Brent Marchant's Blog, page 140

Telling My Story!

I'm pleased to announce that I'll be back on the radio this weekend, when I'll be a guest on "Tell Me Your Story," with host Richard Dugan, on KZSB AM 1290 in Santa Barbara, CA. The broadcast airs Sunday June 22 at its new time, 10 pm ET, 7 pm PT, on KZSB's web site or on the host's web site. And, if you can't catch the show on Sunday, listen to an expanded rebroadcast of the interview on Monday June 23 at 8 pm ET, 5 pm PT, on A2Zen.fm. Tune in for some lively chat!

Thanks, Maxwell!

Courtesy of my alma mater's WordPress page:

http://maxwellalumni.wordpress.com/2014/06/07/brent-marchant-78-ba-hist-publishes-his-second-book-consciously-created-cinema/

Thanks, Maxwell!

Check out New Age News!

I'm pleased to announce that I've been named a regular contributor to New Age News magazine, a monthly online publication available on the Apple Newsstand! Look for my first submission in the upcoming July 2014 issue. And, in the meantime, visit the magazine's Facebook page or its web site, www.newagenewsmag.com.



My sincere thanks to the Spiritual Writers Network for its valuable assistance in alerting me to this tremendous opportunity.

‘Chef’ seeks the recipe for success

“Chef” (2014). Cast: Jon Favreau, John Leguizamo, Sofía Vergara, Bobby Cannavale, Emjay Anthony, Dustin Hoffman, Scarlett Johansson, Oliver Platt, Amy Sedaris, Robert Downey Jr. Director: Jon Favreau. Screenplay: Jon Favreau. Web site. Trailer.

What makes a venture succeed or fail? It often involves a mixture of intangible qualities, one that doesn’t necessarily follow any set formula but that nearly always draws upon certain traits most of us possess, like personal integrity, the ability to set priorities and a willingness to readily enjoy what we create. Identifying and acting upon those attributes, however, may prove quite challenging as a culinary master finds out for himself in the new independent comedy, “Chef.”

High-profile Los Angeles chef Carl Casper (Jon Favreau) is on the brink of what could be a huge breakthrough in his career. When influential food critic Ramsey Michel (Oliver Platt) announces plans to visit Carl’s upscale restaurant, the chef has a chance to let his creativity shine. And that’s important considering the enormous following Ramsey has amassed through his very popular blog, a soapbox that has imbued him with the power to make or break the reputations of aspiring culinary stars. Nevertheless, Carl and his kitchen colleagues, Martin (John Leguizamo) and Tony (Bobby Cannavale), are confident they can dazzle their esteemed guest, and they look forward to the opportunity to show off what they can do.

But, just as Carl and company start preparing for Ramsey’s visit, they have the wind knocked out of their sails by Riva, the restaurant’s owner (Dustin Hoffman), who informs them how he wants them to structure the evening’s menu. As someone who’s more concerned with keeping his tables filled than showcasing inventive cuisine, Riva instructs Carl to play it safe by offering a selection of his “greatest hits.” Rather than letting his chef’s creative juices flow, Riva insists that Carl prepare a menu of tried-and-true staples in lieu of more daring fare. And, even though dishes like French onion soup and chocolate molten lava cake may be tasty in their own right, they aren’t especially original, and Carl knows that. But, to appease his boss (and keep his job), he begrudgingly complies with what Riva wants.

Needless to say, Ramsey’s review excoriates Carl’s uninspired menu, which positively infuriates him. He’s obviously mad about what the critic wrote, but he’s also angry at himself for agreeing to compromise his creativity. Nonetheless, Carl doesn’t hesitate to make his displeasure known by launching an inflammatory Tweet that quickly goes viral. Carl and the firestorm of controversy surrounding him rapidly spiral out of control, and, before long, he finds himself looking for a new kitchen gig.

When the chips are down, it always helps to have one’s family to lean on, but Carl has troubles in this part of his life, too. He’s estranged from his wife, Inez (Sofía Vergara), even though they remain good friends, and he struggles to maintain a meaningful relationship with his young son, Percy (Emjay Anthony), despite a strong desire to cultivate a better connection with him. Carl wants to smooth over things with both of them, but, no matter what he does, it seems like life always gets in the way – the same conditions that caused relations with them to become strained in the first place.

Despite their separation, Inez still cares enough about Carl to want to help him out. She initially puts him in touch with her publicist, Jen (Amy Sedaris), who’s eager to parlay the controversy swirling around Carl into an overhyped (but lucrative) TV opportunity. But, the prospect of a big paycheck aside, Carl wants none of it, opting instead to look elsewhere to find sanity, stability and purpose in his life. So, to help him in that pursuit, Inez next connects Carl with her first ex-husband, Marvin (Robert Downey Jr.), the eccentric owner of a Miami-based equipment supply company who has a run-down food truck available for his use – that is, if he wants it.

Making the transition from being a high-profile chef to a purveyor of food truck fare represents a significant change for Carl, but he jumps at the opportunity. With the help of Martin and Percy, Carl refurbishes the vehicle and embarks on a novel culinary odyssey – both literally and figuratively. The chef’s new adventure finally allows him to show off what he can do and to rebuild personal and professional bridges sorely in need of repair. In fact, the payoff for Carl’s reputation and well-being just may prove to be more rewarding than anything a favorable restaurant review from Ramsey ever could have provided.

Carl’s transformation brings him face to face with a number of important considerations (both in his professional and personal life) that embody significant aspects of the conscious creation process. Perhaps the most important of these is the matter of integrity. When Carl compromises himself, as he does under Riva’s direction, he clearly suffers, for he’s not being true to himself in honoring his talents. He obviously knows better, too, but he goes along with the program anyway, a decision that costs him dearly. However, in choosing to abide by the notion that “fortune favors the bold,” a sentiment underlying the trust in one’s instincts and integrity, Carl ends up thriving, no matter how unlikely that eventuality might have seemed upon first glance.

In successfully making the transition from one venue to another, Carl also aptly illustrates the principle of redemption, another hallmark of conscious creation. Considering the fact that we each have access to an infinite number of probabilities for manifesting our reality at any given time, it’s always possible to move from one that’s a “failure” to one that’s a success simply by choosing to shift the path we follow. Just because one opportunity doesn’t work out doesn’t mean we’re destined to experience more of the same when we pursue other options, especially if we’ve learned from our “mistakes” in the initial undertaking. Indeed, it’s always possible to redeem ourselves, no matter how much we may have failed in prior ventures, as long as we operate from a perspective of integrity and believe that success can genuinely be attained.

Achieving success also relies on other conscious creation concepts that Carl employs in his endeavors, such as figuring out what’s really important in setting his priorities and reveling in the joy and power inherent in the act of creation. These principles help to bolster the metaphysical foundation built by the foregoing precepts, making the success that arises from them that much sweeter once they finally materialize. As Carl would surely attest, there’s a lot to chew on in that line of thinking!

Despite the film’s generally effective exploration of the foregoing principles, “Chef” unfortunately doesn’t succeed quite as well as an entertainment vehicle. The picture’s episodic nature provides a number of humorous bits and heartwarming sentiments, as well as a host of mouthwatering food shots, but it also lacks a fundamental cohesiveness and overall clear sense of direction. It’s as if the picture never makes up its mind what kind of movie it wants to be. It’s a combination of part feel good flick, part road trip tale and part edgy comedy that doesn’t do justice to any of those genres nor create a distinctive niche to call its own. The picture’s endless references to various social media sites get tedious after a while, too, at times making the film look more like a commercial for Twitter than a theatrical motion picture. In short, “Chef” would probably make a pleasant enough viewing selection for your DVD queue, but it’s not the best option for an outing to the neighborhood multiplex.

Finding the recipe for success can be a tricky proposition, regardless of the creation in question, be it a gourmet meal, a work of art or an independent film comedy (as this release itself aptly illustrates!). However, if we remain true to ourselves, our creative intents and the manifesting beliefs that transform our visions into realities, we have the potential to reap tremendous rewards and significant personal fulfillment.

Now that’s food for thought!

Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

‘Chinese Puzzle’ wrestles with life’s complexities

“Chinese Puzzle” (“Casse-tête chinois”) (2013 production, 2014 release). Cast: Romain Duris, Audrey Tautou, Cécile de France, Kelly Reilly, Sandrine Holt, Pablo Mugnier-Jacob, Margaux Mansart, Li Jun Li, Flore Bonaventura, Peter McRobbie, Jason Kravits, Peter Hermann, Dominique Besnehard, Sharrieff Pugh, Jochen Hägele, Amin Djakliou, Clara Abbas, Phil Nee. Director: Cédric Klapisch. Screenplay: Cédric Klapisch. Web site. Trailer.

We’ve all undoubtedly had days where we’ve found our heads spinning, overwhelmed by the complexities before us. It’s enough to make us crazy. It’s also enough to get us to ask ourselves. “Why me?” Such are the circumstances served up in the new independent comedy, “Chinese Puzzle.”

This film, the third in a trilogy that began with “L’auberge espagnole” (“The Spanish Apartment”) (2002) and was followed up with “Russian Dolls” (“Les poupées russes”) (2005), follows the exploits of a group of long-terms friends and lovers who are now about to turn 40. And, as they approach the midpoint of their lives, a key question hangs over them: Why must life be so complicated? That thought has been weighing especially heavily on the mind of novelist Xavier Rousseau (Romain Duris). In fact, the notion has so preoccupied his thoughts that he’s even begun writing a new book on the subject, a novel bearing the apropos title Chinese Puzzle. It’s also a work he can relate to personally since it’s largely based on his own experiences.

So how did Xavier’s life get so complicated? It all started in Paris, where he had been living a comfortable life in an upscale flat with his British-born wife, Wendy (Kelly Reilly), and their two children, Tom (Pablo Mugnier-Jacob) and Mia (Margaux Mansart). However, Xavier’s seemingly blissful existence was anything but happy. He was stuck in a writing job he loathed, and tension on the home front had been mounting for some time. But, if all that weren’t bad enough, Xavier inflamed circumstances further when he announced that he had agreed to help his lesbian pal, Isabelle (Cécile de France), have a baby by volunteering to be her sperm donor. That decision went too far for Wendy, who promptly made an announcement of her own – that she was leaving Xavier and moving to New York with the kids.

Wendy’s proclamation devastated Xavier, especially when he learned that she was also intending to move in with a new love interest, John (Peter Hermann), upon her arrival in New York. Despite his begrudging reluctance to let her go, he was determined not to let the same thing happen to his relationship with his children. So, to keep Tom and Mia in his life, Xavier made plans of his own to relocate to New York, taking up residence in a cramped, dingy Chinatown apartment. His decision was eased somewhat by the news that Isabelle had also just moved to the Big Apple to be with her new lover, Ju (Sandrine Holt). But, even with the companionship of a good friend for this new adventure, Xavier still had to contend with the reality of having his life completely disrupted practically overnight.

Novelist Xavier Rousseau (Romain Duris, center) begins a new adventure in his life when he moves from Paris to New York to be close to his children, Tom (Pablo Mugnier-Jacob, right) and Mia (Margaux Mansart, left), in director Cédric Klapisch’s “Chinese Puzzle.” Photo courtesy of Cohen Media Group.

Once in New York, Xavier’s life grew progressively more complex. He often wondered how this happened (even if seemingly unforeseen events provided ever more fodder for his new writing project). So, while sorting out divorce and custody matters with Wendy, Xavier also had to wrestle with a variety of other complications, including:

* Figuring out how to legally stay in America, a scenario involving Xavier’s new streetwise friend Ray (Sharrieff Pugh), his fast-talking storefront lawyer (Jason Kravits), his new “wife” Nancy (Li Jun Li) and an intensely invasive immigration officer (Peter McRobbie);

* An unexpected visit from an old flame, Martine (Audrey Tautou), and her two children, Lucas (Amin Djakliou) and Jade (Clara Abbasi), a reunion with implications beyond just reminiscing about old times; and

* The birth of Isabelle’s baby and her subsequent (and less-than-subtle) flirtation with the child’s nubile young babysitter (Flore Bonaventura).

With all this going on, it’s no wonder Xavier’s life has come to resemble a Chinese puzzle. But how its pieces all ultimately fit together remains to be seen, something that will invariably play out in both the pages of his book – and the everyday events of his existence.

In an uncomfortable moment, novelist Xavier Rousseau (Romain Duris, second from left) attempts to keep his cool when confronted by the women in his life, including his ex-wife, Wendy (Kelly Reilly, second from right), his old frame, Martine (Audrey Tautou, right), and his lesbian pal, Isabelle (Cécile de France, left), in the new comedy release, “Chinese Puzzle.” Photo courtesy of Cohen Media Group.

So what’s the answer to the question Xavier poses in the film and in his writing? Anyone versed in conscious creation can answer that inquiry in a heartbeat – the reason Xavier’s life (or anyone’s life, for that matter) seems so complicated is that he creates it that way in the first place.

In a nutshell, the events transpiring in Xavier’s reality are a direct result of what he’s manifesting with his beliefs and intents through the conscious creation process. His existence flows from where his thoughts go. And, if he’s unhappy with what he’s creating, then he needs to look at the beliefs he’s drawing upon to materialize the existence unfolding before him, making changes as needed to create circumstances more to his liking.

Given Xavier’s vocation – one that typically calls upon its practitioners to understand their characters’ insights and motivations – it’s actually rather surprising that he hasn’t already figured this out for himself. Some might say he’s too close to the situation and unable to see what’s really going on, an argument that has some merit. However, considering the genuinely clueless outlook Xavier seems to have regarding his circumstances, those skilled in conscious creation would probably maintain that his reality is the result of practicing un-conscious creation or creation by default. Under such circumstances, he lets life happen to him without any attempt to consciously understand how or why conditions materialize as they do.

Following a path like this is akin to walking through a minefield, and conscious creation practitioners who watch Xavier on his perilous journey will probably hold their breath as he makes his way among the buried explosives. At the same time, they’re also likely to view the protagonist as Homer Simpson with a French accent. “What,” they may legitimately ask, “is he thinking?” But therein lies the inherent problem with creation by default – it’s carried out without much effort to become conscious of the way reality works.

Xavier is not the only one in this film following the path of un-conscious creation. One need only look to Isabelle’s experiences as well. Here’s someone who has a beautiful new baby and a devoted new lover, and yet she risks losing it all by carelessly chasing the skirt of the babysitter. Again, what is she thinking? But also, once again, such is the nature of creation by default.

Getting off this carousel of ignorance can be challenging, and those who ride it often have to “bottom out” on their way to reaching a point where they crave change. As painful and difficult as that can be, however, it nevertheless provides a starting point for charting a new course.

An unexpected visit from Martine, an old flame (Audrey Tautou, left), prompts novelist Xavier Rousseau (Romain Duris, right) to contemplate the future of their relationship in the new comedy, “Chinese Puzzle,” the third film in a trilogy from director Cédric Klapisch. Photo courtesy of Cohen Media Group.

To make effective use of this opportunity, those of us seeking change must take several important steps. First, we must make a concerted effort to choose to be “conscious” about our lives and how they unfold. Willfully opting to remain oblivious won’t change things, so getting onto the conscious creation path truly requires getting serious about doing things with a purposeful sense of awareness.

Second, embracing a more conscious outlook about how life materializes impels us to realize that we’re in the driver’s seat, that we’re directing the show. At the same time, it also requires us to realize that we’re the ones responsible for what transpires. When we embrace the un-conscious approach, it’s easy to abrogate our sense of responsibility. But, when we opt for something a little more engaged, we can no longer turn a blind eye to what we manifest. If we create something, it also means we conceived it, for better or worse, and there’s no escaping who’s responsible for the outcome.

Finally, once we’ve come to the foregoing realizations, it would behoove us to understand that we get the best results when we’re honest with ourselves. Getting a handle on what we really want to create – and then backing up those desires with appropriate manifesting beliefs – bring us that much closer to materializing hoped-for outcomes. This requires us to operate with integrity, being sincere with ourselves and our intents, an approach that may prompt dilemmas and hard choices. But, when we see what we get for such actions, the effort is certainly well worth it. Xavier and his pals need to wise up about this.

Life in New York is a far cry from life in Paris, as novelist Xavier Rousseau (Romain Duris, center) and his kids, Tom (Pablo Mugnier-Jacob, right) and Mia (Margaux Mansart, left), discover for themselves in “Chinese Puzzle.” Photo courtesy of Cohen Media Group.

“Chinese Puzzle” is a mildly entertaining comedy that, unfortunately, takes its central premise and makes it all a little too obvious. In making its point, the seemingly forced madcap narrative becomes excessive – and eventually tiresome – despite the general likability of the characters and overall story. Unresolved plot threads, the inconsistent use of novel storytelling elements (clever though some of them may be) and the underdevelopment of certain supporting characters take away from what could have been a much more engaging film.

When looking for answers to life’s complexities, we can save a lot of time and effort by first looking to ourselves. The causes – and solutions – don’t lie “out there somewhere” but, rather, within each of us. Being willing to take such a step may require embracing a more responsible approach than we’d like or that we’re used to, but doing so will get us to a satisfactory resolution and a deeper understanding of circumstances more quickly and easily. Indeed, solving the puzzles of our lives need not be difficult as long as we’re willing to figure out how the pieces fit together rather than blaming them for not doing so on their own.

Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

‘X-Men’ reflects on claiming one’s power

“X-Men: Days of Future Past” (2014). Cast: Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, Nicholas Hoult, Omar Sy, Shawn Ashmore, Evan Peters, Josh Helman, Mark Comacho. Director: Bryan Singer. Screenplay: Simon Kinberg. Story: Jane Goldman, Simon Kinberg and Matthew Vaughn. Web site. Trailer.

Turning away from our personal power can have dire consequences. By failing to embrace and act upon our natural talents and make use of them in our daily lives, we run the risk of leading an unfulfilling existence and failing to live up to our potential as sentient beings. And, in some cases, the fallout can be even worse, carrying widespread ramifications that affect the well-being of those around us, if not the entire planet, a scenario explored in the new summertime sci-fi blockbuster, “X-Men: Days of Future Past.”

Life in the near future is pretty dismal in the world of the X-Men, “mutant” beings who possess a variety of special capabilities that set them apart from their fellow humans. Their abilities represent the next step in the species’ evolution, but not everyone is comfortable with them or their unique faculties, a prejudice stretching back many decades. In fact, that long-standing fundamental distrust was responsible for spawning an enduring war that now plagues the planet, making the earth an exceedingly dark place. With the development of mutant-seeking robotic weapons known as Sentinels in the 1970s, the globe was plunged into a hellish nightmare pitting humans and the evolved outcasts against one another, a battle that has relentlessly raged into the present.

To combat these horrific conditions, a band of X-Men takes refuge in a Chinese monastery to devise a plan for ending the conflict once and for all. The group is led by one-time mutant mentor Professor X (Patrick Stewart) and his former adversary, Magneto (Ian McKellen). They seek resolution to a war that started in response to the murder of the Sentinels’ developer, Dr. Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage), in 1973. Trask was killed at the hands of a mutant named Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), who was outraged that he had used her peers’ DNA to develop weapons capable of specifically targeting them. Trask’s murder so frightened the human population of the mutant “threat” that his weapons program, which initially received tepid support, was given the green light with the official blessing of its chief proponent, President Richard Nixon (Mark Comacho).

In considering possible remedies to their plight, the X-Men draw upon the insights of Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page), a mutant capable of peering into and guiding the minds of others. She proposes sending the consciousness of one of her fellow mutants across time to a point before Trask’s murder in hopes of preventing it, thereby changing the time line – and all of the subsequent fallout that came from his death. As plausible as the plan sounds, however, it’s fraught with risks, and only one of the X-Men appears up to the challenge – Wolverine (Hugh Jackman).

For the mission to succeed, Wolverine must stop Mystique from carrying out her plan. But, as daunting as that task might be, he’s advised that he need not act alone; his colleagues encourage him to seek help from their younger selves. Professor X and Magneto thus inform Wolverine how he can contact their youthful counterparts (James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender, respectively).

However, to make the plan work, there are a few hitches to overcome. First, since Wolverine will be meeting his contemporaries’ younger selves at a point before he met them in the current time line, he’ll have to convince them of who he is, how he knows them and what he’s doing there, objectives that may be much easier said than done. And, second, the scenario into which Wolverine will step is set to play out at a precarious point in human history – at the time of the signing of the Paris Peace Accords ending the Vietnam War. With the world on edge over this uneasy truce, it wouldn’t take much to set off a panic – one with the potential to carry on many years into the future (circumstances that the X-Men have since become all too familiar with).

With the fate of the world hanging in the balance, Wolverine embarks on his mission, hopeful that the present he knows can be wiped out by changes to the past. His success, however, will depend on his effectiveness at convincing himself – and others – that a different path to the future is possible. But it’s a path that’s only attainable by those who believe that it can unfold.

The belief in the possible, of course, is what makes the conscious creation process work. And, in carrying out his quest, Wolverine must change the hearts, minds and beliefs of those who are chiefly responsible for bringing into being what will eventually transpire.

Several key belief components must be put in place if the X-Men’s plan is to work. Foremost among them is the notion that the past can be rewritten, a significant challenge given what many of us perceive to be the persistence and infallibility of memory. Many of us see the past as fixed and unchangeable. But memories, like virtually any of our other thoughts, are belief-based and, consequently, susceptible to alteration.

For example, think about how we remember a particular event. Many times we’re positively certain that we recall exactly how it played out. But, when we uncover evidence that our recollection may be “faulty” (evoked by tangible artifacts associated with the event, the accounts of others, etc.), we may also find that we need to reassess what really happened. Such exercises change not only our perceptions of what occurred, but also the nature of the circumstances associated with them, effectively altering what we believed to have actually transpired. That knowledge thus changes us in our present, because the path that got us to where we are now has also been amended. And a changed present thereby opens up the door to an alternate future, one that may be very different from what we might have anticipated would unfold going forward. Expected hardships, for example, may simply remain probabilities that fail to materialize, because they don’t have the required “temporal support” behind them to make them manifest.

These notions are not just pie-in-the-sky New Age hype, either. In addition to their applicability in a conscious creation context, the thinking underlying these ideas is also part and parcel of the theories driving quantum physics. So the X-Men’s proposed plan is thus more than just philosophical or fictional conjecture; its plausibility has a basis firmly rooted in science, strange though the idea may seem to the skeptical.

But embracing beliefs about the viability of changing the past are not the only convictions that need to come into play in this story. The X-Men of the past must take a cue from their future counterparts and learn to believe in themselves. To do less would invite trouble, as their future selves come to find out in extremely painful ways.

As mutant beings, the X-Men of the 1970s represent a distinct minority, one that’s mistrusted by society at large and often made the object of scorn. However, like any other minority, they must learn to step forward, courageously and with integrity, to live their lives as their true selves. Indeed, as virtually every other persecuted group has discovered throughout history, the mutants must learn how to assert their identity and insist upon their rightful, inclusionary place in society. Unfortunately, these initiatives didn’t receive adequate attention when the X-Men first appeared on the scene. Instead, they were encouraged to keep a low profile, an ill-advised attempt at placating the feelings of a prejudiced majority. But, as other minority groups have discovered for themselves, such steps simply don’t work in the long run; their implementation often leads to second-class status – or worse.

Wolverine’s journey into the past thus must also be aimed at helping his youthful colleagues foster beliefs about having the courage to be themselves, no matter how much they might be perceived to be “outcasts” by the rest of society. He must encourage them to have faith in the validity of their powers and their ability to freely exercise them for the betterment of society, no matter what others may think. This is a particularly crucial concern for Professor X’s younger self, given the important mentoring role he’s eventually destined to play, not to mention his particular efforts in helping Wolverine rewrite the time line. And, by extension, it’s also an inspiring metaphor for the members of any minority group seeking to attain the respect and recognition they truly deserve.

At first glance, “X-Men: Days of Future Past” may seem like an odd selection when it comes to cinematic explorations of such heady issues. However, despite the story’s comic book roots, there’s nothing at all silly or cartoonish about this offering. The film is an excellent showcase for the metaphysical notions it examines, and it does so with a degree of maturity and sophistication not often found among pictures of this genre. Those who would dismiss it simply on the grounds of its pedigree will miss out on a fine philosophical treatise.

The picture is a flat-out winner on all fronts. Its terrific special effects provide ample visual appeal, but the film does not rely on them to carry the plot. It features an intelligently conceived storyline, with a top-notch script to back it up, one full of thoughtfulness and whimsical humor (especially in the ʼ70s flashback sequences). And, even though this is the seventh film in the “X-Men” franchise, one need not know its history to grasp the story here; sufficient background is provided to inform new viewers without such information becoming excessively intrusive.

What’s perhaps most impressive, however, is the picture’s exceptional acting, a definite cut above what’s seen in most action films. The truly stellar cast brings these characters to life as believable individuals, not as live action versions of comic book figures. That’s quite an accomplishment, but, when one considers who the filmmakers had to work with, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

Perhaps the only drawback of the film is its underdeveloped use of 3D photography. As with many of today’s releases that employ this cinematic technology, the picture simply doesn’t make use of it as effectively as it might have, which is a disappointment, to be sure. However, this is a minor shortcoming in the greater scheme of things and shouldn’t deter viewers from enjoying what is an otherwise-terrific piece of filmmaking.

Seizing upon our power – or our failure to do so – has consequences that we seldom see forthcoming. Unless and until we become more prescient in this regard, we would be wise to make use of the talents we’ve drawn to ourselves (after all, if we weren’t meant to have them, then why would we have attracted them in the first place?). “Days of Future Past” makes this point plainly apparent, showing us how to lead lives of purpose and fulfillment, without succumbing to timidity or regret. It shows us not to be afraid of who we are, what we create or the realities we manifest for ourselves, for, if we courageously follow those pursuits, we’ll all surely have a future to look forward to.

Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

‘Belle’ skillfully explores breaking down barriers

“Belle” (2014). Cast: Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Tom Wilkinson, Emily Watson, Miranda Richardson, Penelope Wilton, Sarah Gadon, Sam Reid, Matthew Goode, James Norton, Tom Felton, Alex Jennings, Lauren Julien-Box, Cara Jenkins, Bethan Mary-James. Director: Amma Asante. Screenplay: Misan Sagay. Web site. Trailer.

Prevailing limitations can be severe impediments to invoking change and righting wrongs. The implications of this are apparent in an array of life’s venues, too, from those that are highly personal to those that affect the entire spectrum of society. But, when individuals of conviction come along to challenge existing limitations, the potential for dismantling those barriers soars. Such are the circumstances at work in the new fact-based historical drama, “Belle.”

When British naval officer Admiral John Lindsay (Matthew Goode) learns of the death of the mother of his young mixed-race daughter, Dido Elizabeth Belle (Lauren Julien-Box), he sincerely wants to do right by her. But, considering his naval career’s seafaring obligations, the Admiral also knows he’s away from home often and incapable of raising Dido properly. As a consequence, he decides to place her in the care of his uncle, William Murray, the 1st Earl of Mansfield (Tom Wilkinson), who also serves as Lord Chief Justice of England’s highest court. While sympathetic to his nephew’s plight, Lord Mansfield and his wife (Emily Watson) have serious reservations about taking in the young girl. Given the socially accepted racism of 18th Century England, they fret over what their aristocratic peers might think about them raising an illegitimate mulatto child. However, Admiral Lindsay insists that Dido’s bloodline rightfully entitles her to certain privileges, an argument that causes his aunt and uncle to relent and assume responsibility for their grand-niece.

To assuage any misgivings they have about their decision, Lord and Lady Mansfield comfort themselves in the knowledge that Dido would make a welcome companion for another grand-niece in their care, the lonely young Elizabeth (Cara Jenkins), who is about the same age as her newly arrived cousin. The girls quickly become fast friends and confidantes, forging a bond that grows ever stronger as they mature into young adulthood. And, to ensure that they’re groomed as proper young ladies, both girls are entrusted to the tutelage of their refined but spinsterish aunt, Mary (Penelope Wilton).

With the passage of time, Dido blossoms into a beautiful, sophisticated young woman (Gugu Mbatha-Raw). However, despite the privileges to which she’s entitled (such as a generous inheritance from her now-deceased father’s estate), she’s also denied participation in many social customs that others in her household, like her cousin Elizabeth (Sarah Gadon), are freely accorded (such as joining the family at formal dinner parties). It’s as if Dido lives in a sort of social purgatory, blessed with certain advantages but forbidden from availing herself of some of the most basic common courtesies, a conundrum that puzzles and frustrates her. Even Elizabeth and Lord and Lady Mansfield are uncomfortable with this socially sanctioned hypocrisy, and they struggle to walk the tightrope of proper etiquette, taking incremental steps to “palatably” ingratiate Dido into their world without causing undue offense to their peers’ sensibilities.

Dido’s carefully orchestrated introduction into English high society prompts mixed reactions. Some of the aristocracy, such as would-be suitor Oliver Ashford (James Norton), view her as alluring and charming. At the same time, others, like Oliver’s brother James (Tom Felton), look upon her as “repulsive.” And still others, like Lady Ashford, the squabbling brothers’ calculating mother (Miranda Richardson), size up the young heiress for how she might benefit her family’s social standing and fiscal condition.

While Dido enjoys Oliver’s flattery, her romantic attention is drawn elsewhere – to an aspiring young lawyer, John Davinier (Sam Reid). The idealistic attorney seeks to make his mark in an insurance claim case in which the owner of a slave ship is suing its guarantor for denied reimbursement of its lost “cargo,” a shipload of ill African natives who were intentionally thrown overboard, chained to one another, because their failing health allegedly threatened the welfare of the ship and its crew (not to mention their market value among potential buyers). Mr. Davinier, the idealistic son of a country vicar, believes that a ruling against the claimant would significantly boost England’s growing abolitionist movement, an initiative aimed at outlawing the country’s longstanding (and highly profitable) slave trade, a practice the social activists consider a humanitarian abomination. It’s also a case where the decision rests with Lord Mansfield.

Given her personal experiences and the horrid fate of the real victims in this case, Dido sympathizes with John’s efforts. She quietly but passionately lobbies on his behalf with Lord Mansfield, who struggles to remain objective and avoid any appearances of a conflict of interest. Considering his role as Dido’s guardian, the Chief Justice worries what the public will think if he’s perceived as letting his personal feelings influence his decision, especially if he were to find in favor of the insurers. But, no matter what his current family circumstances might be, Lord Mansfield’s own outspoken views of the slave trade – criticisms he openly wrote about in the past – are already in the public record. So, in making his ruling, he faces a difficult choice: Will he strictly follow the letter of a law that would appear to compel reimbursement? Or will he follow his heart, based on his personal experiences and his own documented idealism? To rule fairly, he requires credible evidence to make an impartial, genuinely informed decision. And, when such evidence surfaces, the good judge issues a ruling that surprises everybody – including himself.

Dido, meanwhile, faces a difficult choice of her own: Will she pursue a relationship with Oliver, a well-heeled admirer who sincerely adores her and whose aristocratic pedigree would “validate” the legitimacy of her social standing (despite the stigma of her minority status)? Or will she follow her heart and seek romance with John, a noble soul who would assuredly provide her the unconditional love she craves but whose “inferior” class status might diminish her place in society?

Both decisions carry huge implications affecting not only the Mansfield household but also society at large. The outcomes in both instances, of course, depend on whatever intents underlie them, just as is the case with anything that manifests through the power of conscious creation.

At its heart, “Belle” explores how to use conscious creation to intentionally break down barriers. This is most apparent in a racial context, but it also applies to expanding the positions women occupy in society, as well as shattering the class rankings “assigned” to everyone, from slaves to the aristocracy. In all of these cases, the rigidity of the existing social structure is designed to purposely keep people in their place, and the persistence of this system is preserved and reinforced by a society in which most everyone willfully buys into beliefs upholding it. These notions are generally supported without question, sustaining its structure and assuring its continued existence. It’s a system that’s virtually immune from alteration.

But then along come individuals like Dido, Admiral Lindsay, Mr. Davinier, Oliver Ashford and Elizabeth, all of whom are capable of envisioning – and believing in – possibilities that go beyond established norms. Suddenly, the unquestionable comes up for scrutiny, especially for the roles of minorities and women. And, even though the changes these courageous visionaries seek to implement may not come to pass immediately, they at least help to initiate the process of reform to a paradigm sorely in need of it.

Of course, getting these changes implemented would never happen if their advocates didn’t zealously draw upon qualities that make their institution possible. Their willingness to embrace traits like courage and integrity, cornerstone elements of the conscious creation process, energizes their efforts by enabling them to form beliefs necessary for their manifestation and by strengthening their faith to see things through to materialization. Those who are willing to think outside the box possess these qualities, and they don’t hesitate to make use of them in furthering their causes and advancing convincing arguments to influence the attitudes of others. Tremendous accomplishments, both personally and in society as a whole, are possible when all of these factors are allowed to hold sway, yielding satisfaction and fulfillment beyond compare.

“Belle” is easily the best film release of 2014 thus far, an engaging Austen-esque tale with a social conscience. It’s a superb period piece, with exquisite production values in such areas as costumes, makeup, set design and art direction, as well as a beautiful soundtrack by Rachel Portman. The picture’s deftly penned script makes its points without becoming preachy, with many of its philosophical discussions skillfully and gently raised through “what if” and “why not” conversations among the protagonists. And the story is effectively brought to life by the excellent performances of its wonderful ensemble cast, particularly Mbatha-Raw and Wilkinson. Director Amma Asante has produced a film that is definitely worthy of serious awards consideration, though the timing of its release and an inexplicably weak critical reception thus far may work against it.

Miracles are truly possible if we allow the courage of our convictions to have free reign in their manifestation. Dido and her kindreds discover this for themselves in many ways, a realization that enables them – and countless beneficiaries of their efforts – to reap abundant rewards. The same is true for any of us who have the vision to imagine undreamed-of possibilities and the fortitude to surmount the walls that keep us from them. Indeed, if change can be invoked under restrictions as rigid as those in place in 18th Century England, there’s no telling what can be implemented under the more tolerant conditions in place today.

And who says we can’t learn anything from history?

Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

‘Vivian Maier’ searches for meaning, connection

“Finding Vivian Maier” (2014). Directors: John Maloof and Charlie Siskel. Screenplay and Story: John Maloof and Charlie Siskel. Web site. Trailer.

It’s mystifying how someone with profound aesthetic insights and artistic sensibilities could also remain a virtual unknown, especially given the prolific nature of her work. But, then, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise if the creator of those pieces intentionally commits to shielding them from public view. Indeed, how is it that someone so incredibly talented would purposely choose to keep her work a secret? That’s the conundrum raised in the fascinating new documentary, “Finding Vivian Maier.”

While working on a book about the Chicago neighborhood where he grew up, photographer John Maloof searched for historic images to accompany the text. During the course of that search, he stumbled upon a collection of old negatives at a public auction house. The collection only cost him several hundred dollars, but what he (and the world) got for such a modest investment was an invaluable treasure.

In poring over the trunk of photographic images he purchased, Maloof found more than 100,000 negatives covering an array of subjects. Many of the pictures were exquisite depictions of everyday life, shot in both black and white and color throughout many of Chicago's neighborhoods during the second half of the 20th Century. But how, he wondered, had these beautiful images gone undiscovered?

The photos turned out to be the works of an amateur shutterbug named Vivian Maier (1926-2009). Maloof had never heard of Maier, nor was he able to find out anything about her through an Internet search. His curiosity was naturally piqued.

Maloof conducted further research by going through some of Maier’s other possessions that were included in his auction house purchase. Through that investigation, Maloof learned that Maier had been a nanny and housekeeper to a number of families on Chicago’s affluent North Shore, including former TV talk show host Phil Donahue. He began contacting the families for whom she had worked and slowly pieced together a profile of a gifted but enigmatic recluse.

Maloof was hoping that his research would help to explain the motivation for Maier’s art. Was she a street photographer? A citizen journalist? An artist in training who did not know how to market her work? Or was she something else entirely?

Maloof’s investigation painted a portrait of an extremely private – almost xenophobic – person whose life was characterized by sweeping contradictions and unexplained motives. In addition to her negatives, Maloof discovered trunks full of undeveloped film, as well as numerous 8-millimeter movies and audiocassette recordings. Besides her street photography (visible at www.vivianmaier.com), Maier was prolific at snapping self-portraits and documenting her world travels, including visits to her family’s ancestral home in rural France. But, despite Maloof’s diligence in attempting to learn about his subject, many aspects of Maier’s persona and the reasons behind her work remain a puzzle.

As a consequence, “Finding Vivian Maier” is as much a film about unraveling a mystery as it is about showcasing a little-known artist’s work. It’s an intimate search for meaning and connection, one that ultimately involves the artist, the filmmakers and the audience.

As someone who had virtually no family and few friends, it’s not surprising that Maier would seek to consciously create connection – in almost any way possible – to alleviate the loneliness in her life. Despite the inherent nature of this quality in the fabric of reality, Maier seemed to have difficulty with it and sought, in her own way, to introduce it into her life.

For example, Maier’s work as a nanny brought her into direct contact with families, the very type of social unit that was absent from her own life and background. And her work as a street photographer, depicting even the most ordinary aspects of everyday existence, provided her with an artistic connection to elements of daily life, even if only vicariously. Yet her unwillingness to more actively engage that sense of connection prevented her from greater participation in the web of life. Her reluctance to engage it may also help to explain why she kept her life and her art so private, not letting in others to see who she was and what she was doing.

Maier’s working class background also appears to have influenced her art. She faithfully depicted a world from which she believed she came, thus giving expression to those aspects of life that might not otherwise garner recognition. But her hesitance to commercialize her works, again, kept them from being seen by the world until their “accidental” discovery after her death. Her belief that working class folk are meant to make certain kinds of contributions to life (such as the toil of hard work) and not meant to make other kinds (such as artistic accomplishments) would seem to belie her reasoning for not pursuing commercialization of her photography, a belief that manifested directly in the existence she experienced.

There’s also the possibility that the simple act of creating for its own sake – the joy and power of creation – is what drove her. Perhaps she pursued her art simply because she enjoyed it and didn’t really care what came of it. This is the motivation behind the works of many conscious creators, and, for them, that’s enough. Maybe that was true for Vivian Maier as well. And, thanks to Maloof’s discovery, we can now share in the product of that joy ourselves.

Vivian Maier’s story may not seem like interesting fare for a documentary film, but nothing could be further from the truth. The picture engages on every level from start to finish, telling a fascinating story and doing it in a way that utterly captivates. Viewers will be mesmerized by the mystery as it unfolds, all the while treated to an array of gorgeous imagery.

Comprehending the motivations for doing what we do is often difficult for us, let alone those who are watching us from the sidelines and trying to understand. “Finding Vivian Maier” provides us with a captivating exploration of this subject from a unique individual’s perspective. We might not “find” Vivian through this cinematic odyssey, but perhaps her story will help us to better connect with our own inner being – and find out something about ourselves in the process.

Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

‘Locke’ wrestles with choice, responsibility

“Locke” (2013 production, 2014 release). Cast: Tom Hardy, Olivia Colman (voice), Ruth Wilson (voice), Andrew Scott (voice), Ben Daniels (voice), Tom Holland (voice), Bill Milner (voice). Director: Steven Knight. Screenplay: Steven Knight. Web site. Trailer.

Coping with the conditions of our lives can be more than a little challenging at times. We often find ourselves faced with circumstances we dread, some of which may carry difficult choices and demanding responsibilities. But, then, in all fairness, we must also ask how we got ourselves into those dilemmas to begin with. Those are the conundrums a beleaguered protagonist must address for himself in the unconventional personal drama, “Locke.”

Construction manager Ivan Locke (Tom Hardy) is about to go on the ride of his life. On the night before he’s scheduled to oversee the largest concrete pour for a non-military construction project in all of Europe, he unexpectedly sets off on an anguished two-hour drive from Birmingham to London. He abandons all his existing obligations, both to his job and his family, and his impulsive actions perplex those depending on him. But Ivan has his reasons, and they involve concerns more important than any of his prior commitments.

So what’s prompted Ivan’s seemingly irrational actions? He’s making a journey to be present for the impending premature birth of his child, a baby born out of a one-night stand he had with a lonely construction project assistant, Bethan (Olivia Colman), seven months earlier. Ivan had been keeping Bethan’s pregnancy secret for months, but he planned to inform others of it as soon as the concrete pour was complete. Those plans went awry, however, when the baby’s early arrival threw a wrench into Ivan’s schedule. And so, as he sets off on the drive to London, he seeks to square up matters with his family and professional colleagues through a series of phone conversations – calls that herald the collapse of everything important in his life.

Over the course of his journey, Ivan learns from his boss, Gareth (Ben Daniels), that he’s being fired for abandoning his responsibilities at such a critical juncture in the project. Despite this dismissal, Ivan feels compelled to follow through on his work commitments and seeks to make arrangements for them to proceed as scheduled with the aid of his assistant, Donal (Andrew Scott). Accomplishing this task is easier said than done, however, when he learns that, per Donal’s usual nightly routine, he’s been drinking, making it difficult to convey detailed instructions for what needs to be done.

Meanwhile, Ivan also must contend with his family, who had been expecting him to join them at home to watch a football match. When he calls them about his change in plans, they’re puzzled, not suspecting a thing about what he’s up to. Ivan’s sons, Eddie (Tom Holland) and Sean (Bill Milner), are understandably disappointed that their dad won’t be joining them. But Ivan’s wife, Katrina (Ruth Wilson), is positively devastated, not only because this is the first she’s heard of his infidelity, but also because she’s receiving the news in such an impersonal way. Ivan struggles to smooth things over with everyone, but this task proves far more difficult than anything he has to contend with in his dealings with Donal and Gareth.

And, if all this weren’t enough, Ivan also has to cope with the drama of Bethan’s condition. In addition to calming her over the shock of going into premature labor, Ivan must wrestle with Bethan’s emotional neediness. Despite the fact that she’s carrying Ivan’s child, he feels nothing for her emotionally beyond a general concern for her well-being. He has compassion for her fragile state of mind and the circumstances he’s placed her in, but he has no intention of pursuing any kind of romantic involvement with her, because he still loves Katrina, despite their marital difficulties. Complications related to the child’s delivery add more fuel to the fire, pushing Ivan to the brink of his own emotional meltdown.

The issues raised during Ivan’s unplanned road trip also recall painful issues of his own past, particularly those involving his contentious relationship with his habitually irresponsible father. In a series of monologues, Ivan rails at his old man’s unapologetic lack of reliability, lashing out at the lack of concern he showed his family as Ivan was growing up. He even berates himself for having occasionally followed in his father’s footsteps. But, as someone who has sincerely sought to straighten out his life, Ivan affirms his efforts to do the right thing now, no matter what transgressions he may have committed – and no matter what the cost may be to him going forward.

Ivan’s experiences shine an intensely bright light on the issues of choice and responsibility, hallmark principles of the conscious creation process. For some of us, it might be easy to shirk our responsibility for our creations, asserting that “things just happen,” thereby providing ourselves an all-too-convenient justification to walk away from them. However, given that nothing in our lives happens without the choices we make, we can’t realistically disavow our responsibility for their manifestation (and, even if we were attempt to do so, we would almost assuredly pay a higher price for having done so later on). Knowing that, then, it would behoove us to not only carefully consider the choices we make, but also to envision what consequences might arise from the options before us, given that we’ll be responsible for the fallout associated with them, no matter which one we ultimately choose.

To his credit, Ivan recognizes this and makes a concerted effort to rectify his missteps, despite the high personal price he may end up paying for doing so. Not only does this make him accountable for his choices, but it also helps to strengthen his fundamental awareness of how the conscious creation process works, a recognition that, one would hope, will encourage him to act more responsibly down the road. He thus sets an example worthy of emulation, especially for those who would attempt to worm their way out of their responsibilities.

Ivan’s efforts also make clear that we’re not tied to our past or our prior choices. He freely admits that he screwed up, but he also willingly agrees to make up for his transgressions, no matter how painful that restitution might be. At the same time, he also fully realizes that, just because he may have acted irresponsibly in the past, that doesn’t mean he’s locked into a pattern of comparable behavior for the future. He recognizes – and doesn’t hesitate to decidedly avow – that he knows he can choose new beliefs about what he manifests from this point forward (as evidenced in his monologues with his father). He’s aware that he’s not forever shackled to whatever he may have done previously. That’s a very healthy attitude that we’d be wise to follow, no matter how much we (or others) may try to saddle us with views to the contrary. It’s even metaphorically apparent in Ivan’s line of work; regardless of what difficulties may arise, he’s always able to “build anew.”

The ability to reconstruct one’s life is an option that’s always with us, regardless of how daunting the circumstances might seem. This is made possible by the ongoing continuity of existence, a belief in the idea that “life goes on,” no matter what may come up in our everyday reality. This notion, explored in such other films as “People v. The State of Illusion” (2012) and the recently released “On My Way” (2014), is poetically symbolized here by the inclusion of the “journey” element in the picture’s narrative. The road, which provides the backdrop for Ivan’s trip, is also symbolic of the personal journey on which he has embarked, one that involves implications far greater than just getting him from Birmingham to London. It metaphorically chronicles the arc of his learning curve, his individual evolution, and his personal growth and development, all of which are indicative of the conscious creation principle that we’re all in a constant state of becoming. As it is with Ivan, so it is, too, with each of us.

Journeys like this hold tremendous potential, despite their associated difficulties. As dire as these sorts of circumstances may appear, they also frequently carry the seeds of change, often for the better. Indeed, when an old way of life crumbles away, its demise often paves the way for something new to emerge, and, thanks to our manifesting beliefs, we’re the ones driving the process behind what eventually surfaces. This phenomenon can materialize in a variety of ways, from minor alterations to sweeping modifications. Even a complete rebirth is possible, another metaphor that looms largely, both literally and figuratively, in Ivan’s story. Again, if such transformation can happen for him, there’s no reason to believe that it also couldn’t happen for us, especially if we zealously embrace the beliefs that make such outcomes possible.

“Locke” is a surprisingly engaging film despite its rather unconventional format. In many ways its narrative is akin to a one-person stage play, which some might find a questionable storytelling approach. But the writing is effectively enlivened with the film’s dynamic cinematography and editing, which never allow the material to become stale. Admittedly, some of the dialogue could have been stronger and, at times, less technical (you’ll come away knowing more about concrete than you probably ever wanted to know), but the effective explorations of the metaphysical themes examined through the screenplay make up for these deficiencies. Hardy’s performance is generally solid, representing a big stretch over his previous portrayals, though it could have been stronger in spots, especially in the continuity of his accent. As for the supporting cast, whose contributions are entirely vocal, viewers get a mixed bag, with some of the players (like Wilson, Holland and Milner) serving up fine portrayals and others (like Colman, Scott and Daniels) turning in performances that come up lacking at times.

The road of life is filled with twists and turns, many of which take us by surprise. But the more we realize we’re in the driver’s seat, the better we’ll be able to map our own course. Ivan Locke learns this for himself during his lonely drive to his destiny, one that’s both literal and metaphorical. Here’s wishing him – and all of us – a safe trip.

Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

‘Fading Gigolo’ urges us to broaden our horizons

“Fading Gigolo” (2013 production, 2014 release). Cast: John Turturro, Woody Allen, Vanessa Paradis, Liev Schreiber, Sharon Stone, Sofía Vergara, Bob Balaban, Tonya Pinkins, Jade Dixon, Aubrey Joseph, Dante Hoagland, Isaiah Clifton, David Margulies, Abe Altman, Sol Frieder. Director: John Turturro. Screenplay: John Turturro. Web site. Trailer.

For many of us, there comes a time in our lives when we find ourselves stretching in ways we never thought possible. Those instances can be exhilarating, introducing us to talents we never knew we possessed and enabling us to access vast untapped reserves of personal power. Of course, those revelations seldom materialize unless we recognize the opportunities that make such episodes of personal growth possible, which may be tricky if they call for us to venture outside our comfort zones. These are among the challenges posed to a cast of colorful but longing characters in the quirky new comedy, “Fading Gigolo.”

After years of operating a rare books business, Murray Schwartz (Woody Allen) is reluctantly forced to close up shop, the exorbitance of New York’s commercial real estate rents having finally gotten the better of the family-owned operation. Faced with having to find a new income source, Murray considers his options, one of which is more than a little odd: During a routine visit to his beautiful but lonely dermatologist, Dr. Parker (Sharon Stone), Murray learns that she’s interested in finding someone with whom she and her flirtatious friend, Selima (Sofía Vergara), can have a ménage à trois, and she asks her stunned patient if he knows anyone who might be able to accommodate them. Though initially astounded by this inexplicable, outlandish request, Murray nevertheless decides to think it over, because he just might have someone in mind.

While packing up his bookstore’s unsold inventory, Murray shares Dr. Parker’s proposition with his longtime friend Fioravante (John Turturro), a reserved, middle-aged everyman who works as a part-time floral designer. The reason? Murray believes Fioravante would make a perfect third for his doctor and her friend.

Fioravante wonders why Murray would consider him for such a strange proposal; after all, he’s not exactly male model material, nor is he experienced in this sort of “work.” But Murray counters that Fioravante’s blue collar good looks, coupled with his sensitive nature and innate ease with women, make him a good candidate. What’s more, considering what “the job” pays, Murray believes the cash will come in handy. Of course, in Murray’s mind, the money will do more than supplement his friend’s paltry flower shop income; it will also earn him, as Fioravante’s “manager,” a handsome finder’s fee. After thinking things over, Fioravante agrees (albeit somewhat tentatively), and an unlikely new joint venture is born.

In the run-up to “the big event,” Fioravante first meets with Dr. Parker and Selima individually, and they both come away from their experiences more than satisfied. The once-reluctant escort enjoys himself, too, and he quickly discovers he’s a natural at this sort of thing, a realization that leads to securing additional clients. Before long, Murray and Fioravante are rolling in dough, something that neither of them saw coming – and that neither of them is willing to walk away from anytime soon.

Circumstances change, however, when Murray connects Fioravante with Avigal (Vanessa Paradis), the widow of a revered Chasidic rabbi and a mother of six who lives in Brooklyn’s orthodox Williamsburg neighborhood. Given that this new “client” hasn’t spent much time in the company of men since her husband’s death, Fioravante’s meetings with her are considerably more chaste than anything he has with his other customers. In fact, Fioravante’s times with Avigal are more platonic encounters than sexual romps, experiences that nonetheless stir long-dormant feelings in each of them. Fioravante’s romantic tendencies, indicative of his inherently sensitive nature, begin to emerge. Likewise, Avigal’s long-repressed sense of passion surfaces, revealing an earthy side of herself that she’s barely aware of, despite years of marriage. But, beyond that, the improbable duo also seems to be falling in love. And so yet another unexpected outcome arises, one that dramatically shakes up Avigal’s life – and that seriously jeopardizes Fioravante’s commitment to his new line of work.

Avigal’s uncharacteristic behavior also gets the attention of others, most notably those in her closely knit community. As the widow of a respected cleric and a doting mother, Avigal comes under considerable scrutiny from her neighbors; her reputation and well-being are sources of community concern, and the locals feel responsible for what she does and whatever happens to her. Leading the pack of those watching over her is an overprotective community security officer, Dovi (Liev Schreiber), who has quietly pined for Avigal since the two of them were children. So, when “questionable events” begin to transpire in Avigal’s life, Dovi doesn’t hesitate to get involved and make his presence felt. But, despite his sincere concern, Avigal nearly always responds by giving him what appear to be polite brush-offs. Appearances, however, may not always be what they seem – both for those who witness them and those who project them.

How everything eventually shakes out will take some profound soul-searching for all involved, not to mention the intervention of a rabbinic council and even Murray’s lawyer, Sol (Bob Balaban). But the efforts that go into resolving these chaotic circumstances have the potential to pay significant personal dividends for everyone, even when they yet again lead to outcomes that no one sees coming. However, wasn’t venturing into the unknown what got all this started in the first place?

Traversing uncharted territory, both literally and figuratively, can be daunting propositions, and virtually everyone in this film must come to terms with the idea. Murray, for example, explores what it’s like to run a new type of “business.” Fioravante shares in this undertaking and, through it, learns about “talents” he never knew he had. Meanwhile, as Fioravante awakens to these new “skills,” Dr. Parker and Selima join him for the journey, venturing into the provinces of their unexplored erotic territories. At the same time, Avigal learns new things about herself, allowing repressed feelings and desires to come forth. The same is true of Dovi, who’s finally willing to let his guard down to make his sentiments known, without any guarantee of success, a truly risky venture for someone so rooted in tradition.

In each of the foregoing cases, however, before any of the characters can proceed with their new endeavors, they must first change the beliefs that foster their realities, for those intents dictate what ultimately manifests through the conscious creation process. In these particular instances, each of the characters must deal with overcoming personal limitations to be able to examine these new probabilities. As noted above, this can be intimidating, but getting past the fear and being willing to take the plunge are crucial to their personal growth and development, enabling them to reap the rewards that come with discovering parts of themselves they never knew existed.

The interactions the characters have with one another are, of course, the means by which these epiphanies become possible. These encounters provide the connections and synchronicities that enable their transformations, showing them not only things they may not have known about themselves, but also things they may not have known about the nature of reality and how it materializes. Such realizations can thus open up them (and us) to even greater possibilities never before considered. Indeed, they (and we) may well wind up thinking, “If I can accomplish that, then what else is possible?”

Discovering (or rediscovering) such “magic” in one’s life can be quite invigorating. This is especially true for those who have reconciled themselves to existences devoid of such wonder. Suddenly they find that life has much to offer – and in ways they may have never before envisioned.

Of course, such an expanded awareness also calls upon us to make sure that the possibilities we bring into being are truly in line with our inherent nature. This thus puts the spotlight on the concept of integrity. Once we’re familiar with what we’re capable of creating, we also often find that we can’t deny the need to be truthful with ourselves about what we manifest, for anything we materialize that rings hollow will become painfully apparent very quickly, another realization that this film’s characters must come to terms with.

However, no matter what risks or pitfalls may accompany this process, the rewards that come from it are more than worthwhile compared to any adjustments or “sacrifices” we must make. Adopting – and acting upon – an expanded view of life (and reality) can bring us joys beyond measure. And that’s a pretty good payoff for what’s often a modest investment. But, then, we must remember that we’re making that investment in ourselves, and I can’t think of a better place to put our personal capital.

“Fading Gigolo” is a generally enjoyable, occasionally uproarious comedy, even if some aspects of the story seem highly implausible. But those who are willing to suspend the limitations of convention (just as the characters themselves strive to do in this story) will come away nicely entertained. Admittedly, most of the characters could have benefited from more fully developed back stories (especially in Fioravante’s case) to better understand their motivations, and a number of obvious plot holes could have been more effectively plugged, but these shortcomings don’t significantly detract from the fun on offer here.

The picture fields an impressive cast, too, especially in the supporting roles. Vergara is an absolute hoot, and Allen serves up some of the best on-screen work he’s done in years (and in a rare acting turn in a film he didn’t write or direct). Turturro’s performance, however, though nicely nuanced at times, is nevertheless a little too understated. In delivering his portrayal, Turturro comes across like an older (and less interesting) version of the character Paulie Carbone he played in Spike Lee’s “Jungle Fever” (1991). In light of this, he may have better served his film by casting someone else in the lead and reserving his role to that of writer and director.

Broadening our horizons is an exercise that calls for taking chances and risking loss. But it also holds the potential for tremendous personal benefit, often beyond expectations. It’s ironic that such profound insights arise from a film that might easily be misconstrued as little more than an upscale sex comedy, but that’s one of the unexpected joys that comes from it, a revelation not unlike what the characters themselves experience as their stories unfold. Maybe we should follow the examples set in these amorous exploits – and enjoy the “cigarettes” that come afterward.

Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.