tastes of consumers (especially children), often with deceptive marketing campaigns and disingenuous product offerings, and by complicit government agencies and officials that have apparently turned a blind eye to the reality of these issues to appease corporate interests at the expense of public health.
America’s expanding waistline – and the food industry’s role in that phenomenon – provide the focus of the new documentary, “Fed Up.” Photo courtesy of RADiUS-TWC.
Through interviews with public health officials, politicians, medical researchers and consumers afflicted by food-related conditions, the film details how these circumstances arose, how they have been perpetuated, their current and projected future impacts, and the reasons why effective solutions have been thwarted or are hard to come by. The revelations offered up provide considerable food for thought for all consumers.
So how is it that we have arrived at this point with regard to our educational system and food supply? It would be easy to point a finger at the providers of these commodities and cite such considerations as incompetence or greed, and those contentions genuinely have some merit. However, as anyone who practices conscious creation understands, we all have a hand in the unfolding of these scenarios, whether or not we recognize it or are willing to own up to it. Given that we each create our reality through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents, we have been participants in the emergence of these circumstances as well, even if only as part of these mass-created events. The big question, in light of that, then, is why?
That “why,” of course, is the $64,000 question. As noted in my previous blog, “‘Grand Seduction’ extols the power of co-creation,” in a collectively created mass event (such as the crises depicted here), we each have our own particular role to play, despite our participation in the larger whole. So, in light of that, the beliefs we contribute to the creation of these circumstances are highly individualized (and thus impossible to generalize to the entire group). However, considering the common attributes that pervade these events, it’s possible to speculate about some of the recurring themes in our collective belief contributions.
For instance, in creating our increasingly fast-paced way of life, we have grown progressively willing to abrogate our responsibility for being directly involved in the manifestation of many of our reality’s components. That interest in expediency may enable us to focus more on our own particular contributions to our existence, but it also leaves us “susceptible” to the impact of the beliefs (and motivations) underlying the creation beliefs of others. If we’re dissatisfied with those elements of our existence, then it behooves us to take back the reins of responsibility and become re-engaged in the process that brought those materializations into being. Placing the blame on others only goes so far if we recognize the role of our own complacency and disengagement in the emergence of such conditions.
In a larger sense, realizations about the manifestation of particular aspects of our existence not only alert us to the materialization of those specific attributes, but they also make us more aware of the part we play in the conscious creation of our wider reality. Indeed, when we become aware that we participate in the creation of a portion of our existence, it also sheds light on the role we occupy in the manifestation of its greater totality. Now, this is not to suggest that we should engage in acts of self-imposed penance or flagellation when it comes to those aspects of our existence that require remediation, but it does imply that taking responsibility to stay involved and attuned is crucial if we seek to create the elements of reality that best suits us.
When adverse or unsatisfactory conditions arise, it’s incumbent upon us to change them, a process that often encourages us to think outside the box. It prompts us to think more creatively, to envision never-tried-before possibilities, to seek resolutions not previously explored. That’s reasonable, too, especially since previously untried probabilities to address once-prevailing priorities were what got us into these circumstances in the first place. But, with those “solutions” having run their course and raised new challenges for remediation, it’s time to move on from them – and doing so using the same process that brought them into being initially.
Both films do capable jobs of probing their respective issues, and they both encourage viewer activism to rectify them. Individually, they also each have their strengths and weaknesses. “Ivory Tower,” for example, effectively details its core issue and offers a range of possible solutions (some of which work, some of which don’t and all of which are examined honestly). However, despite the film’s overall candor, its investigative efforts sometimes feel like they don’t probe deeply enough, that the picture doesn’t go for the jugular as much as it could (or should) have with some of its interview subjects.
President Bill Clinton, one of a number of featured experts in the new documentary, “Fed Up.” Photo courtesy of RADiUS-TWC.
“Fed Up” is also good at detailing its central problem. In fact, some have even argued that it goes overboard in doing so at times (a contention not without merit), though, personally, I’d rather that a film like this overstate its case than downplay its significance. With that said, however, the picture could be better at proposing solutions; the suggestions offered, though seemingly viable, come too few and far between. This sometimes makes for a film that’s more focused on damning the guilty than encouraging inspired resolution.
Trite though it may seem, it’s often been said that, if you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem. And, when it comes to the educational system and the food supply, the same applies, as these films illustrate. If we truly want things to be different, we must become involved, both actively and metaphysically, to effect change. In both cases, there’s too much at stake for anyone concerned about them to remain on the sidelines.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
“Fed Up” (2014). Narrator: Katie Couric. Featured Experts: Kelly Brownell, President Bill Clinton, Senator Tom Harkin, Mark Hyman, David Kessler, Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, Robert Lustig, Michael Pollan, Michele Simon, Margo Wootan. Director: Stephanie Soechtig. Writers: Mark Monroe and Stephanie Soechtig. Web site. Trailer.
Our everyday existence has many components that we consider essential for our personal growth, if not our very survival. Many times, however, we take these things for granted, giving little thought to them, including why they’ve taken the forms that they have (or that we’ve had a substantial hand in their realization). So, when these creations start to go awry, we’re often befuddled at how they’ve materialized as they have. “Why,” we rhetorically ask ourselves, “have these staples of existence assumed such unsuitable forms?” That’s a heady metaphysical question, one that provides a potent undercurrent in two new documentaries that deal with some of life’s essentials, “Ivory Tower” and “Fed Up.”
Education in America is frequently looked upon as an inalienable right, something to which we’re all entitled to have access, especially since it’s considered central to our development as productive, contributing members of society. At the very least, we assume that we’re entitled to a high school diploma, if not a college degree. That wisdom has occupied a prominent place in our beliefs for decades, too, and, over the years, various public and private programs have been established to further those objectives, noble ventures, to be sure.
However, over roughly the past 35 years, the pursuit of a university education has become an increasingly arduous undertaking, particularly financially. What was once seen as a realistically attainable goal has, in recent years, morphed into a fiscal calamity for many students and their families. Student loan debt, for example, has exploded to the point where graduates often face the prospect of having to pay off their obligations for the rest of their lives, a sort of modern-day form of indentured servitude.
The hallowed halls of Harvard University are one of the featured colleges in the new documentary, “Ivory Tower.” Photo courtesy of Samuel Goldwyn Films.How did we go from the point where students could pay for their educations by working summer jobs and taking out modest loans to the nightmare of being overwhelmed with debt in near perpetuity? That’s one of the key questions that “Ivory Tower” seeks to address. Through interviews with students, professors, administrators and politicians, coupled with a plethora of statistical data, the filmmakers explore this issue and document the reasons for this debacle, many of which have surprisingly little to do with the actual cost of educating pupils. By focusing on such issues as shelling out huge sums for expensive campus construction programs aimed at luring would-be students (often in an attempt at little more than one-upping competing universities) and paying administrators salaries in excess of what they’re likely worth, the nation’s colleges have unwittingly ballooned tuition and living costs beyond reason. Students, consequently, are saddled with debts they’re likely to have considerable difficulty paying off after graduation (if that even happens), especially since starting salaries have not kept pace with what they owe. In fact, the increasingly dire nature of these circumstances has even prompted a growing number of university candidates to question whether attending college is still worth the investment.
The foregoing concerns thus raise an even bigger question – what exactly do we want out of our educational institutions these days? That’s the issue “Ivory Tower” takes up after addressing the core problem. By examining the educational objectives being pursued by a number of the nation’s colleges – some well known, some not – the filmmakers attempt to examine this question, which has myriad ramifications in terms of what subjects are taught, how those lessons are delivered, what facilities and instructors are necessary for said programs, and what alternatives are possible. With a bloated, overpriced system on the brink of collapse, these are significant considerations that educators seriously need to examine – before it’s too late.
Graduation day should be a time of joy, but, for many debt-burdened students and parents these days, it may be a short-lived joy, as detailed in the new documentary, “Ivory Tower.” Photo courtesy of Samuel Goldwyn Films.While education may nourish the soul, something that’s even more essential to our sustenance is food, and it, too, is something that has become a problematic staple for us today. That’s the issue explored in “Fed Up.”
How is it that something that’s supposed to sustain us is making us so sick? With childhood obesity at record levels and rates of chronic illnesses like diabetes and heart disease skyrocketing, the food processing industry has come under serious scrutiny as the chief culprit in these problems, particularly for its products that contain added sugar (roughly 80% of the processed food items on the US market today). These problems have been compounded by a medical profession that has clung to outmoded recommendations for combating these conditions, by food manufacturers who skillfully manipulate and entice the tastes of consumers (especially children), often with deceptive marketing campaigns and disingenuous product offerings, and by complicit government agencies and officials that have apparently turned a blind eye to the reality of these issues to appease corporate interests at the expense of public health.
America’s expanding waistline – and the food industry’s role in that phenomenon – provide the focus of the new documentary, “Fed Up.” Photo courtesy of RADiUS-TWC.Through interviews with public health officials, politicians, medical researchers and consumers afflicted by food-related conditions, the film details how these circumstances arose, how they have been perpetuated, their current and projected future impacts, and the reasons why effective solutions have been thwarted or are hard to come by. The revelations offered up provide considerable food for thought for all consumers.
So how is it that we have arrived at this point with regard to our educational system and food supply? It would be easy to point a finger at the providers of these commodities and cite such considerations as incompetence or greed, and those contentions genuinely have some merit. However, as anyone who practices conscious creation understands, we all have a hand in the unfolding of these scenarios, whether or not we recognize it or are willing to own up to it. Given that we each create our reality through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents, we have been participants in the emergence of these circumstances as well, even if only as part of these mass-created events. The big question, in light of that, then, is why?
That “why,” of course, is the $64,000 question. As noted in my previous blog, “‘Grand Seduction’ extols the power of co-creation,” in a collectively created mass event (such as the crises depicted here), we each have our own particular role to play, despite our participation in the larger whole. So, in light of that, the beliefs we contribute to the creation of these circumstances are highly individualized (and thus impossible to generalize to the entire group). However, considering the common attributes that pervade these events, it’s possible to speculate about some of the recurring themes in our collective belief contributions.
For instance, in creating our increasingly fast-paced way of life, we have grown progressively willing to abrogate our responsibility for being directly involved in the manifestation of many of our reality’s components. That interest in expediency may enable us to focus more on our own particular contributions to our existence, but it also leaves us “susceptible” to the impact of the beliefs (and motivations) underlying the creation beliefs of others. If we’re dissatisfied with those elements of our existence, then it behooves us to take back the reins of responsibility and become re-engaged in the process that brought those materializations into being. Placing the blame on others only goes so far if we recognize the role of our own complacency and disengagement in the emergence of such conditions.
In a larger sense, realizations about the manifestation of particular aspects of our existence not only alert us to the materialization of those specific attributes, but they also make us more aware of the part we play in the conscious creation of our wider reality. Indeed, when we become aware that we participate in the creation of a portion of our existence, it also sheds light on the role we occupy in the manifestation of its greater totality. Now, this is not to suggest that we should engage in acts of self-imposed penance or flagellation when it comes to those aspects of our existence that require remediation, but it does imply that taking responsibility to stay involved and attuned is crucial if we seek to create the elements of reality that best suits us.
When adverse or unsatisfactory conditions arise, it’s incumbent upon us to change them, a process that often encourages us to think outside the box. It prompts us to think more creatively, to envision never-tried-before possibilities, to seek resolutions not previously explored. That’s reasonable, too, especially since previously untried probabilities to address once-prevailing priorities were what got us into these circumstances in the first place. But, with those “solutions” having run their course and raised new challenges for remediation, it’s time to move on from them – and doing so using the same process that brought them into being initially.
Both films do capable jobs of probing their respective issues, and they both encourage viewer activism to rectify them. Individually, they also each have their strengths and weaknesses. “Ivory Tower,” for example, effectively details its core issue and offers a range of possible solutions (some of which work, some of which don’t and all of which are examined honestly). However, despite the film’s overall candor, its investigative efforts sometimes feel like they don’t probe deeply enough, that the picture doesn’t go for the jugular as much as it could (or should) have with some of its interview subjects.
President Bill Clinton, one of a number of featured experts in the new documentary, “Fed Up.” Photo courtesy of RADiUS-TWC.“Fed Up” is also good at detailing its central problem. In fact, some have even argued that it goes overboard in doing so at times (a contention not without merit), though, personally, I’d rather that a film like this overstate its case than downplay its significance. With that said, however, the picture could be better at proposing solutions; the suggestions offered, though seemingly viable, come too few and far between. This sometimes makes for a film that’s more focused on damning the guilty than encouraging inspired resolution.
Trite though it may seem, it’s often been said that, if you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem. And, when it comes to the educational system and the food supply, the same applies, as these films illustrate. If we truly want things to be different, we must become involved, both actively and metaphysically, to effect change. In both cases, there’s too much at stake for anyone concerned about them to remain on the sidelines.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
June 27, 2014
‘Grand Seduction’ extols the power of co-creation
“The Grand Seduction” (2014). Cast: Brendan Gleeson, Taylor Kitsch, Gordon Pinsent, Liane Balaban, Mark Critch, Mary Walsh, Matt Watts, Anna Hopkins (voice). Director: Don McKellar. Screenplay: Michael Dowse and Ken Scott. Web site. Trailer.
Working together for the common good can be quite a challenge, especially when the deck seems stacked against us. However, with proper focus and intent, amazing results are possible as the residents of a small Canadian town find out for themselves in the delightful new comedy, “The Grand Seduction.”
The tiny port town of Tickle Head, Newfoundland is a shadow of its former self. With the collapse of the cod industry, the once-proud village of hard-working fishermen, regrettably, has been reduced to a community of aging, unemployed welfare recipients. The locals begrudgingly accept their monthly government support checks to sustain themselves, but they’d much rather be earning their keep if the opportunity were to present itself. They hold out hope that something good will happen, but it seems like the odds are perpetually stacked against them.
A glimmer of hope emerges, however, when the community learns it could be in line to become the site of a new petroleum product recycling plant. There’s just one catch – the town needs to find a full-time doctor before the plant’s owner will approve it as the location of the new facility. So, to fulfill that requirement, Tickle Head’s acting mayor, Murray French (Brendan Gleeson), undertakes the task of finding a physician who’s willing to make a home in the seaside hamlet. It’s a potentially tall order, but, thanks to a fortuitous twist of fate, Murray’s dream just might come true.
When Dr. Paul Lewis (Taylor Kitsch) passes through the airport in nearby St. John’s, he’s caught trying to sneak through with a small quantity of an illegal substance. Despite his claims that it’s for medicinal purposes, airport officials don’t buy his story. As a consequence, he’s given an interesting choice – jail time or moving to Tickle Head to become the community’s physician on a 30-day trial basis (thanks to a former resident-turned-airport security screener). For the urbane, cosmopolitan doctor, there doesn’t seem to be much difference between the two options, but, considering the prospect of time behind bars, he reluctantly agrees to try life in Tickle Head.
Murray is thrilled at the news. He’s convinced that, if he and his fellow townsfolk can make life irresistible for the new arrival, they might be able to convince him to stay permanently. And, with a doctor in residence, the town would thus meet the requirement to qualify for the plant, a development that would mean jobs for all of the locals. Murray sincerely believes Tickle Head can win him over, but that may be easier said than done.
To sway the good doctor’s opinion, Murray enlists the assistance of fellow residents (Gordon Pinsent, Mark Critch, Matt Watts, Mary Walsh) to make Dr. Lewis feel at home. Using various investigative means (some of them less than scrupulous), the cunning townsfolk do all they can to find out what he likes, including his taste in food, music and entertainment. For instance, when the locals discover that Paul is a big fan of the sport of cricket, they form an impromptu league, despite knowing virtually nothing about how the game is played. Likewise, when Tickle Head’s only restaurant learns that Paul enjoys South Asian fare, the staff quickly adds it to the eatery’s menu of such staples as fish chowder and hot turkey sandwiches (a natural fit for its everyday cuisine, right?). But, despite the moderate success the locals attain with these gestures, the doctor still feels tied to his big city life. In fact, he looks forward to returning home and reuniting with his girlfriend (Anna Hopkins), whom he phones almost daily.
With the ante upped, Murray and company double their efforts to gain Paul’s confidence. But some of those measures are a little extreme and don’t always pan out as hoped for. For example, when Murray tries to coax the town’s beautiful young post mistress, Kathleen (Liane Balaban), into taking an interest in the new resident, she flatly refuses. And other efforts, like those aimed at intentionally tugging at Paul’s heart strings, often require Murray and others to jump through some pretty huge hoops. The biggest challenge, though, is how to keep their elaborate scheme from becoming exposed, something that could cause everything to fall apart.
As Paul’s 30 days draw to a close and the plant owner nears a decision about the location of the new facility, the pressure mounts. Will Murray’s “grand seduction” pay off? Or will everything come undone as it becomes increasingly difficult for the locals to keep a lid on their big secret? There’s a lot at stake – for everybody – but then that generally comes with the territory when conscious creation gets applied en masse.
Indeed, “The Grand Seduction” is an excellent example of conscious creation applied on a broad scale, something the philosophy’s practitioners refer to as a co-created “mass event.” As that concept is applied in this context, Tickle Head’s residents all work toward materializing a common goal, one for which they draw upon a concoction of beliefs aimed at fulfilling that objective. And, even though each participant in this scenario has his or her own individual role to play, they’re all nevertheless intent on attaining a mutually agreed-upon result. It’s an inspiring sight to see, too. Imagine what we might be able to accomplish if we were to employ our joint manifestation efforts as effectively as they do!
To make their plan happen, the locals need to tap into several key aspects of the conscious creation process. For instance, in addition to envisioning a common outcome, they must also be innovative in how they bring about that result. They must open themselves up to new probabilities, using novel tactics (and formulating appropriate beliefs to support them) to manifest the necessary conditions for achieving their desired outcome.
When it comes to winning over Paul, for example, the townsfolk must learn what it takes to get his attention and, in many cases, how to implement those measures. Such efforts often require them to become proficient at things about which they know virtually nothing, but those initiatives have the added benefit of uncovering personal capabilities not previously known (or perhaps even imagined). This enables significant spurts in personal growth, development and evolution, hallmark qualities of the conscious creation principle that we’re all in a constant state of becoming.
Moreover, the residents of Tickle Head must draw upon all of their personal conscious creation resources to make their plan work. To that end, they need to employ what’s known as “the magical approach” to this practice, an undertaking that requires the use of their intellect and intuition – and the integration of the impressions that come from each – to form the beliefs necessary for successful manifestation. Of particular importance are the insights that come from our external and internal powers of perception, for they frequently provide valuable input for the belief formation process.
Again, in winning over Paul, the townsfolk must use their abilities to manifest what pleases him, paying close attention to his likes and convincingly bringing those things into being (not always the easiest feat given their inherent unfamiliarity with many of his tastes). But, if Tickle Head’s residents hope to be successful, they must employ all of their metaphysical wherewithal to get those results. In particular, they must be so effective at what they’re doing that they can realize that outcome and get their target to believe in “authenticity” of their efforts. Indeed, if they can pull that off, then they must be doing something right.
As the story unfolds, it’s easy to see what roles Murray and his colleagues play in the creation of this mass event. But they’re not the only actors in this little drama. The scenario in question here also includes others, like Paul and Kathleen, who play very different parts. And, even though they’re participants in the larger creation, they each have their own individual contributions to make to it that are based on their particular considerations, especially with regard to the matter of life lessons.
Paul, for example, is primarily the object of the locals’ plan, and he plays his role well. But his participation in this scenario includes additional criteria that employ other manifestation beliefs that are purely his own, based on what he’s meant to get out of the situation. Most notably, these circumstances enable him to attract conditions conducive for learning about the power of discernment, a lesson that’s important to his life overall and not just this particular situation.
Kathleen, meanwhile, plays the role of teacher to her fellow townsfolk by instructing them on the value of being genuine. When she refuses Murray’s request to entice the affections of the good doctor, some of the locals might say that she’s not going along with the plan, that she’s not a team player. However, considering the “deception” inherent in Murray’s plan, it’s also apparent that he and his peers are not acting from the purest of intentions. And that’s where Kathleen steps in; her role is to teach those around her about the value of integrity, the quality most important to the successful realization of authentic results. While her contribution may frustrate her peers and make their desired outcome more difficult to achieve, her involvement nonetheless adds a significant element to the overall scenario at work here.
As diverse as all of these roles may seem, they are all still part of the larger whole, all integral to the creation of the collectively manifested mass event. Some of them may seem like they’re operating at cross-purposes, yet they’re all related and all necessary for the mass event to unfold. That’s what comes from connection, the quality that binds everything in the realm of creation, no matter how seemingly “unrelated” or contradictory its individual components may appear. It’s the glue that holds a scenario like this together and makes it a mass event to begin with. And, when all of the probable mass events out there are combined, we end up with what we know as the Universe, the consciously created construction that we and our divine collaborator continually create and re-create in every instant. The little drama playing out in Tickle Head may be just one of those probabilities, but it’s part of the overall greater chorus of creation, warts and all.
Largely based on the 2003 French Canadian film “Seducing Doctor Lewis” (“La grande séduction”), “The Grand Seduction” is a charming tale, full of good fun, gentle humor and delightful whimsy, somewhat reminiscent of the TV series Northern Exposure (1990-1995) and the film “Local Hero” (1983). The plot is patently absurd, so one must be willing to suspend belief when viewing it, but, for those capable of doing so, it’s thoroughly enjoyable. Its beautifully filmed location shots, lively soundtrack and ample laughs make this offering a fun time at the movies.
Fulfilling life’s grander aims often requires a collective effort, one in which we all work together with determination and integrity for the greater good. Staying on the path that takes us there can be fraught with challenges, but, when we have the perseverance to see things through, the results can truly astound us, as the residents of Tickle Head can attest. To be sure, the power of conscious creation can be quite seductive and, when employed properly, yields a truly gratifying sense of satisfaction – for everyone.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Working together for the common good can be quite a challenge, especially when the deck seems stacked against us. However, with proper focus and intent, amazing results are possible as the residents of a small Canadian town find out for themselves in the delightful new comedy, “The Grand Seduction.”
The tiny port town of Tickle Head, Newfoundland is a shadow of its former self. With the collapse of the cod industry, the once-proud village of hard-working fishermen, regrettably, has been reduced to a community of aging, unemployed welfare recipients. The locals begrudgingly accept their monthly government support checks to sustain themselves, but they’d much rather be earning their keep if the opportunity were to present itself. They hold out hope that something good will happen, but it seems like the odds are perpetually stacked against them.
A glimmer of hope emerges, however, when the community learns it could be in line to become the site of a new petroleum product recycling plant. There’s just one catch – the town needs to find a full-time doctor before the plant’s owner will approve it as the location of the new facility. So, to fulfill that requirement, Tickle Head’s acting mayor, Murray French (Brendan Gleeson), undertakes the task of finding a physician who’s willing to make a home in the seaside hamlet. It’s a potentially tall order, but, thanks to a fortuitous twist of fate, Murray’s dream just might come true.
When Dr. Paul Lewis (Taylor Kitsch) passes through the airport in nearby St. John’s, he’s caught trying to sneak through with a small quantity of an illegal substance. Despite his claims that it’s for medicinal purposes, airport officials don’t buy his story. As a consequence, he’s given an interesting choice – jail time or moving to Tickle Head to become the community’s physician on a 30-day trial basis (thanks to a former resident-turned-airport security screener). For the urbane, cosmopolitan doctor, there doesn’t seem to be much difference between the two options, but, considering the prospect of time behind bars, he reluctantly agrees to try life in Tickle Head.
Murray is thrilled at the news. He’s convinced that, if he and his fellow townsfolk can make life irresistible for the new arrival, they might be able to convince him to stay permanently. And, with a doctor in residence, the town would thus meet the requirement to qualify for the plant, a development that would mean jobs for all of the locals. Murray sincerely believes Tickle Head can win him over, but that may be easier said than done.
To sway the good doctor’s opinion, Murray enlists the assistance of fellow residents (Gordon Pinsent, Mark Critch, Matt Watts, Mary Walsh) to make Dr. Lewis feel at home. Using various investigative means (some of them less than scrupulous), the cunning townsfolk do all they can to find out what he likes, including his taste in food, music and entertainment. For instance, when the locals discover that Paul is a big fan of the sport of cricket, they form an impromptu league, despite knowing virtually nothing about how the game is played. Likewise, when Tickle Head’s only restaurant learns that Paul enjoys South Asian fare, the staff quickly adds it to the eatery’s menu of such staples as fish chowder and hot turkey sandwiches (a natural fit for its everyday cuisine, right?). But, despite the moderate success the locals attain with these gestures, the doctor still feels tied to his big city life. In fact, he looks forward to returning home and reuniting with his girlfriend (Anna Hopkins), whom he phones almost daily.
With the ante upped, Murray and company double their efforts to gain Paul’s confidence. But some of those measures are a little extreme and don’t always pan out as hoped for. For example, when Murray tries to coax the town’s beautiful young post mistress, Kathleen (Liane Balaban), into taking an interest in the new resident, she flatly refuses. And other efforts, like those aimed at intentionally tugging at Paul’s heart strings, often require Murray and others to jump through some pretty huge hoops. The biggest challenge, though, is how to keep their elaborate scheme from becoming exposed, something that could cause everything to fall apart.
As Paul’s 30 days draw to a close and the plant owner nears a decision about the location of the new facility, the pressure mounts. Will Murray’s “grand seduction” pay off? Or will everything come undone as it becomes increasingly difficult for the locals to keep a lid on their big secret? There’s a lot at stake – for everybody – but then that generally comes with the territory when conscious creation gets applied en masse.
Indeed, “The Grand Seduction” is an excellent example of conscious creation applied on a broad scale, something the philosophy’s practitioners refer to as a co-created “mass event.” As that concept is applied in this context, Tickle Head’s residents all work toward materializing a common goal, one for which they draw upon a concoction of beliefs aimed at fulfilling that objective. And, even though each participant in this scenario has his or her own individual role to play, they’re all nevertheless intent on attaining a mutually agreed-upon result. It’s an inspiring sight to see, too. Imagine what we might be able to accomplish if we were to employ our joint manifestation efforts as effectively as they do!
To make their plan happen, the locals need to tap into several key aspects of the conscious creation process. For instance, in addition to envisioning a common outcome, they must also be innovative in how they bring about that result. They must open themselves up to new probabilities, using novel tactics (and formulating appropriate beliefs to support them) to manifest the necessary conditions for achieving their desired outcome.
When it comes to winning over Paul, for example, the townsfolk must learn what it takes to get his attention and, in many cases, how to implement those measures. Such efforts often require them to become proficient at things about which they know virtually nothing, but those initiatives have the added benefit of uncovering personal capabilities not previously known (or perhaps even imagined). This enables significant spurts in personal growth, development and evolution, hallmark qualities of the conscious creation principle that we’re all in a constant state of becoming.
Moreover, the residents of Tickle Head must draw upon all of their personal conscious creation resources to make their plan work. To that end, they need to employ what’s known as “the magical approach” to this practice, an undertaking that requires the use of their intellect and intuition – and the integration of the impressions that come from each – to form the beliefs necessary for successful manifestation. Of particular importance are the insights that come from our external and internal powers of perception, for they frequently provide valuable input for the belief formation process.
Again, in winning over Paul, the townsfolk must use their abilities to manifest what pleases him, paying close attention to his likes and convincingly bringing those things into being (not always the easiest feat given their inherent unfamiliarity with many of his tastes). But, if Tickle Head’s residents hope to be successful, they must employ all of their metaphysical wherewithal to get those results. In particular, they must be so effective at what they’re doing that they can realize that outcome and get their target to believe in “authenticity” of their efforts. Indeed, if they can pull that off, then they must be doing something right.
As the story unfolds, it’s easy to see what roles Murray and his colleagues play in the creation of this mass event. But they’re not the only actors in this little drama. The scenario in question here also includes others, like Paul and Kathleen, who play very different parts. And, even though they’re participants in the larger creation, they each have their own individual contributions to make to it that are based on their particular considerations, especially with regard to the matter of life lessons.
Paul, for example, is primarily the object of the locals’ plan, and he plays his role well. But his participation in this scenario includes additional criteria that employ other manifestation beliefs that are purely his own, based on what he’s meant to get out of the situation. Most notably, these circumstances enable him to attract conditions conducive for learning about the power of discernment, a lesson that’s important to his life overall and not just this particular situation.
Kathleen, meanwhile, plays the role of teacher to her fellow townsfolk by instructing them on the value of being genuine. When she refuses Murray’s request to entice the affections of the good doctor, some of the locals might say that she’s not going along with the plan, that she’s not a team player. However, considering the “deception” inherent in Murray’s plan, it’s also apparent that he and his peers are not acting from the purest of intentions. And that’s where Kathleen steps in; her role is to teach those around her about the value of integrity, the quality most important to the successful realization of authentic results. While her contribution may frustrate her peers and make their desired outcome more difficult to achieve, her involvement nonetheless adds a significant element to the overall scenario at work here.
As diverse as all of these roles may seem, they are all still part of the larger whole, all integral to the creation of the collectively manifested mass event. Some of them may seem like they’re operating at cross-purposes, yet they’re all related and all necessary for the mass event to unfold. That’s what comes from connection, the quality that binds everything in the realm of creation, no matter how seemingly “unrelated” or contradictory its individual components may appear. It’s the glue that holds a scenario like this together and makes it a mass event to begin with. And, when all of the probable mass events out there are combined, we end up with what we know as the Universe, the consciously created construction that we and our divine collaborator continually create and re-create in every instant. The little drama playing out in Tickle Head may be just one of those probabilities, but it’s part of the overall greater chorus of creation, warts and all.
Largely based on the 2003 French Canadian film “Seducing Doctor Lewis” (“La grande séduction”), “The Grand Seduction” is a charming tale, full of good fun, gentle humor and delightful whimsy, somewhat reminiscent of the TV series Northern Exposure (1990-1995) and the film “Local Hero” (1983). The plot is patently absurd, so one must be willing to suspend belief when viewing it, but, for those capable of doing so, it’s thoroughly enjoyable. Its beautifully filmed location shots, lively soundtrack and ample laughs make this offering a fun time at the movies.
Fulfilling life’s grander aims often requires a collective effort, one in which we all work together with determination and integrity for the greater good. Staying on the path that takes us there can be fraught with challenges, but, when we have the perseverance to see things through, the results can truly astound us, as the residents of Tickle Head can attest. To be sure, the power of conscious creation can be quite seductive and, when employed properly, yields a truly gratifying sense of satisfaction – for everyone.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
June 20, 2014
‘Words and Pictures’ exalts the call to create
“Words and Pictures” (2013 production, 2014 release). Cast: Clive Owen, Juliette Binoche, Bruce Davison, Valerie Tian, Adam DiMarco, Josh Ssettuba, Willem Jacobson, Navid Negahban, Amy Brenneman, Janet Kidder, Christian Scheider, Andrew McIlroy. Director: Fred Schepisi. Screenplay: Gerald DiPego. Web site. Trailer.
The call to create is a powerful force. Just ask any artist (or any devoted conscious creator), and you’ll see the passion that arises from within their souls. But what happens when those manifestation abilities come under fire? How do we carry on? Those are the challenges faced by a duo of impaired artists in director Fred Schepisi’s charming new romantic comedy, “Words and Pictures.”
Which is more powerful – words or pictures? That’s a question that artists, philosophers and academicians have debated for eons. It’s also one that the students of an upscale prep school are grappling with thanks to the inspiration provided by two of their teachers, long-tenured English instructor Jack Marcus (Clive Owen) and newly arrived arts teacher Dina Delsanto (Juliette Binoche). But the friendly academic rivalry stoked by these two passionate advocates tells only part of the story of their relationship; there’s a lot more going on between these playfully feisty combatants.
As the spirited jocularity unfolds, it quickly becomes apparent there’s also considerable chemistry between these two amicable foes. Despite their artistic disagreements, there’s an undeniable affinity drawing Jack and Dina together. But is that attraction enough to sustain a partnership? That’s a crucial consideration, given the serious personal challenges each of them faces.
Jack, for example, wrestles with a number of issues. Despite his track record as a published author and his popularity with the students, he’s under the microscope from the school’s headmaster (Navid Negahban) and school board chair (Amy Brenneman) for his perpetual tardiness, his sloppy handling of his pupils’ class assignments and his progressively uninspired work on the school’s magazine. And then there’s his drinking, a problem that has grown steadily worse, threatening his job security, his reputation, his judgment and his relationship with his adult son, Tony (Christian Scheider). His growing inability to write – and his diminishing desire to deal with it – test his resolve, placing his future as an author and teacher in serious jeopardy.
Dina, meanwhile, struggles to paint due to a severe case of rheumatoid arthritis. It has become so debilitating that she must walk with a cane and rely heavily on her sister, Sabine (Janet Kidder), for help with even the most basic of everyday tasks. What’s more, Dina has grown progressively frustrated that she can envision what she wants to create but can’t get her body to cooperate in its execution. Having made a name for herself as an accomplished artist, Dina’s new circumstances have seriously deflated her enthusiasm for her art. At times it’s almost more than she can bear, both physically and emotionally.
Nevertheless, the friendly feud and the growing attraction that arises between the two protagonists give each of them a renewed sense of purpose, as well as a revitalized interest in their respective vocations. The question for them is, can they sustain their artistic fervor and their emerging bond in the face of their individual challenges? Indeed, will they be able to find the means needed to carry themselves forward? It all ultimately depends on what they manifest through the conscious creation process.
It’s been said that “necessity is the mother of invention,” and, for Jack and Dina, that’s very much the case if they’re to continue pursuing their respective callings. If Dina is going to continue painting, for instance, she must come up with new techniques for applying pigment to canvas, given the painful restrictions her condition has placed upon her logistically. Consequently, considering her circumstances, she may even need to devise an entirely new look for her finished works if she’s to remain viable as an artist. But, with the renewed resolve she’s amassing, she just might succeed.
So, from a conscious creation perspective, one might legitimately question why Dina has created the circumstances she’s experiencing. Given the highly personal nature of reality creation, one can only speculate, but perhaps they’re intentional to help birth those new painting techniques and artistic styles. Regardless of whether or not she’s aware of her true intents, those creations might not have been given physical expression were it not for her debilitated condition. Now, this is not to suggest that her approach is an ideal (or even recommended) way of bringing about these results, yet it is nevertheless a valid expression of creativity that’s just as viable as any other. In a similar vein, these circumstances also reflect Dina’s evolution, both as an artist and as a conscious creator. They illustrate the well-known principle that we’re all in a constant state of becoming, ever growing and changing as beings who consciously manifest our destinies.
To be sure, it can become discouraging when we try to continue pursuing our interests when impediments pop up in our way. Maintaining motivation and passion can be incredibly difficult under those conditions. So it’s under those circumstances where the impact of catalytic sparks can play a crucial role. These influences inspire us – sometimes even compel us – to forge ahead, no matter what obstacles may appear. They prompt us to take a good, hard look at what we create, perhaps in new and different ways, thereby not only allowing us to continue engaging in those pursuits, but also to expand their range of expression, taking them into previously unexplored territory.
Catalytic sparks can come in a variety of forms, too. On the one hand, they can be intangible, taking the form of ideas or theories, propositions that prompt us to ask “what if?” On the other hand, they can be wholly tangible, taking the form of people, events or other physical phenomena. In the case of Jack and Dina, they serve as catalysts for one another, their playful combativeness pushing one another to continue creating, despite their impairments, if, for no other reason than the sheer enjoyment that each of them gets out of the act of manifesting their artistry. Their personal attraction for one another reinforces this effect, too, the flames of their creative passions fanned by their smoldering romantic feelings. And, thankfully, when confronted with the personal difficulties each of them now faces, Jack and Dina have been astute enough to draw such motivating influences into their lives when they need them most, urging them to continue using their talents, to continue doing what each of them does best.
In their own way, Jack and Dina also symbolize the elements that we each draw upon when practicing conscious creation. Jack, as a writer, symbolizes the intellect, prompting thought through the words he uses as tools, while Dina, as a painter, represents the intuition, evoking feeling through her finished works. Yet, as anyone who practices conscious creation can attest, we need both of these influences if we’re to create successfully, since both are integral to the formation of the beliefs and intents we draw upon for manifesting the reality around us. And, even though advocates of each element like to believe they can get along with one and not the other (just as Jack and Dina sometimes do during their more combative moments), they truly need both if they’re to realistically achieve success. Just as it takes the cooperation of two individuals to make a relationship work, so, too, does it take the influences of the intellect and the intuition to make effective conscious creation function. Jack and Dina symbolize these respective notions in all their glory, but their pairing clearly represents the fusion of these elements. And, while watching their interplay on screen, one can’t help but hope that they succeed in their efforts – on all fronts.
“Words and Pictures” is a charming romantic comedy that’s intelligent and witty in many ways, a true cut above most of the offerings in this genre. The natural chemistry between Owen and Binoche is undeniable, with both leads playing this material for all it’s worth, evoking genuinely heartfelt feelings as their story unfolds. And the paintings depicted in the film, created by Binoche herself, are quite a sight to see, an added visual delight to the picture’s pleasantly appealing cinematography.
With that said, however, the film also comes up a little short in several regards. The subplots featuring Jack and Dina’s students (Valerie Tian, Adam DiMarco, Josh Ssettuba) generally bog down the flow of the central narrative, and the storyline involving Jack’s son contributes so little that it could have been left out entirely. Some elements of the main story (such as those related to Jack’s drinking) are a bit clichéd as well.
As for the core feud between Jack and Dina, some viewers have contended that it’s too rhetorical and academic to be believable, and, to an extent, I can see the merits of that argument. However, for my part, I’d much rather that the film overstate a point like this than exalt the kinds of utterly mindless material that so many other pictures do these days. I’ll gladly support a movie that seeks to elevate its viewers’ thinking rather than dumb them down with jokes about bodily functions and other inane topics, and “Words and Pictures” scores big on this front.
Creating a piece of art, a written work or our reality aren’t always the easiest undertakings we face in life. But, when we revel in the process and the finished results, we feel ourselves swelled with pride and satisfaction for a job well done. “Words and Pictures” reminds us of these truths, especially for those times when we’re on the verge of losing faith in them. The joy that comes from such efforts, not to mention the love and admiration that inspire them, are something to behold, something that even words and pictures may be inadequate to express. In such cases, the results speak for themselves – and they often do so in volumes.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
The call to create is a powerful force. Just ask any artist (or any devoted conscious creator), and you’ll see the passion that arises from within their souls. But what happens when those manifestation abilities come under fire? How do we carry on? Those are the challenges faced by a duo of impaired artists in director Fred Schepisi’s charming new romantic comedy, “Words and Pictures.”
Which is more powerful – words or pictures? That’s a question that artists, philosophers and academicians have debated for eons. It’s also one that the students of an upscale prep school are grappling with thanks to the inspiration provided by two of their teachers, long-tenured English instructor Jack Marcus (Clive Owen) and newly arrived arts teacher Dina Delsanto (Juliette Binoche). But the friendly academic rivalry stoked by these two passionate advocates tells only part of the story of their relationship; there’s a lot more going on between these playfully feisty combatants.
As the spirited jocularity unfolds, it quickly becomes apparent there’s also considerable chemistry between these two amicable foes. Despite their artistic disagreements, there’s an undeniable affinity drawing Jack and Dina together. But is that attraction enough to sustain a partnership? That’s a crucial consideration, given the serious personal challenges each of them faces.
Jack, for example, wrestles with a number of issues. Despite his track record as a published author and his popularity with the students, he’s under the microscope from the school’s headmaster (Navid Negahban) and school board chair (Amy Brenneman) for his perpetual tardiness, his sloppy handling of his pupils’ class assignments and his progressively uninspired work on the school’s magazine. And then there’s his drinking, a problem that has grown steadily worse, threatening his job security, his reputation, his judgment and his relationship with his adult son, Tony (Christian Scheider). His growing inability to write – and his diminishing desire to deal with it – test his resolve, placing his future as an author and teacher in serious jeopardy.
Dina, meanwhile, struggles to paint due to a severe case of rheumatoid arthritis. It has become so debilitating that she must walk with a cane and rely heavily on her sister, Sabine (Janet Kidder), for help with even the most basic of everyday tasks. What’s more, Dina has grown progressively frustrated that she can envision what she wants to create but can’t get her body to cooperate in its execution. Having made a name for herself as an accomplished artist, Dina’s new circumstances have seriously deflated her enthusiasm for her art. At times it’s almost more than she can bear, both physically and emotionally.
Nevertheless, the friendly feud and the growing attraction that arises between the two protagonists give each of them a renewed sense of purpose, as well as a revitalized interest in their respective vocations. The question for them is, can they sustain their artistic fervor and their emerging bond in the face of their individual challenges? Indeed, will they be able to find the means needed to carry themselves forward? It all ultimately depends on what they manifest through the conscious creation process.
It’s been said that “necessity is the mother of invention,” and, for Jack and Dina, that’s very much the case if they’re to continue pursuing their respective callings. If Dina is going to continue painting, for instance, she must come up with new techniques for applying pigment to canvas, given the painful restrictions her condition has placed upon her logistically. Consequently, considering her circumstances, she may even need to devise an entirely new look for her finished works if she’s to remain viable as an artist. But, with the renewed resolve she’s amassing, she just might succeed.
So, from a conscious creation perspective, one might legitimately question why Dina has created the circumstances she’s experiencing. Given the highly personal nature of reality creation, one can only speculate, but perhaps they’re intentional to help birth those new painting techniques and artistic styles. Regardless of whether or not she’s aware of her true intents, those creations might not have been given physical expression were it not for her debilitated condition. Now, this is not to suggest that her approach is an ideal (or even recommended) way of bringing about these results, yet it is nevertheless a valid expression of creativity that’s just as viable as any other. In a similar vein, these circumstances also reflect Dina’s evolution, both as an artist and as a conscious creator. They illustrate the well-known principle that we’re all in a constant state of becoming, ever growing and changing as beings who consciously manifest our destinies.
To be sure, it can become discouraging when we try to continue pursuing our interests when impediments pop up in our way. Maintaining motivation and passion can be incredibly difficult under those conditions. So it’s under those circumstances where the impact of catalytic sparks can play a crucial role. These influences inspire us – sometimes even compel us – to forge ahead, no matter what obstacles may appear. They prompt us to take a good, hard look at what we create, perhaps in new and different ways, thereby not only allowing us to continue engaging in those pursuits, but also to expand their range of expression, taking them into previously unexplored territory.
Catalytic sparks can come in a variety of forms, too. On the one hand, they can be intangible, taking the form of ideas or theories, propositions that prompt us to ask “what if?” On the other hand, they can be wholly tangible, taking the form of people, events or other physical phenomena. In the case of Jack and Dina, they serve as catalysts for one another, their playful combativeness pushing one another to continue creating, despite their impairments, if, for no other reason than the sheer enjoyment that each of them gets out of the act of manifesting their artistry. Their personal attraction for one another reinforces this effect, too, the flames of their creative passions fanned by their smoldering romantic feelings. And, thankfully, when confronted with the personal difficulties each of them now faces, Jack and Dina have been astute enough to draw such motivating influences into their lives when they need them most, urging them to continue using their talents, to continue doing what each of them does best.
In their own way, Jack and Dina also symbolize the elements that we each draw upon when practicing conscious creation. Jack, as a writer, symbolizes the intellect, prompting thought through the words he uses as tools, while Dina, as a painter, represents the intuition, evoking feeling through her finished works. Yet, as anyone who practices conscious creation can attest, we need both of these influences if we’re to create successfully, since both are integral to the formation of the beliefs and intents we draw upon for manifesting the reality around us. And, even though advocates of each element like to believe they can get along with one and not the other (just as Jack and Dina sometimes do during their more combative moments), they truly need both if they’re to realistically achieve success. Just as it takes the cooperation of two individuals to make a relationship work, so, too, does it take the influences of the intellect and the intuition to make effective conscious creation function. Jack and Dina symbolize these respective notions in all their glory, but their pairing clearly represents the fusion of these elements. And, while watching their interplay on screen, one can’t help but hope that they succeed in their efforts – on all fronts.
“Words and Pictures” is a charming romantic comedy that’s intelligent and witty in many ways, a true cut above most of the offerings in this genre. The natural chemistry between Owen and Binoche is undeniable, with both leads playing this material for all it’s worth, evoking genuinely heartfelt feelings as their story unfolds. And the paintings depicted in the film, created by Binoche herself, are quite a sight to see, an added visual delight to the picture’s pleasantly appealing cinematography.
With that said, however, the film also comes up a little short in several regards. The subplots featuring Jack and Dina’s students (Valerie Tian, Adam DiMarco, Josh Ssettuba) generally bog down the flow of the central narrative, and the storyline involving Jack’s son contributes so little that it could have been left out entirely. Some elements of the main story (such as those related to Jack’s drinking) are a bit clichéd as well.
As for the core feud between Jack and Dina, some viewers have contended that it’s too rhetorical and academic to be believable, and, to an extent, I can see the merits of that argument. However, for my part, I’d much rather that the film overstate a point like this than exalt the kinds of utterly mindless material that so many other pictures do these days. I’ll gladly support a movie that seeks to elevate its viewers’ thinking rather than dumb them down with jokes about bodily functions and other inane topics, and “Words and Pictures” scores big on this front.
Creating a piece of art, a written work or our reality aren’t always the easiest undertakings we face in life. But, when we revel in the process and the finished results, we feel ourselves swelled with pride and satisfaction for a job well done. “Words and Pictures” reminds us of these truths, especially for those times when we’re on the verge of losing faith in them. The joy that comes from such efforts, not to mention the love and admiration that inspire them, are something to behold, something that even words and pictures may be inadequate to express. In such cases, the results speak for themselves – and they often do so in volumes.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
