Brent Marchant's Blog, page 142

Check out the Conscious Film Reviews Board!

Interested in film reviews with a conscious perspective? If so, then join the nearly 900 Pinterest followers of the Conscious Film Reviews board, available by clicking here. New posts to the board appear weekly. Enjoy!

‘Le Week-End’ scrutinizes the power of choice

“Le Week-End” (2013 production, 2014 release). Cast: Jim Broadbent, Lindsay Duncan, Jeff Goldblum, Judith Davis, Olly Alexander, Xavier De Guillebon. Director: Roger Michell. Screenplay: Hanif Kureishi. Web site. Trailer.

We all reach critical junctures in our lives, and those turning points nearly always require us to make some significant (and hard) choices. It’s a process that can become considerably more difficult if we tune out to it, be it intentionally or inadvertently, during the time leading up to those decisions. Such is the lot of a middle class English couple in the bittersweet romantic comedy-drama, “Le Week-End.”

To break the tedium of everyday life, Nick and Meg Burrows (Jim Broadbent, Lindsay Duncan) decide to celebrate their wedding anniversary with a weekend in Paris, the site of their honeymoon 30 years earlier. But what should be a joyous occasion gets off to a rocky start. Considering the prevailing humdrum of their daily lives back in Birmingham, coupled with the prospect of less-than-satisfying vacation accommodations, they approach their weekend getaway with a decidedly sour attitude. So, given these disappointing circumstances, Meg springs into action. She’s convinced they deserve something better, and, in an act of impulsiveness, she takes off in search of more suitable lodging with a reluctant Nick in tow.

Not long thereafter, the couple throws caution to the wind and checks in to a lavish suite at an upscale hotel with a panoramic view of the City of Light. A simple change in venue thus works wonders to lift their spirits. But that’s just the beginning. Inspired by the uplifting effect afforded by these luxury accommodations, Nick and Meg begin contemplating the notion of pursuing a better life in general. Indeed, they surmise that life may have more to offer them than what they’ve settled for all these many years. And so, as their Parisian weekend plays out, husband and wife each begin to look at themselves and their lives together, wondering what the next chapter holds.

As they launch into this process, Nick and Meg are both conflicted about the future. While they clearly love one another, they also wonder whether they should stay together. Are they continuing their lives with each other out of a sense of genuine passion, or is it merely because of convenience, familiarity and obligation? They also face an array of challenges personally, professionally, financially and with regard to their relationship with their adult children. Now that they’ve reached a crucial turning point in their lives, how should they respond to these issues? And what impact will their responses have on their relationship with one another going forward?

While wending their way through Paris, Nick and Meg each assess their circumstances. Sometimes they’re hopeful about what lies ahead; sometimes they express regrets about what they’ve left behind; and sometimes they fret about what they might be giving up by pursuing uncertain change. Those musings get drawn into sharper focus upon a chance meeting with one of Nick’s old college friends, Morgan (Jeff Goldblum). Even though Nick and Morgan are contemporaries and shared a common past, they’ve each followed very different life paths. While both of them started out their lives the same way, Morgan one day impulsively decided to take a left turn and pursue other interests. His example thus provides even more food for thought for Nick and Meg to consider in making their respective decisions. The question is, of course, what will they each ultimately decide?

In evaluating their lives, Nick and Meg each ask themselves how they got to where they are, a process that’s more difficult than either of them first realizes. They initially try to chalk up their circumstances to such considerations as making sacrifices to meet the needs and expectations of the other. But, as the weekend unfolds, they gradually come to see that their respective situations are the result of their own individual choices. The onus of responsibility thus comes back to rest squarely on each of their shoulders, a realization that can be even more difficult for them to fathom, such as when they see where the true “fault” lies for circumstances not working out as hoped for. But this heightened awareness of the importance of individual choice and personal responsibility also makes it possible for Nick and Meg to realize that the potential for birthing beneficial change in their lives rests with each of them, too.

The key in this is to critically examine the beliefs and intents we employ in manifesting our circumstances. This is at the heart of the conscious creation process, the means by which we materialize the realities we each experience. And it’s that very process that Nick and Meg become acquainted with as they proceed with their weekend.

Nick, for instance, looks at his life and wonders how it became so settled. The one-time outspoken activist and rowdy party animal is now a philosophy professor living a middle class life who agonizes about such comparatively “ordinary” matters as paying bills and planning for retirement. “Where did that fun-loving rabble-rouser go?” he wonders. And can he get that part of himself back, or is he reconciled to a future burdened by mediocrity and perpetual worry? He’s especially concerned that he may face that prospect alone as well.

Meg, meanwhile, has lived a largely reserved life as a wife, mother and school teacher. Now that her children are raised, she wants to grow in her own ways, perhaps becoming an artist. She also contemplates exploring new romantic and sexual connections, given that her love life has mostly gone dormant (even though she played a significant role in evoking that dormancy, despite Nick’s amorous advances to the contrary). But, even with all these new possibilities running through her mind, she also can’t ignore the fact that she still loves her husband, even if some of his befuddling behavior frustrates her to no end on an almost-daily basis. What is she to do?

Morgan provides a model for each of them to emulate. The once-married former New Yorker chose to abandon his marriage, family and career to follow a different path. He later remarried, this time to a much younger woman, Eve (Judith Davis), and moved to Paris, where he revived his writing career and became involved with a stimulating circle of friends in the arts. He has no qualms about the choices he’s made, either, and, while some might view his actions as entirely self-serving, he sees them as eminently fulfilling. He obviously holds fast to a belief of “why stay trapped in bad circumstances when it’s possible to create more satisfying ones anew?” Morgan hasn’t been cold-hearted in making these new choices, either, as seen in his sincere attempts to maintain an ongoing connection with Michael (Olly Alexander), his son from his first marriage. Morgan’s experiences thus give Nick and Meg much to think about as they come to their own conclusions.

The primary challenge that Nick and Meg need to address is reconciling their seemingly conflicted outlooks. Is it realistically possible to be both devoted and independent at the same time, or must they choose one over the other? Many would likely view these diametrically opposed aspirations as inherently incompatible. But need they be? After all, look at Morgan’s example; he’s managed to strike a balance, and that option – like all the infinite manifestation options that conscious creation makes possible – is just as viable a probability as any of the other more limited choices available. Nick and Meg thus need to decide which options are best for each of them, and clearly there are more choices open to them than they might have considered at first glance.

Perhaps the most important consideration for Nick and Meg in all this is to connect (or, more precisely, to reconnect) with their sense of personal empowerment. It underlies all of the choices they make and all of the beliefs they formulate and embrace, the forces that drive the manifestation process. Somewhere along the line, however, they seem to have lost touch with this concept, allowing their everyday situations to consume their awareness of it. With the previous chapter in their life coming to an end, however, they must now come up with new creations to form the basis of their respective futures, a challenge that has brought them back in touch with a metaphysical principle they have long since forgotten. Indeed, just like the feisty 20-year-old Alice (Mia Wasikowska) in “Alice in Wonderland” (2010), Nick and Meg are now tasked with reconnecting to their “muchness,” their sense of inner strength, personal power and self-worth, to make their lives more fulfilling as they move into the third act. Let’s hope that they, like all of us, choose wisely – before the curtain drops.

“Le Week-End” is a charming little film, presenting a “realistic” look at life and love as the years wear on. This bittersweet romantic comedy-drama doesn’t hesitate to raise some of the thorny questions that long-married couples face as they age, particularly at critical junctures like the one the protagonists have arrived at. Their story is effectively conveyed through the terrific performances of Broadbent and Duncan, with Goldblum providing an intriguing comedic counterpoint. Despite some occasional lapses into seemingly inexplicable dialogue tangents, the writing is generally spot-on, crisp and pointed, punctuated with poignant observations and witty one-liners reminiscent of the works of Woody Allen and the “Before...” trilogy of Richard Linklater. And, as with many other pictures in recent years, the film’s superb cinematography showcases Paris beautifully, much like “Midnight in Paris” (2011), “The Intouchables” (2012) and “Before Sunset” (2004), all backed by an engaging soundtrack.

As conscious creators are well aware, we are what we create, and that arises from what we believe. It’s incumbent on us, then, to choose our beliefs wisely. But, before we ever get to the point of making such choices, we must first be cognizant of the existence of this fundamental process and how it works, something that can be easy to lose sight of when life happens. Maintaining our awareness of these principles is essential to create lives of fulfillment – no matter what stage of life we’re in.

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

Follow Me on GoodReads!

I'm pleased to announce that I now have an author profile posted on GoodReads! By becoming a GoodReads member, you can discover a wealth of information about books and authors of all kinds, a wonderful resource for anyone who loves to read!

To find out more, visit GoodReads.com, or click on the GoodReads app at the top of the Facebook pages for "Consciously Created Cinema" or "Get the Picture."

Align, Shine and Prosper!

I'm pleased to announce that I'll be a guest on the "Align Shine Prosper" radio show with host Doreen Agostino this Sunday, April 13, at 2 pm Eastern. Tune in for some lively chat by clicking here.

The Art of Listening

Do you really hear what others have to say? How about the messages sent by your own intuition? If your skills in this area could use some tweaking, check out "The Art of Listening," my latest blog post to Smart Women's Empowerment, available by clicking here.

'Consciously Created Cinema' now available at the iTunes Store!

Users of Apple devices will be thrilled to know that my new book, Consciously Created Cinema: The Movie Lover's Guide to the Law of Attraction, is now available in ebook format from the iTunes Store! Just click here to take to you the title's listing on the iTunes Story.

‘Noah’ contemplates the power of discernment

“Noah” (2014). Cast: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson, Nick Nolte (voice), Frank Langella (voice), Douglas Booth, Logan Lerman, Leo McHugh Carroll, Marton Csokas, Madison Davenport, Dakota Goyo, Gavin Casalegno, Nolan Gross, Skylar Burke, Mark Margolis (voice), Kevin Durand (voice). Director: Darren Aronofsky. Screenplay: Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel. Web site. Trailer.

Making decisions about ourselves and our future can be a daunting undertaking, especially when we feel we lack adequate information or resources to do so. But, by devoting proper focus to the effort and skillfully employing the practice of conscious creation, we have an opportunity to succeed, perhaps even astounding ourselves in the process. This can be particularly crucial when the stakes are high, as a noble soul discovers for himself when faced with challenges that have global ramifications. Such is the lot of the protagonist in director Darren Aronofsky’s ambitious new opus, “Noah.”

Viewers expecting a faithful re-creation of the Biblical account of the Noah’s Ark legend are likely to be disappointed. While this film is loosely based on that epic saga and includes characters from that time-honored tale, “Noah” offers its own take on the myth, including some events that will seem eminently familiar and others that are completely foreign. Perhaps that’s because the film attempts to fill in what some have observed to be “gaps” in the Old Testament narrative, but it does so with an array of inventive, intriguing twists and turns not included in the original story.

When humanity’s progenitors, Adam and Eve, are banished from the Garden of Eden for defying the Creator by eating of the forbidden fruit, mankind is sentenced to a dismal future. In this dark new world, the earth’s perilous conditions grow progressively worse after Adam and Eve’s son Cain murders his brother Abel, thereby setting in motion a fundamental division in humanity’s ranks. Most people fall under the domination of the wicked Cain, while a virtuous minority struggles to follow a righteous path.

Joining mankind’s splintered factions are the Watchers, a group of angels who descended from heaven to assist humanity after being expelled from paradise. But, by coming to earth, they, too, disobey the Creator’s wishes and are punished for having done so, becoming bound to the earth in the form of creatures of stone.

Under these circumstances, evil flourishes over the earth. The virtuous become targets for persecution and exploitation by the malevolent majority. Even the mighty Watchers become targets of the wicked ones, particularly when their benevolent teachings are perverted for nefarious purposes and used against them. Displeased with this state of affairs, the Creator thus decides to take steps to set matters right, which is where the film picks up the story.

The Creator’s plan for “cleansing” the earth is delivered in a dream to one of the virtuous, Noah (Russell Crowe), who learns that the Divine Master intends to deluge the earth with a great flood to purge it of its wickedness. However, the Creator does not wish for all of the planet’s creatures to perish, so Noah is instructed to build a giant ark to safeguard all of earth’s animals so that they can repopulate the world after the inundation. Noah thus takes up this solemn charge, aided by his wife, Naameh (Jennifer Connelly); his sons, Shem (Douglas Booth), Ham (Logan Lerman) and Japheth (Leo McHugh Carroll); and his adopted daughter, Ila (Emma Watson). And, to get the task under way, he receives valuable assistance from his grandfather, Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins), and the Watchers (voiced by Nick Nolte, Frank Langella, Mark Margolis and Kevin Durand).

When word of Noah’s venture spreads, however, he’s challenged by those who would be left behind, most notably the evil king Tubal-cain (Ray Winstone) and his legions of followers. What’s more, when it becomes apparent what’s to happen to Noah’s family in the flood’s aftermath, he even faces opposition from within his own ranks. Nevertheless, Noah believes he’s been chosen to carry out the Creator’s will and is determined to fulfill this divine command. The question is, of course, will he succeed? What’s to become of those who oppose him? And what, ultimately, is to be humanity’s fate when the rains stop?

When Noah receives word of the Creator’s will, he’s assigned an enormous and sacred task. But the challenges that accompany it go beyond just the logistics of constructing the ship; there are certain intangible considerations that must be addressed that will determine how successful he is in carrying out his mission. And, because the Creator’s word is sent in a dream, Noah only has his own impressions to draw from about how to proceed; there’s no divine instruction manual to consult.

So what is Noah to believe? The answer to that question is crucial, for, as every conscious creator knows, what we believe is what we ultimately create. This is where the power of discernment comes into play, not only in Noah’s case, but for each of us, in any conscious creation pursuit. When fashioning the beliefs needed to manifest our goals, we must get in touch with the truth that lies within each of us, tapping into our intellect and, especially, our intuition. We must accurately access this inner wisdom so that we can make decisions in line with desired outcomes, a process that may be trickier than expected, as Noah finds out firsthand during the course of his remarkable odyssey. Answers may not always be clear-cut, and solutions may not apply universally. This is where discernment becomes particularly crucial, for its impact can be considerable, especially when invoked in connection with such important concerns as mercy and compassion (a lesson we’d all be wise to heed).

The clarity of thought that underlies the practice of discernment plays a significant role in how effectively (and even how quickly) the conscious creation process unfolds, something that also becomes evident in Noah’s experience. When we’re clear about what we need to do and then formulate beliefs in line with such aspirations, the resources we need for materializing them appear, sometimes almost as if by magic. For instance, when Noah needs building materials for the ark and labor to help him construct it, both appear in sufficient quantities and with lightning speed. Similarly, when Noah needs to assemble his “passengers,” they show up on their own, unprompted and in an orderly fashion, with no special effort or coercion on his part. On these and many other occasions, the protagonist’s divine conscious creation collaborator, the Creator, repeatedly comes through for him and his family, invariably providing the means necessary for achieving their objectives, all in perfect response to their stated intents. These examples thus help to illustrate why conscious creation is sometimes referred to as the law of attraction, a principle on display in full flower here.

At the core of Noah’s story is another conscious creation concept – evolution. In fact, this principle is apparent throughout the narrative both en masse and individually. In its broadest sense, evolution – or a constant state of becoming, as it’s more commonly called in conscious creation circles – is embodied in the Creator’s grand plan to cleanse the earth of its evils and start again, enabling the planet to evolve to something new. And, in a narrower context, such evolutionary transformations occur on a personal level as well. For instance, as Noah’s saga plays out, we witness his own views undergo change. He grows in ways he initially didn’t believe possible, taking him to new places and new ways of thinking he previously didn’t envision. We thus watch him transform personally, gaining new insights into both the human condition and himself.

However, in rescripting earth’s future, the Divine Master doesn’t wipe away all of its existing creations; some are intentionally retained to build anew (hence the very existence of the ark and its inhabitants). By sparing those worthy of survival – especially those who successfully engage in their own enlightening, transformative experiences – the Creator makes it possible for them to start over. This allows them to atone for their pasts and to pursue the act of redemption, again both individually and collectively. Indeed, given that conscious creation provides access to an infinite range of probabilities for the expression of existence, those who survive in Noah’s saga are allowed to redeem themselves and begin again. They have the opportunity to explore new lines of reality. One would hope that they choose their new probabilities wisely considering what they’ve just been through, but they at least have the chance to get matters right the next time around, something we should all contemplate when confronted with opportunities for our own rebirth.

In addition to providing insightful explorations of the foregoing concepts, “Noah” is a visually stunning spectacle with some of the most dazzling and elaborate special effects to have ever graced the big screen. The film’s capable performances and generally solid writing back up these strengths effectively, providing audiences with engaging, enlightening (though certainly not preachy) entertainment.

With that said, however, the picture also comes up short in several regards. Despite its adventure pedigree, the film drags a bit in spots (even in some of its action sequences), a shortcoming that could have easily been addressed with some judicious editing (something that many of director Darren Aronofsky’s could benefit from). But, beyond that, “Noah” also lacks a certain measure of authentic passion at times. The characters occasionally come across like they’re having to sell the audience on their level of conviction, employing degrees of intensity and sincerity that feel a little forced. I wouldn’t attribute this so much to overacting as I would to a sense that the characters don’t always seem to feel as convinced of what they’re saying as they would lead viewers to believe. Maybe that comes with the territory when an avowed atheist attempts to make a Biblically inspired epic. Or perhaps it’s some inadequacy in the writing, acting or direction. In any event, however, even though I can’t precisely pinpoint the cause of this issue, I found it present nevertheless.

Looking within to find the answers we seek to the dilemmas we face is critical if we hope to overcome the challenges in our path. Employing discernment as part of that process is especially important to make the right choices in selecting the manifestation beliefs we embrace. “Noah” sheds light on these concerns, providing a thoughtful examination of the process of introspection that, in the end, we’d all be wise to follow to take us to a new higher ground.

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

'Consciously Created Cinema' now on Pinterest

Pinterest.com users can now follow "Consciously Created Cinema" on a new board on that site! And, while you're at it, become a follower of the board Conscious Film Reviews by Brent Marchant, a showcase for my posts to VividLife.me.

‘Hannah Arendt’ puts the intellect on trial

“Hannah Arendt” (2012 production, 2013 release). Cast: Barbara Sukowa, Janet McTeer, Axel Milberg, Julia Jentsch, Michael Degen, Nicholas Woodeson, Megan Gay, Tom Leick, Ulrich Noethen, Victoria Trauttmansdorff, Klaus Pohl, Friederike Becht, Fridolin Meinl. Director: Margarethe von Trotta. Screenplay: Pam Katz and Margarethe von Trotta. Web site. Trailer.

Critical thinking is one of those undertakings many of us are encouraged to pursue from an early age. We’re frequently urged to do so in an educational context, but its applicability extends to virtually every aspect of daily life. Of course, to make best use of this skill, we must employ it judiciously, taking into account related considerations that impact its effectiveness, for failing to do so can have serious, far-reaching consequences. Those are some of the themes capably explored in the historical biography, “Hannah Arendt,” now available on DVD and Blu-ray disk.

“Hannah Arendt” primarily focuses on a four-year period (1960-1964) in the life of the title character (1906-1975), one of the 20th Century’s leading political scientists and philosophers. Having grown up in a Jewish household in Germany, the studious Arendt (Barbara Sukowa) witnessed the rise of totalitarianism under the Nazis. She wisely fled to France in the days preceding World War II, but her new life in Paris did not guarantee sanctuary. When France was overrun by the invading Germans, she was sent to a French detention facility and narrowly escaped being sent to a concentration camp by emigrating to the U.S. Upon her arrival in New York, she once again had the freedom to resume her intellectual pursuits, gradually becoming a respected university lecturer and writer, eventually penning The Origins of Totalitarianism, the seminal treatise on the subject.

Arendt’s works and outlooks were characterized by an outspoken yet always-thoughtful, fervently passionate quality that not everyone agreed with, but she was nevertheless recognized for her unbridled honesty, sincerity and integrity. However, that all changed in 1960, when Arendt’s life took a dramatic left turn, one that cost her considerable respect and credibility – even among some of her staunchest supporters – which is where the film picks up the story.

On a desolate road in an industrial area north of Buenos Aires in May 1960, agents of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, led a successful nighttime raid in which they captured escaped Nazi Adolf Eichmann. As one of the chief architects of the Third Reich’s “Final Solution” for exterminating Europe’s Jewish population, Eichmann was subsequently deported to Israel to stand trial for crimes against humanity, a prosecution that quickly garnered worldwide attention.

Arendt, who was captivated by Eichmann’s story, volunteered to cover the trial for New Yorker magazine, an offer that editor William Shawn (Nicholas Woodeson) enthusiastically embraced. However, not everyone at this highly respected publication was on board with the idea. For example, Francis Wells (Megan Gay), one of Shawn’s colleagues, expressed reservations about the would-be correspondent; given Arendt’s ivory tower background, Wells wondered whether she would be capable of preparing a piece of reportage that would fulfill the needs of the magazine and its readers – or of even meeting a deadline. But Shawn was so taken with the proposal that he agreed to Arendt’s terms, and, before long, she was on her way to Israel. It would prove to be the start of a firestorm that brought considerable scrutiny – and criticism – upon both Arendt and the New Yorker.

In covering the trial, Arendt applied her signature introspective approach to the task, not unlike what she did when ensconced in one of her scholarly undertakings. She looked on Eichmann and the trial from a philosophical standpoint, coming to a number of conclusions that ran counter to prevailing public sentiment. She held fast to her views, though, frequently engaging in arguments with others, including longtime friends and colleagues Kurt Blumenfeld (Michael Degen) and Hans Jonas (Ulrich Noethen). And that was before she ever put pen to paper. What happened once she did that would change her life and her world forever.

And what, specifically, prompted the public outcry? In covering the trial (depicted here through archival footage), Arendt was struck by Eichmann’s indifferent attitude toward his actions. Instead of coming across like the calculating evil genius that most people perceived him to be, Eichmann, in Arendt’s view, was more of an unthinking, perfunctory bureaucrat, one who repeatedly justified his behavior by insisting “I was only following orders.” In light of that, Arendt concluded that Eichmann embodied a concept she termed “the banality of evil,” a state of being that she believed arises when someone fails to consider the nature of nefarious actions (and their attendant implications) before engaging in them.

Needless to say, such statements did not earn Arendt or the New Yorker many fans. By postulating such an esoteric (and seemingly nonjudgmental) assessment, she was seen (albeit erroneously) as sympathetic to, if not an outright defender of, Eichmann, a position she vehemently denied. She insisted that Eichmann ultimately deserved whatever punishment he received (he was eventually convicted and hanged for his crimes), but, given the heat of the emotions swirling about this event, her explanations were often drowned out by the shrill chorus of public opinion. In defending herself, Arendt vociferously contended that “trying to understand is not the same as forgiveness,” but her arguments frequently fell on deaf ears.

If the foregoing weren’t bad enough, Arendt was also perceived as a turncoat to her own people. As a Jew, Arendt was criticized for her allegedly “soft” stance on Eichmann, with many in the Jewish community claiming that “she should know better.” These circumstances became further inflamed when Arendt alleged that, based on revelations at the trial, some Jewish elders may have even played a part in furthering the Nazis’ aims, a charge that resulted in extreme animosity – and even death threats – against her. Arendt defended herself by noting that she said some Jews, not Europe’s entire Jewish citizenry, may have participated in such actions, but, again, the specifics of her assertions were frequently overshadowed by public outrage.

Considering the backlash that was directed against her, some might wonder (and quite legitimately at that) how Arendt failed to foresee these reactions. Was such an oversight due to cold insensitivity? Unchecked naïveté? Intellectualism run amok? Or was it something else?

As noted earlier, Arendt was a thinker, one who genuinely seeks to understand the motives underlying our actions, be they those of a friend or of a war criminal. This discipline relies heavily on honing one’s intellect, a practice Arendt learned in her youth while she was a student (Friederike Becht) under Professor Martin Heidigger (Klaus Pohl), an association depicted in several flashbacks. Arendt enthusiastically embraced the teachings of her mentor and subsequently applied this outlook in her writings and in her assessments of daily living and the human condition.

Adept conscious creation practitioners will recognize how Arendt’s approach to the act of thinking parallels the act of assessing the beliefs we employ in creating the reality we experience. Those who successfully engage in either kind of introspection are able to evaluate the particulars of why things manifest as they do, a process that draws attention not only to the creations in question, but also to a number of significant related issues, such as the impact of implications, the role of integrity, the importance of responsibility and the consideration of alternatives to contemplated actions. By contrast, those who fail at this ultimately wind up engaging in un-conscious creation or creation by default, where we employ materialization beliefs or partake in actions that ignore consequences and abrogate accountability (endeavors not unlike what Arendt contended Eichmann engaged in).

In scrutinizing one’s circumstances, Arendt also asserted that the assessment process needs to be conducted on a case-by-case basis. People and situations, she contended, must be examined individually, not on the grounds of broad, sweeping generalizations, advice that conscious creators would be wise to heed (and a practice Arendt was careful to follow in her own evaluations). For instance, as noted above, in making her accusations against community elders, Arendt limited her allegations to certain individuals, not the population at large. However, by contrast, many of Arendt’s critics judged her views with broad brush strokes, ignoring the specifics of her contentions and thereby significantly raising the hysteria level. Some even went so far as to suggest that, because of her close affiliation with Heidigger (an association that went beyond the traditional student-teacher relationship), she had inherent sympathetic leanings toward the Nazis given his early support of the fascists, a charge that made her cringe. Loyal supporters, like novelist Mary McCarthy (Janet McTeer), one of Arendt’s closest friends, were quick to come to her defense, pointing out the dangers of such overblown generalizations, but their efforts, like Arendt’s own arguments, weren’t enough to be heard over the din of criticism.

Nevertheless, while Arendt’s efforts in championing the intellect are indeed laudable, in doing so she may have simultaneously minimized the importance of feelings and emotions, qualities that many of her detractors were obviously much more attuned to. By downplaying their significance, she unwittingly succeeded in agitating her critics, often failing to recognize the source of their anger. And, considering the highly charged nature of these circumstances, her attitude was seen as dismissive, something she frequently failed to acknowledge, let alone comprehend. That’s rather ironic, too, given the passion she routinely exhibited in making her own arguments.

As conscious creators know, balancing our intellectual and emotional sides is crucial to make best use of the manifestation process since both play vital roles in the formation of our beliefs. We would be wise to follow Arendt’s example by what she did – and what she didn’t do – in this regard, for it provides us with a model we can follow for our own lives. But, regardless of what one might think of Arendt’s conclusions, she nevertheless got people thinking, not just about the particulars of her situation, but also in a larger sense – as a way of looking at life, how we conduct ourselves and, ultimately, in how we manifest our respective realities.

“Hannah Arendt” is an excellent film about a significant, if not especially well-known, 20th Century figure. Its weighty subject matter doesn’t lend itself to casual viewing, so make sure you’re in the right mood before taking on this picture. Director Margarethe von Trotta has done a superb job of making a compelling movie about an intangible subject – thinking – that easily might have been difficult to depict effectively if left in less-skilled hands. Credit the film’s terrific writing, which accomplishes its goals without becoming preachy, abstract or dull, and Sukowa’s masterful performance, which is easily one of the most underrated screen portrayals of recent years. This largely overlooked gem played in a very limited run when initially released, but, thankfully, it’s now available on disk, where I’m hoping it will find a much-deserved audience.

Our capacity to think is one of our most prized capabilities. It can lead us to sublime realizations and profound insights, both in our loftiest aspirations and our everyday dealings. But knowing how to make use of it is crucial if we hope to achieve the success we seek. Putting the intellect on trial may be one of the most effective ways to find out whether we’re on track with our deployment of it or whether we need to make much-needed adjustments. And it’s an undertaking we’d best pursue before undesirable consequences befall us. Just ask Hannah.

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

‘The Lunchbox’ chronicles the search for happiness

“The Lunchbox” (“Dabba”) (2013 production, 2014 release). Cast: Irrfan Khan, Nimrat Kaur, Nawazuddin Siddiqui, Lillete Dubey, Nakul Vaid, Bharati Achrekar (voice), Yashvi Puneet Nagar, Denzil Smith, Shruti Bapna, Sadashiv Kondaji Pokarkar, Baaburao Sankpal. Director: Ritesh Batra, Screenplay: Ritesh Batra. Web site. Trailer.

Just when we think we’ve attained the satisfaction we want out of life, we sometimes come to realize that what we’ve manifested is not what we really desire. But what do we do then? Do we chance making a change to something different? But, if that doesn’t live up to our expectations, then what? Would it be safer to hold on to what we know, simply because it’s comfortable and familiar, even if it’s unsatisfying? Or would that kind of settling leave us even more unhappy in the long run? Those are just some of the questions raised in the delightful new comedy-drama from India, “The Lunchbox” (“Dabba”).

Lunchtime in Mumbai wouldn’t happen if it weren’t for the city’s dabbawallahs, delivery people who transport freshly prepared meals in cylindrical, compartmentalized lunchboxes (dabbas) from homes or restaurants to hungry office workers and return the empty containers to their sources later the same day. And, considering the huge volume of meals shipped by train and bicycle every workday, the dabbawallahs have a remarkable track record for accuracy and timeliness, something in which they take tremendous pride. But, every so often, something goes awry – which ultimately may not be an entirely bad thing, either.

Such is what happens to Ila (Nimrat Kaur), a lonely young mother and housewife who has trouble getting the attention of her preoccupied husband, Rajeev (Nakul Vaid). She tries everything, too, routinely consulting her upstairs neighbor, Auntie Deshpande (Bharati Achrekar), for advice. Ila is especially hopeful that following the time-honored adage “the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach” will prove successful, and, to that end, she tries out a variety of delectable recipes when preparing Rajeev’s lunch for delivery each day. But, when she doesn’t get the response she’s looking for, she’s seriously disappointed – that is, until Ila discovers that her dabbawallah (Sadashiv Kondaji Pokarkar) has been delivering Rajeev’s lunchbox to the wrong recipient.

And who has been getting the erroneous lunch deliveries? That would be Saajan Fernandes (Irrfan Khan), a lonely office worker who’s nearing retirement. Having lost his wife some time ago, there’s not much that gives him joy. He feels reconciled to a bleak future, a prospect that has made him a man of few words (and most of which consist of curmudgeonly utterances at that). But that begins to change one day when he receives a delicious lunch that he wasn’t expecting. The restaurant from which he typically orders his food generally doesn’t make dishes that tasty, so, when he learns that the meals aren’t coming from there, he feels compelled to thank the mystery chef. He decides to place a note of gratitude in the empty lunchbox when it’s returned, a development that both startles – and pleases – its unsuspecting recipient.

Ila is touched by Saajan’s note, so much so that she decides to write back, thus initiating what becomes an extended exchange of messages. The unlikely pen pals engage in an unusual but intimate correspondence, sharing heartfelt details of their lives, loves and losses. They develop a profound bond, one with the potential for more than just friendly dialogue. It’s a relationship with the promise of new beginnings – as long as Ila and Saajan will allow it.

Anyone who has ever experienced the blessings that come with a cloud revealing its silver lining can appreciate the hidden benefits that arise from this story’s misdirected lunchbox deliveries. While some might view situations like the initial delivery “error” with frustration or anger, those who have the patience and open-mindedness to see what comes of them are often rewarded beyond expectations. Such “mistakes” frequently lead to the revelation of fortuitous synchronicities, events or connections that make beneficial, perhaps even miraculous developments possible.

That’s certainly the case with Ila and Sajaan. Ila is initially disappointed that her culinary efforts didn’t result in pleasing Rajeev, but she is nevertheless pleasantly surprised when she learns of Sajaan’s sincere appreciation. Likewise, Sajaan is perplexed at the arrival of his mystery lunch, but, when he sees what comes of it, he gets more than a full stomach; he also gets a new friend and a new outlook on his life, a perspective that gives him renewed purpose in an otherwise-dismal existence. Their experiences clearly reflect the wisdom imparted by Sajaan’s new office protégé, Aslam Shaikh (Nawazuddin Siddiqui), who cheerily observes, “Sometimes the wrong train will get you to the right station.”

So why do these “wrong” trains show up in our lives? As conscious creation practitioners well know, the reality we experience stems from the beliefs we hold. And sometimes we hold onto those beliefs a little too long, with some even hanging on well past the point of their usefulness. On some level, we may realize they no longer serve us, but we nevertheless clutch them tightly simply because they’re familiar and known, even if displeasing, an option that many of us prefer to the uncertainty of the unknown and untried. So, to move beyond these circumstances, sometimes we need to concoct conditions that seemingly force our hand, compelling us to take action to get out of situations that no longer work to our benefit. These unexpected developments usually take us by surprise, but they nearly always get our attention, prompting us to scrutinize our prevailing reality. Such assessments and realizations often hit us like a ton of bricks, causing us to acknowledge the insufficiency of what we’ve created and subsequently launching us into embracing new beliefs for manifesting a more fulfilling existence.

Again, Ila and Sajaan both know that their lives are no longer working, but they’re reluctant to take action for fear of what the consequences might be. However, they also realize that, without doing something, they’re saddling themselves with lives of perpetual discontent. So, on some level, they decide to rewrite the beliefs responsible for materializing their respective realities, and they make it seem like their new circumstances are taking them totally by surprise, a move assured to get their attention (and, one hopes, to encourage them to take action to change things).

Ideally, it would be to our benefit if we could initiate such changes consciously, with clear, open minds and full awareness of the beliefs driving our manifestations. However, until we reach a point in our personal growth and development where we’re comfortable with doing that, this “backhanded” approach may be the best option available to us. But, as long as it helps get us to where we inherently know we ought to be, then it probably should suffice, at least for now.

These kinds of scenarios also draw attention to several principles that are integral to the conscious creation process, namely, the importance of the power of choice, change and connection. For instance, given the evolution of Ila’s and Sajaan’s outlooks, it becomes apparent that happiness and contentment clearly are choices, options that they must each choose to implement in their lives through the particular beliefs they hold. They each have examples to draw from in this regard, too. Ila, for instance, witnesses the sadness that can permeate one’s life by looking at the experiences of her mother (Lillete Dubey) and of Auntie, both of whom have allowed themselves to become chained to marriages to ill husbands and lives of little fulfillment. In a similar vein, Sajaan has experienced comparable circumstances of his own, so he’s well aware of the sadness that can come to characterize one’s life. But, fortunately, he also has an inspiring example to draw from, one that runs counter to those conditions – that of his happy-go-lucky co-worker Mr. Shaikh and his fiancée Mehrunnisa (Shruti Bapna). The young couple is just starting out, and they face their share of challenges, but they also approach their lives with a joyous attitude, purposely choosing to be happy. So Sajaan comes to realize that, if they can do that, then so can he, an outlook that, by extension, rubs off on Ila, too.

The element of change runs throughout the film’s narrative as well. In fact, in many ways, it’s at the core of Ila’s and Sajaan’s story. Of course, as alluded to earlier, change won’t happen unless the protagonists are willing to allow it in their lives. And, given their circumstances, it would seem to be in their best interests for them to do so. After all, with an infinite range of probabilities always available to them, the change to something new (and, one would hope, preferable) is just a belief away. This is especially crucial for Ila, particularly when she learns the real reason why Rajeev is so distracted.

Connection is apparent in many ways also, especially in light of the “unplanned” synchronicities that unfold. No matter how seemingly unrelated the elements of one’s reality might appear, they’re nevertheless innately connected. All it takes is the right mix of beliefs to activate them and bring them into being. Where Ila and Sajaan are concerned, they should be grateful for the “mistakes” made by their dabbawallah (and give themselves a big pat on the back for coming up with suitable beliefs that helped make such “errors” possible).

“The Lunchbox” is a charming, touching, sometimes-bittersweet crowd-pleaser that’s infused with a balanced mix of both joy and melancholy. The picture is smartly written, beautifully filmed and superbly acted. Khan and Kaur are particularly noteworthy for their nuanced performances, often getting as much out of a facial expression as they do from any of the lines they deliver. Admittedly, the film’s subplots sometimes detract a bit from the main storyline, but the themes they explore also help to reinforce those of the main narrative. Writer-director Ritesh Batra has come up with a fine offering in his debut feature, one of the spring movie season’s most pleasant surprises and one that’s well worth a look.

The search for happiness often takes some unexpected turns, but, when the unanticipated joy that comes from them becomes apparent, the sense of elation is frequently heightened. What a pleasant surprise that can be! So the next time you find yourself on one of those unfamiliar trains, ride it out to its destination. It may just be the very station you’re looking for.

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