‘Kon-Tiki’ successfully navigates the depths of creation

“Kon-Tiki” (2012). Cast: Pål Svere Hagen, Anders Baasmo Christiansen, Tobias Santelmann, Gustaf Skarsgård, Odd-Magnus Williamson, Jakob Oftebro, Agnes Kittelsen, Peter Wight, Manuel Cauchi, Kasper Ameberg Johnsen, Edward Kling. Directors: Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg. Screenplay: Petter Skavlan. Web site. Trailer.

Any ambitious undertaking carries the potential for both great risks and great rewards. All too often, however, we back away, playing it safe (and missing out on one hell of a good time). But then there are those courageous souls who don’t shy away from their challenges, reveling in the adventures that await, unexpected escapades and all. Such is the example provided by the fact-based historical drama, “Kon-Tiki.”

Norwegian-born ethnologist Thor Heyerdahl (Pål Svere Hagen) had always been a risk-taker. Even as a young boy (Kasper Ameberg Johnsen), he took chances that the other children considered foolhardy (assessments that sometimes proved correct, too). But such criticisms never quashed Thor’s sense of adventure, a quality that would come to define him in his adult life.

In 1937, Heyerdahl and his young bride, Liv (Agnes Kittelsen), traveled to Fatu Hiva in the Marquesas Islands of the South Pacific. There he studied the local culture, with a particular emphasis on the history and origins of the residents. During the course of his research, he made a number of remarkable discoveries that set conventional anthropological thinking on its ear, most notably the idea that the islands very likely could have been colonized by transplants from South America, and not from Asia, as had been widely thought. Local folklore, religious icons and plant life all had striking attributes linking them to Peru and the culture of the Incas, all in stark contrast to what Heyerdahl’s contemporaries staunchly maintained. But the predominant wisdom didn’t keep Thor from daring to think the unthinkable; in fact, it only made him more determined to find a way to prove his theory.

Most ethnologists at the time believed that it would have been impossible for South Americans to settle Polynesia, mainly because the prevailing Pacific Ocean currents would not have been conducive for seafarers attempting to sail from East to West, and this supposition formed the basis for the Asia settlement theory. However, Heyerdahl believed it would have been feasible for South American explorers to make the journey by floating across the ocean on balsawood rafts. Such a trip would have taken some time, but Heyerdahl contended it was not outside the realm of possibility.

After leaving Fatu Hiva, Thor traveled to America to make the case for his hypothesis. He sought funds for an expedition that would replicate the ancients’ seafaring ways to prove his point. But Heyerdahl had no takers, even from organizations as adventurous as the National Geographic Society. Finding a crew was difficult, too, as most candidates saw the proposal as suicidal, especially since it was to be headed by a leader who had a fear of water and couldn’t swim. Heyerdahl held firm, however, eventually finding the means to launch his project. He committed to the adventure, despite the risks, criticisms and high personal costs to his marriage.

Not long thereafter, Thor traveled to Peru to embark on the voyage of the Kon-Tiki, the raft that he would sail across the Pacific. His vessel, named for a Peruvian sun god, was built according to ancient specifications, with his only concession to modern technology being a radio, which was not intended for rescue purposes but for informing the outside world of his expedition’s progress. With the support of Peruvian President José Bustamante (Manuel Cauchi) and the supply arm of the U.S. military, Heyerdahl got his mission under way. He assembled a crew that included his longtime friend and navigator Erik Hesselberg (Odd-Magnus Williamson), radio operators Knut Haugland (Tobias Santelmann) and Torstein Raaby (Jakob Oftebro), engineer Herman Watzinger (Anders Baasmo Christiansen), and ethnologist and cameraman Bengt Danielsson (Gustaf Skarsgård), all of whom were Norwegian except for Danielsson, a Swede.

Amid much fanfare, the Kon-Tiki launched from the west coast of Peru in April 1947. The whole world watched in wonder as the crew embarked on its epic journey. But, even with thorough planning and the best of intentions, Heyerdahl and company soon found that they were in for far more than they had bargained. Their odyssey was fraught with dangers and challenges that repeatedly tested the crew’s resolve and even threatened their very survival. Would the intrepid adventurers succeed, or were they destined to fail? Only time, and the ocean’s currents, would tell.

Those who boldly embrace the practice of conscious creation see the philosophy for the adventure it truly can be. Exploring the myriad options for physical manifestation made possible through the deliberate manipulation of one’s consciousness can be quite an exhilarating, profound, thought-provoking experience, arguably one of the most invigorating possibilities open to those who plumb the various states of existence available to them. It can be so fulfilling, in fact, that author and conscious creation advocate Jane Roberts fittingly titled one of her books on the subject Adventures in Consciousness. Indeed, it’s an idea so potentially exciting that it’s enough to take one’s breath away, both literally and metaphorically.

In many ways, Heyerdahl and his crew epitomized this concept, living it out to the fullest through their audacious exploits. Thor had no reservation about trying the untried, despite such seemingly inherent limitations as his inability to swim. His unwavering faith in his beliefs, the driving forces in the reality he created, kept him on the path (or, in his case, the current) that would transport him to his envisioned destination, again, both literally and metaphorically.

Holding on to that faith was certainly challenging at times, however, given some of the obstacles that stood in the way of the Kon-Tiki crew achieving its objective. Unfavorable steering currents threatened to take the expedition far off course, perhaps even into the hazards of the menacing Galapagos Maelstrom. Waterlogging of the raft’s building materials endangered the craft’s seaworthiness, a problem made worse by rough seas and the battering inflicted by inclement weather. Relentless shark attacks placed the crew in frequent peril. And, if surviving all that weren’t enough, razor-sharp reefs near the journey’s end jeopardized the vessel’s hull, threatening to shred it to pieces just as Heyerdahl and the Kon-Tiki crew were about to realize their goal.

But, in spite of such difficulties, Thor held firm to his beliefs, confident in his conviction that the voyage of the Kon-Tiki would succeed. In large part this was due to his mastery of his fears, one of the factors that can significantly undercut the viability of the conscious creation process. The fervor he demonstrated in this regard often inspired, but sometimes frightened, his fellow sailors. In fact, his passion was at times almost seen as an obsession, one for which logic and reason were sacrificed on the altar of fixation.

But, again, Thor knew he would triumph, and his commitment to that outcome carried him through the tough times. Whatever setbacks the crew encountered were ultimately blessings in disguise, parts of the plan for getting them to where they wanted to be. The Universe, as our partner in the conscious creation process, always provides, bringing us what we need to reach our destinations and fulfill our goals, even if we don’t always understand the logic behind its veiled, sometimes seemingly questionable manifestations. This is particularly true of those that fail to take the forms that we think they should. In carrying out its role as collaborator, the Universe simply asks us to state our intentions and then to get out of its way as it handles the fulfillment process, bringing us what we need to best realize the materialization of those intentions (even if we don’t always see it that way). In his own way, Heyerdahl understood this and let it serve as his guiding precept for how he conducted himself as leader of the expedition. For their part, the crew was wise to trust his judgment on this matter, and anyone who longs to be an effective conscious creation practitioner should follow suit, too.

Heyerdahl never conclusively proved that South Americans colonized Polynesia, though, because of the success of his expedition, he made a very convincing case for its validity. He furthered those arguments in the best-selling book he wrote about his journey, The Kon-Tiki Expedition: By Raft Across the South Seas (first published in 1948), and in the film he made chronicling the voyage, “Kon-Tiki” (1950), which won an Academy Award for best documentary feature in 1951. His success with the Kon-Tiki mission brought him international acclaim, providing a springboard that helped launch a number of future adventures testing out additional unconventional ethnological theories. (Not bad for an impulsive, nonconformist risk-taker, eh?)

This fictionalized re-creation of Heyerdahl’s journey does tremendous justice to the famous explorer’s odyssey and legacy. It’s a well-made action thriller that fills viewers with a great sense of adventure throughout. (Just wait until you see the shark attack sequences – easily some of the best presented on screen since the standard was set in Steven Spielberg’s “Jaws” (1975).) On top of that, the film features positively gorgeous cinematography and an inspiring, heroic soundtrack. The picture is currently playing in limited release, primarily in theatres specializing in foreign and independent cinema (though wider distribution may be in the offing), and an upcoming DVD release is scheduled for the near future.

Like its documentary predecessor, “Kon-Tiki” won favor with Oscar voters, capturing a 2012 nomination as best foreign language film, an accomplishment duplicated in last year’s Golden Globe Awards competition as well. Viewers might be a little perplexed about the foreign language film nominations, however, given that North American audiences are being shown an English version of the picture. That’s because the movie’s producers were so sold on this film’s worldwide box office potential that they shot it twice, once in the filmmakers’ native Norwegian and once in English. That’s quite a testament to the faith that co-directors Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg placed in their production, but then such confidence shouldn’t come as any surprise; after all, look at whom their film is about.

Heyerdahl’s adventure serves as a shining example of what’s possible when we allow ourselves to freely navigate the rich, creative waters of consciousness and manifestation, and “Kon-Tiki” shows us clearly how to get our feet wet. Prepare yourself for quite a thrill ride if you see this splendid offering. You never know what adventures of your own it just might inspire.


Photo by Carl Christian Raabe, courtesy of The Weinstein Co.

Copyright © 2013, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

‘No’ showcases the power of ideas

“No” (2012). Cast: Gael García Bernal, Alfredo Castro, Luis Gnecco, Néstor Cantillana, Antónia Zegers, Marcial Tagle, Pascal Montero, Jaime Vadell, Elsa Poblete. Director: Pablo Larraín. Screenplay: Pedro Peirano. Play: El Plebiscito (The Referendum), by Antonio Skármeta. Web site. Trailer.

When an idea takes root, it can spread like a weed, quickly overtaking anything in its path. This is particularly true for political and social movements, which can go viral in the blink of an eye. Such was the case in one Latin American country 25 years ago, when an innovative notion took off and drastically changed the nation’s character, an endeavor compellingly depicted in the unusual, fact-based comedy-drama, “No.”

In 1973, Chilean President Salvador Allende and his Communist/Socialist coalition government were overthrown by a military-led, U.S.-backed coup. Allende’s commander-in-chief, General Augusto Pinochet, assumed the presidency, holding on to that post for 15 years. During his time in power, Chile experienced an economic turnaround, eliminating much of the poverty it had once suffered. However, such prosperity came at a high price; to maintain control, Pinochet and his authoritarian regime ruled with an iron fist, resorting to torturing, murdering, beheading, exiling and “disappearing” those who opposed the dictator and his autocratic cronies. But, by 1988, as word of Chile’s human rights violations had spread across the globe, increased international pressure was placed on the despot to clean up his act.

Pinochet’s solution was to call for a plebiscite on the country’s political future. A “Yes” vote would guarantee the dictator another eight years in office, while a “No” vote would signal a call for open elections. The campaign period for the referendum was to last only 27 days, with each side limited to a scant 15 minutes of televised promotion time per day. Opportunities to persuade voters to reject the incumbent power structure were thus extremely restricted.

Many of Chile’s “dissidents” believed the plebiscite was rigged from the outset, that their voices of opposition, even if heard, wouldn’t change an outcome that they saw as a foregone conclusion. Those who weren’t quite so disheartened believed an honest vote truly was possible, but they feared that many of Chile’s voters had either become complacent (lulled to sleep by the country’s newfound economic abundance) or felt intimidated (deathly afraid of retribution from Pinochet’s secret police, the DINA). If the No campaign was to have any hope for success, its backers knew they would have to implement a promotional strategy that would effectively snare voter attention.

As the promotion period ramped up, José Tomás Urrutia (Luis Gnecco), one of the leaders of the No contingent, called upon René Saavedra (Gael García Bernal), a hotshot ad agency “closer” (one who seals deals with clients), to take a look at what his colleagues were proposing. René, a soft-spoken, smooth-talking, supremely confident professional adept at selling clients and consumers alike on advertising programs for everything from soda pop to microwave ovens, was initially asked just to offer an opinion on the proposed campaign. But, before long, René became committed to the No coalition’s efforts. Having been personally affected by Pinochet’s atrocities (his father was one of the disappeared, and his activist ex-wife, Verónica (Antónia Zegers), was routinely harassed and arrested by authorities), he couldn’t help but embrace the opposition’s crusade.

Drawing on his years of ad agency experience, and aided by Urrutia, by mentor Alberto Arancibia (Marcial Tagle) and by cameraman Fernando Costa (Néstor Cantillana), René drastically altered the direction of the campaign. The creative team shifted the tone from one driven by fear and loathing (which they believed would only engender more negativity) to one based on optimism for the future, even going so far as to adopt the motto, “Happiness is coming!”, an unconventional, highly simplistic, almost “juvenile” choice for a political campaign slogan. The No camp employed music video-style ads, suggestive humor and even a catchy jingle to promote its message. Celebrities like Christopher Reeve, Richard Dreyfuss and Jane Fonda were also called upon to create public service announcements in favor of “the No.”

The powers-that-be initially scoffed at such efforts, seeing them as silly and frivolous. But that all began to change when it became apparent that René’s unlikely approach was working. In fact, René’s success drew considerable, and sometimes-unwanted, scrutiny, such as from his boss, Lucho Guzmán (Alfredo Castro), a supporter of the Yes campaign. It even captured the attention of Minister Fernández (Jaime Vadell), who, like Guzmán, served as a trusted advisor to Pinochet. Before long, René and his peers also became the subject of government-backed surveillance and intimidation, including veiled threats made against René’s young son, Simón (Pascal Montero). And, as the campaign wrapped up, official efforts to squelch public support for the No intensified, resulting in violent crackdowns at organized rallies in favor of the cause. But, come election day, the voters had a hearty last laugh – and all at Pinochet’s expense.

Whenever someone challenges the conventional wisdom, it’s easy to dismiss their thinking out of hand. So it was with René’s proposed plan. Selling a political concept like a consumer product made his strategy an easy target for cynical, close-minded pundits. After all, who could possibly take seriously a proposal for a country’s political future when it’s pitched using the kind of happy talk marketing techniques typically reserved for plugging a breakfast cereal? But, as the detractors found out, those who easily dismiss out-of-the-box efforts like this run the risk of underestimating the inherent power of ideas, especially those that have never been tried before.

Virtually anyone who is genuinely passionate about a particular goal has an unshakable faith in the outcome of the effort aimed at fulfilling that objective. An ardent devotee sincerely believes in its inevitability, thoroughly convinced of its ultimate manifestation. Such is the essence of effective conscious creation – the practice of employing beliefs to materialize the reality we experience (preferably in line with the vision we would hope to achieve for it). So it was with René, whose unwavering confidence and resolute belief in his approach helped catapult his strategy to success. He knew his plan would succeed, and so it did.

So how did René know his plan would work? For starters, he trusted his intuition, one of the tools conscious creators routinely employ in working their magic. Indeed, he was well aware of his proposal’s intrinsic viability. But this inner knowledge wasn’t based on sheer random conjecture; he understood why it would work and, accordingly, fostered beliefs to support such prescience.

For instance, René successfully tapped into the underlying mindset of Chile’s voters at the time, even if that prevalent attitude went largely unspoken publicly. He knew that, if the No campaign were to prevail, he would have to bring that suppressed outlook “aboveground,” raising it from the depths of the nation’s repressed consciousness to the light of day, thereby making it visible for all to see – and accessible for everyone to embrace. To that end, he knew that the population had tired of Pinochet’s fear-mongering and heavy-handed coercion. But, at the same time, he was also aware that “like attracts like,” realizing that, if he fashioned a campaign to attack those harsh government tactics, it would only serve to birth more of the same, both in the minds of voters and perhaps even in the streets of the nation’s cities.

To counter this problem, René devised an approach that would give voters what they wanted but without any unwanted consequences: Rather than focusing the campaign on what citizens didn’t want, he instead chose to focus it on what they did. He knew that Chileans craved a bright, hopeful future, so he structured the campaign to reflect that desire. Placing emphasis on what’s being sought, rather than on what’s to be avoided, significantly bolsters one’s efforts to attain the goal in question (think “love peace” and not “hate war,” and you’ll get the idea here). With the hoped-for outcome thus identified, René and his associates nurtured the concept in the minds of voters through repetition and reinforcement. As citizens grew ever more enamored with the idea, they became empowered by it, forming beliefs to support it, and then to manifest it, en masse. And, the longer this went on, the more confident they became in their conviction that this radical “No”-tion could, in fact, become a reality.

To be sure, some of René’s tactics were a little goofy, but they nevertheless generated the support his effort needed, a particularly important consideration for an undertaking as big as this. A mass co-creation requires ample input from all involved to make it happen; the more backing that can be created for it, the greater the likelihood of success. Using a fresh, novel approach can often go a long way toward furthering such an effort, too (as anyone who has ever explored a sound but untried probability can attest), and René’s strategy indeed qualified on that front as well.

Of course, it goes without saying that the idea never would have sprouted legs had it not been for the steadfast resolve of its co-creators with regard to the beliefs driving its materialization. Besides holding firm to their convictions, the co-creators behind this program also managed to fend off the onslaught of attacks put forth by the Yes campaign’s naysayers, who routinely mocked (and later attempted to bully) their counterparts. However, the proponents of that initiative failed to realize just how out of touch they were with the beliefs of the majority of the Chilean population, so not only did their own efforts flop, but so, too, did their assaults on the opposition. Indeed, as this picture clearly shows, the power of ideas is something not to be messed with.

“No” is a strangely captivating film, very different from what one might expect out of a movie with a primarily political narrative, yet this witty, sometimes-campy, sometimes-cynical, occasionally dark comedy is a refreshing change of pace. Its subject matter is reminiscent of the intensely dramatic works of political filmmaker Konstantinos Costa-Gavras, peppered with the off-beat humor of directors like Bill Forsyth or Michael Ritchie. As unusual as this fusion is, though, it works amazingly well, thanks in large part to its well-written script (adapted from an unpublished stage play by Chilean author Antonio Skármeta) and the skillful direction of filmmaker Pablo Larraín. The pacing in the first 30 minutes is, admittedly, a little slow, mainly due to some dry, overly talky dialogue, but the crisp flow of the story line picks up thereafter, when the protagonists launch into the heart of the campaign, helping the movie overcome its somewhat sluggish start.

The picture also features some intriguing camera work, intentionally filmed using vintage video technology to seamlessly blend the movie’s live action sequences with archival footage from 1980s Chilean TV, making the two look virtually indistinguishable. Some of the movie’s cinema verité work can be a little annoying at times, but this doesn’t detract much from the overall clever nature of the cinematography. The picture’s soundtrack doesn’t always work either, but the inane campaign music incorporated in the film is a certified hoot.

“No” received its share of attention during the 2012 awards season, having earned an Oscar nomination for best foreign language film. It also received the C.I.C.A.E. Award from the International Confederation of Art Cinemas at last year’s Cannes Film Festival. The picture is currently playing in limited release, primarily at theatres featuring foreign and independent cinema, and is scheduled for DVD release in late June.

It’s been said that “the pen is mightier than the sword,” mainly because the former is the means for conveying ideas, those formidable weapons that trump the effects of whatever tangible arms one might deploy in combat, a lesson the Chilean government learned the hard way in its bid to maintain power. Indeed, when an idea’s time has come, there’s little to restrain it, especially when propelled by the beliefs of the masses who fervently get behind it. To that end, then, “No” should serve as a cautionary tale to anyone who would attempt to thwart the will of those who would seek to bring such notions into being.

If you doubt that, just ask Augusto Pinochet.


Photo by Tomás Dittburn, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.

Copyright © 2013, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

‘42’ celebrates the glory of a hero’s journey

“42, The True Story of an American Legend” (2013). Cast: Chadwick Boseman, Harrison Ford, Nicole Beharie, Christopher Meloni, Lucas Black, Andre Holland, Alan Tudyk, Hamish Linklater, Ryan Merriman, T.R. Knight, Toby Huss, John C. McGinley, Max Gail, Brad Beyer, James Pickens, Jr., Brett Cullen, Jesse Luken, Dusan Brown. Director: Brian Helgeland. Screenplay: Brian Helgeland. Web site. Trailer.

Our journey through life is often fraught with frustrations, pitfalls and setbacks. These conditions and events may seem so overwhelming that we might easily be tempted to throw in the towel. Under such circumstances, carrying forth with determination and commitment can be quite difficult without a little inspiration, but, fortunately, that’s something to be found in ample quantities in the moving new sports drama, “42, The True Story of an American Legend,” the film biography of baseball great Jackie Robinson.

The U.S. was a nation on the brink of sweeping social change in the wake of World War II. After having successfully defeated Germany’s fascist regime, Americans’ attitudes were slowly shifting in such areas as civil rights and racial equality. The thinking was that, if minorities like African-Americans could be called upon to serve their country in time of war, then they should also be eligible to share in and enjoy the basic rights they helped fight to protect. These changing outlooks were reflected in various segments of society, too, like professional sports, but nowhere did this become more apparent than in America’s pastime, baseball.

It’s not that the sport didn’t have its share of minorities; black players could indeed be found on baseball diamonds across the country, but they were relegated to their own separate ranks, the Negro leagues. There were plenty of great competitors, too, but the sport’s practice of strictly imposed segregation, fueled by deeply entrenched racist attitudes, kept them isolated, preventing them from showing off their talents to mainstream Major League audiences. But that all changed in late 1945, when Brooklyn Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey (Harrison Ford) made a bold decision that would revolutionize the game forever.

Recognizing the untapped talent present in the Negro leagues, Rickey decided to draw upon it to bolster the Dodgers’ roster. He saw this move as a means to bring new blood on board to help the team capture the National League pennant, as well as a way to attract greater numbers of black spectators (“Dollars aren’t black or white; they’re green,” as he put it). But, most of all, Rickey saw it as the right thing to do, a decision driven by highly personal considerations. He had his eye on one player in particular, a shortstop for the Kansas City Monarchs of the Negro American League named Jackie Robinson (Chadwick Boseman). His plan was to bring Robinson on board with the Dodgers’ farm club, the Montreal Royals of the International League, where he could be groomed for a subsequent move up to the Big Show.

But the courageous GM’s gesture was not without its risks. Rickey knew that prevailing racial attitudes would make Robinson the target of vicious verbal attacks (if not more) from prejudiced spectators. He also knew that his new recruit would face intense scrutiny from the press (some of whom would likely see his signing as a “novelty”), as well as from the managers and players of opposing squads and even from some of his own teammates, like pitcher Kirby Higbe (Brad Beyer). And then there were the segregationist Jim Crow laws that were still in place in certain parts of the country, the impact of which would affect such basic logistical considerations as what hotels Jackie would be allowed to stay at while the Dodgers were on the road. On top of all that, Robinson had a reputation for his temper, something that Rickey knew Jackie would have to control if he were to be a success as a player, as a representative of the Dodgers and as an inspiration for his peers, both on and off the field.

Despite the inherent challenges, Robinson and Rickey took up the cause. And, once the plan was launched, all of the anticipated concerns revealed themselves. But, if that weren’t enough, Jackie was tested in other ways, such as bad calls from umpires, deliberately thrown wild pitches intended to inflict physical harm while at bat, and relentless taunting from opposing players and managers, such as Philadelphia Phillies manager Ben Chapman (Alan Tudyk), an unabashed racist. However, in spite of everything, Jackie kept his word about keeping his cool, a monumental task in light of everything he faced. Regardless of whatever came his way, No. 42 came through it all, becoming the star he and Rickey knew he could be and paving the way for future generations of ball players who were judged on their skills, not on their skin color.

Trying the untried and exploring the unexplored are two of the most ambitious, but potentially most rewarding undertakings one can attempt as a conscious creation practitioner. Anyone who has ever taken a leap of faith or dared to dream the seemingly impossible understands what this is all about. But the hoped-for outcomes of such endeavors will never materialize unless one holds beliefs that support the desired results. Fortunately, Robinson and Rickey had suitable beliefs in place in several significant areas when they embarked on their epic adventure together:

* Facing fear, cultivating courage and living heroically. Those who stay locked in fear stay locked in place, so anyone seeking to fulfill a cherished goal must be willing to face whatever trepidation might hinder progress toward achieving it. Fostering beliefs that address this concern is a good starting point. But, as effective as that step is, forming and embracing beliefs that promote courage and impel one to live a truly heroic life is even better, a move that takes that first step and puts it on steroids. While the former approach may be comparable to standing one’s ground in the face of adversity, the latter is tantamount to valiantly charging ahead with commitment and heartfelt conviction.

Robinson and Rickey embodied these beliefs and unconditionally drew upon them in addressing their individual and collective challenges. Both were willing to take the heat for their decisions. Both were adept at coming up with innovative solutions for confronting the problems they faced. But, perhaps most importantly, both exuded grace under pressure, letting their actions speak for them and their beliefs. For Rickey, this was apparent in his unwavering managerial resolve; for Robinson, it surfaced through his play on the field; and for both, the result was success.

* Perseverance wins. As any conscious creator knows, developing the beliefs we need to manifest our desires is certainly easy enough to accomplish, but maintaining our focus on them may be considerably more difficult. This is where the value of perseverance comes in, for, without it, our determination may wane, especially if doubt, fear or contradiction become wrapped up in the mix. Such influences can undermine our materialization efforts, no matter how seemingly committed we may be to them.

Robinson was indeed committed to his craft, determined to show the world what he could do, not as a black baseball player but as a baseball player who just happened to be black. But, such principled, steadfast conviction aside, he also knew he had to perform every time he stepped onto the field, and such awareness fueled his resolve – and his results. Even the brutally malicious racial insults inflicted upon him – as painful as they were – ironically served to motivate him, galvanizing him in his beliefs to come through for his team, his peers and himself. That kind of dedicated perseverance wins every time.

* Building support builds success. From a purely theoretical standpoint, it might be tempting to think that our beliefs, applied with conviction, should be enough to see us through in realizing our objectives. However, as physical beings, we seek to manifest physical outcomes, results that, by their very nature, obviously involve elements possessing physical attributes, especially in the solutions we employ. This, of necessity, includes the manifestation of the people, places and things that appear in our lives and contribute to a particular scenario’s ultimate unfolding. But the elements that are arguably the most important are those that we draw to us to help support us in our creative efforts.

With the deck seemingly stacked against him, Robinson might have easily viewed “support” as an elusive commodity in the pursuit of his quest. However, despite such long odds, he was actually quite successful in attracting it. First and foremost, there was Rickey, the most ardent champion of his cause. And then there was his loving wife, Rachel (Nicole Beharie), who saw him through every ordeal he faced. Before long, other allies rallied to his side, such as sports writer Wendell Smith (Andre Holland), who Rickey hired to help shepherd Robinson through the minefield of professional baseball and who, as a fellow African-American, sympathized with Jackie’s plight, often facing comparable forms of discrimination, such as deliberate exclusion from press boxes at Major League ballparks. But perhaps the support that was most gratifying came from other members of the Dodgers organization, such as manager Leo Durocher (Christopher Meloni) and teammates Pee Wee Reese (Lucas Black), Ralph Branca (Hamish Linklater) and Eddie Stanky (Jesse Luken), who stood by his side when so many others would not.

The support Robinson generated enabled him to shine as the star he knew he could be, which, in turn, helped him win over legions of fans who applauded his many on-field triumphs. In his first season with the Dodgers, he helped his team capture the coveted National League pennant that Rickey had so desperately sought. He also opened the door for other black players to join the ranks of the Major Leagues not long after his historic debut. And his example encouraged ball players for generations to come, such as young Ed Charles (Dusan Brown), who, as a child, was so inspired by Robinson that he followed in his hero’s footsteps, eventually becoming a Major League player himself.

Robinson left quite a legacy in the baseball world, but, by his actions, he also had tremendous impact on the civil rights movement. He came to serve as a symbol of so much, arguably attaining the status of an icon. In fact, these days, whenever anyone breaks through an ostensibly impenetrable barrier of some kind, that pioneer is often compared to Jackie Robinson. Now that’s a hero, if I do say so myself.

As is the case with any picture of a biographical nature, the outcome of the story is, of course, never in doubt, so the real trick in captivating audiences lies with how well the filmmakers get viewers to the anticipated conclusion. In the case of “42,” the film is rather typical of comparable sports dramas – the slow motion action shots come up at just the right moment, the triumphant musical score swirls on cue, etc. But, despite the picture’s somewhat conventional approach, it’s well-done formula material, the kind of heart-tugging hero worship yarn that unashamedly moves even the manliest of men to tears. It’s an excellent baseball drama in the same vein as films like “The Natural” (1984) and a fine example of a sports underdog tale, particularly one where the hero competes under extenuating circumstances, as seen in movies like “Glory Road” (2006), “The Express” (2008) and “The Other Dream Team” (2012). Its Mark Isham soundtrack is, admittedly, a little overdramatic (somewhat uncharacteristic for the longtime screen composer), but, given the picture’s subject matter and formulaic approach, I suppose that’s to be expected.

“42” is also a terrific period piece, effectively capturing the look and feel of the time. It was especially gratifying to see its well-written script accurately reflecting the racial attitudes of the period, successfully resisting the temptation to sugar-coat the language or to present a revisionist, politically correct account of the prejudice at the time. The film is capably acted across the board, but Ford is the real standout here. This is easily the best work he’s done in a long time, perhaps because the septuagenarian is playing his first age-appropriate role in quite a while. I sincerely hope he’s not left out of some very deserving supporting actor nominations when awards season rolls around.

In an age that’s often as cynical as ours is, it’s refreshing to be genuinely inspired by the story of a true hero. Jackie Robinson was that indeed, and on so many levels, too. Drawing from his courageous, determined example is something we should all consider when taking on life’s challenges, no matter how great or how small, for, if we do so, success can’t be far behind.


Photo by D. Stevens, courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.

Copyright © 2013, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

‘The Company You Keep’ explores the implications of beliefs

“The Company You Keep” (2012 production, 2013 release). Cast: Robert Redford, Shia LaBeouf, Julie Christie, Susan Sarandon, Nick Nolte, Richard Jenkins, Sam Elliott, Chris Cooper, Jackie Evancho, Stanley Tucci, Terrence Howard, Anna Kendrick, Brendan Gleeson, Brit Marling, Stephen Root, Gabrielle Rose. Director: Robert Redford. Screenplay: Lem Dobbs. Book: Neil Gordon. Web site. Trailer.

Just what is “truth”? Is it a hard and fast, easily quantifiable commodity, or is it something more elusive? Some might say it depends on what one believes, for that forms the basis of what ultimately materializes in our lives. Such is the premise that drives the underlying story of director Robert Redford’s absorbing new thriller, “The Company You Keep.”

Attorney Jim Grant (Robert Redford) leads a busy life. As a committed public interest lawyer and single father of an 11-year-old daughter (Jackie Evancho), he maintains a modestly comfortable, moderately visible profile in Albany, New York. That stability quickly evaporates, however, when an acquaintance, Billy Cusimano (Stephen Root), informs him that a friend needs legal counsel for an impending high-profile case. Although initially interested, once Jim learns who the would-be client is, he abruptly declines the inquiry, citing a full case load and a personal inability to provide an effective defense. Billy is understandably mystified, given Jim’s accomplished professional reputation, but the reluctant attorney has his reasons, none of which have to do with his case load or his legal skills.


Public interest attorney Jim Grant (Robert Redford, left) cares for his 11-year-old daughter Isabel (Jackie Evancho, right) while trying to protect a 30-year-old secret in the absorbing new thriller, “The Company You Keep.” Photo by Doane Gregory, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.

Rather, Jim’s decision hinges on the client’s identity, former ʼ70s antiwar activist Sharon Solarz (Susan Sarandon). As a member of the radical, sometimes-violent protest group known as the Weather Underground, Solarz was implicated in the death of a security guard during a bank robbery sanctioned by the organization 30 years earlier. She had been on the run and in hiding since then and was recently captured while en route to turning herself in. Jim’s hesitation has nothing to do with the nature of the case, but it has everything to do with the defendant, who turns out to be an associate from his own activist past. Taking the case would thus force him out of hiding as well, revealing his true identity as Weatherman Nick Sloan, a fellow suspect wanted in the bank guard’s death.

When word of the arrest surfaces, newspaper reporter Ben Shepard (Shia LaBeouf) is assigned to cover it by his editor, Ray Fuller (Stanley Tucci). As an aggressive investigative journalist, Ben jumps on the story. He begins by compiling background information, thanks to a lead provided by an FBI source (Anna Kendrick). Through that tip, Ben learns that Jim declined to take the case and decides to find out why. In a supposedly off-the-record interview, Jim anxiously reiterates his reasons for turning down the representation request, but Ben is not satisfied with the seemingly evasive answers he receives. He decides to look into matters further, but the focus of his investigation shifts from Solarz to Jim. And Jim, suspicious of Ben’s motives, knows that the journalist is onto him.


While researching the story of a lifetime, investigative journalist Ben Shepard (Shia LaBeouf, right) frequently locks horns over procedure with newspaper editor Ray Fuller (Stanley Tucci, left), the one who gave him the plum assignment in the first place, in director Robert Redford’s “The Company You Keep.” Photo by Doane Gregory, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.

Fearing that the truth of his real identity will come out, Jim (i.e., Nick) quietly vanishes into the shadows. He places his daughter in the custody of his brother Daniel (Chris Cooper) and embarks on an unexplained, but seemingly purposeful cross-country journey that reunites him with a number of his former operatives (Nick Nolte, Richard Jenkins, Julie Christie, Sam Elliott), all the while dogged by both Ben and by the lead FBI investigator on the case (Terrence Howard). Meanwhile, Ben also stumbles into a related story involving the police chief responsible for initiating the original investigation 30 years earlier (Brendan Gleeson) and his adopted daughter (Brit Marling). How it all plays out depends on how effectively Nick manages to stay ahead of those pursuing him – and whether the real truth of things manages to surface, for things aren’t always what they seem to be.

Beliefs, as conscious creators know, provide the foundation for the “truth” we each experience, and they’re examined from a variety of perspectives in this film. For example, what we think of someone forms the basis for our experience of that individual. Those who believe Jim/Nick to be a criminal, for instance, employ those notions to create circumstances that paint him in that light. After all, some might contend, if he were indeed innocent, why is he hiding? So the belief that he must be guilty of something automatically arises among those who buy into that idea, and they consequently manifest a reality in line with that thinking.

However, circumstances indicate that there might well be something more going on here. The fact that Jim chose to become a public interest lawyer – one who’s interested in seeing justice done – and that he somehow managed to successfully slip under the radar in realizing that goal suggest that he has a mission to fulfill, despite whatever he may or may not have done in his past. By specifically engaging in a profession that itself embodies the concept of justice suggests that he’s pursuing the fulfillment of a principle very near and dear to him, and his beliefs align with the reality he’s created for himself. Suddenly, the unquestioned belief that he’s guilty of something seems much less clear-cut than it might have at first glance.


When fugitive Sharon Solarz (Susan Sarandon) is arrested while en route to turning herself in, she sets in motion a chain of events with implications far more sweeping than anyone could have imagined in director Robert Redford’s engaging new thriller, “The Company You Keep.” Photo by Doane Gregory, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.

Beliefs related to ethics and ideology also play a major role in the picture’s narrative, and, accordingly, they impact both the events that transpire on screen as well as those that make up the characters’ back stories. The realities that spring forth from the beliefs that underlie one’s ethics and ideology can take myriad forms, ranging from what many of us would consider “reasonable” to those that we would likely see as “extreme.” While most of us might justifiably look upon such characterizations as patently “obvious,” we must also bear in mind that, in conscious creation terms, such distinctions disappear, because the philosophy maintains that all probabilities are valid and equally capable of materialized expression, no matter what they entail.

Now, this is not to condone all of the manifestations that are capable of arising; the acts of violence carried out by the Weather Underground members depicted in this film, for example, are morally unsupportable. But, to keep manifestations like this from materializing again, it’s important that we understand what gives rise to them. By doing so, we have an opportunity to appreciate how they arose – and to discover why the beliefs that spawned them went awry.

As author and conscious creation proponent Jane Roberts wrote (in conjunction with her noncorporeal channeled entity, Seth) in The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events, idealistic beliefs carried to their extremes sometimes morph into unbridled fanaticism. In such instances, “noble” intents that go perpetually unaddressed eventually reach the point where their associated beliefs take on exaggerated forms, transforming into perverted expressions of their original conceptions. Once again, this is not meant to suggest that such distortions should be sanctioned. However, if we were to take time to understand – and address – the issues (and underlying beliefs) that give birth to them before they explode in such inflated forms, we significantly increase our chances of curtailing their materialization. By doing so, not only can we stave off potentially needless tragedies, but we can also look to solve the problems that prompted their manifestation in the first place.

Of course, being able to understand the beliefs that birth such extreme measures requires us to expand our own vision, to broaden our own perspective, to contemplate other viewpoints that we might not have previously considered. As conscious creators are well aware, we all have an infinite range of probabilities available to us, so embracing a mindset that allows for wider consideration of the spectrum of possibilities enables us to examine them more readily.

That notion is raised repeatedly throughout the film, and it’s significant for a variety of reasons. For starters, it speaks to the question of judgment and whether it’s employed fairly or unfairly in assessing others and their circumstances (especially where Jim/Nick is concerned) by both those on- and off-screen. It also relates to the degree of discernment we draw upon in making such assessments, a consideration that sheds light on the importance of actively developing and making use of our intuition as part of the evaluation process.

The picture draws particular attention to these matters in the context of generational belief differences, highlighting the distinctions between them. Because of differences in age, wisdom and life experience (and the less than fully developed beliefs that tend to accompany such qualities among those of fewer years), Ben is sometimes quick to judge the subject of his investigation. His limited knowledge of the period in which Jim engaged in his alleged acts prompts him to develop beliefs – and to manifest conditions – reflective of such thinking. By contrast, Jim’s presence in Ben’s life is to expose him to beliefs of a more seasoned nature, to help enlighten him about the events of the past, as well as to help him develop a more open mind, an attribute that will ultimately aid him both personally and as a journalism professional. His more mature approach to life serves as an example that his junior colleague can look to for inspiration, especially when it comes to the formation of beliefs where matters of ethics, honor, and personal and professional integrity are concerned.

The need to accept the personal responsibility that comes with the formation of our beliefs (and the realization of the creations that arise from them) is also apparent throughout the film. This is particularly true for manifestations of significant magnitude. Jim and his former associates, for example, must come to terms with their past actions, owning up to what they did (or failed to do) and how those deeds affected everyone they touched (including, interestingly enough, each other). Likewise, Ben must be aware of the impact of his reporting, for covering a story is ultimately about more than just getting the scoop, a principle that many contemporary journalists have lost sight of (both for better and worse) and that the picture doesn’t hesitate to point out.


When newspaper reporter Ben Shepard (Shia LaBeouf, right) stumbles into the story of his career, he diligently seeks background information from the FBI investigators (Terrence Howard, left, Anna Kendrick, middle) handling the case in “The Company You Keep.” Photo by Doane Gregory, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.

The degree to which we accept such responsibility often rests with our sense of personal honor, with how honest we are with ourselves. Being true to ourselves (and our beliefs) is the hallmark of an effective conscious creator, one who operates with a sense of integrity and whose manifestations ultimately have meaningful impact. But those who betray themselves must be prepared for the consequences that accompany such actions. Those who doubt themselves or who knowingly engage in acts that are considered illegal, unethical or wrong will eventually pay a price, no matter what “justification” they draw upon for participating in them, as some of Jim’s colleagues – and foes – find out the hard way.

Those who are faithful to their convictions, however, can be confident in their creations, never having to second-guess themselves, their beliefs or their actions. Even those who facilitate seemingly “deceptive” acts can be assured that they’re doing the right thing, provided that they are free of any doubt about their words and deeds. The integrity underlying such actions becomes evident for all to see, making favorable outcomes – even ones that include forgiveness as part of the equation – possible.

“The Company You Keep” is an engaging, thoughtful thriller that holds audience attention well from start to finish. Its well-paced storytelling effectively maintains viewer interest throughout, revealing its plot elements in deftly measured increments but without unduly stringing audiences along. It’s easily Redford’s best directorial work since “Ordinary People” (1980) and a picture that’s more relevant for today’s times than the subject matter might initially suggest.

Of course, the film wouldn’t have come off as well as it does were it not for its positively stellar cast, one of the best assembled ensembles I’ve seen in a long while. As capable as Redford and LaBeouf are in the lead roles, though, the supporting players are the real stand-outs, particularly Christie, Nolte, Jenkins, Tucci and, most especially, Sarandon. Their efforts are effectively complemented by a great soundtrack and gorgeous cinematography.


Former ʼ70s radical Mimi Lurie (Julie Christie) is one of many members of the Weather Underground who must come to terms with her past in the “The Company You Keep.” Photo by Doane Gregory, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.

Unfortunately, the film has received ample criticism for some of its content, particularly for its allegedly “romanticized” portrayal of a radical insurgent group, a complaint that arose even before the recent tragic events that took place in Boston and that, regrettably, could grow in the wake of that atrocity. However, to oversimplify this picture as a vehicle that somehow glorifies terrorist acts is a gross mischaracterization, one that fails to consider the entire story and that glosses over many topics worthy of discussion and debate, subjects that, in many ways, are even more pertinent today than they were during the Vietnam Era. But then selling the picture short, without adequate assessment of its merits, is, as noted above, one of the very themes the film attempts to convey through its narrative. (Quite ironic, if you ask me.)

The beliefs we hold and subsequently employ in materializing the world around us have wide-ranging implications that we would be wise to consider carefully. That applies not only in what we do, but also in how we assess what others do, for appearances don’t always tell the entire story. “The Company You Keep” shines a bright light on such notions, providing us with an illuminated perspective that goes beyond surface features to reveal the truth that lies beneath.

Copyright © 2013, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

‘Disconnect’ shows what’s missing in life

“Disconnect” (2012 production, 2013 release). Cast: Jason Bateman, Hope Davis, Alexander Skarsgård, Paula Patton, Andrea Riseborough, Max Thieriot, Frank Grillo, Michael Nyqvist, Colin Ford, Jonah Bobo, Aviad Bernstein, Norbert Leo Butz, Marc Jacobs, Haley Ramm, Kasi Lemmons. Director: Henry-Alex Rubin. Screenplay: Andrew Stern. Web site. Trailer.

Feelings of detachment are, unfortunately, all too prevalent these days. So many people believe themselves to be so removed from one another that they often wonder whether or not they’ll ever be able to get those feelings back. Correcting such failings may require drastic measures, too, as becomes all too apparent in the compelling new drama, “Disconnect.”

The narrative of “Disconnect” weaves a number of story threads together, creating an intriguing interconnected tapestry:

* Shy, sensitive high school musician Ben Boyd (Jonah Bobo) feels isolated from his family and most of his classmates. His father, lawyer Rich Boyd (Jason Bateman), mother (Hope Davis) and sister (Haley Ramm) are preoccupied with their own lives and interests, paying little attention to him, and his peers see the enigmatic recluse as something of an inscrutable freak. To cope, Ben loses himself in his music, tuning out much of the world around him. So it comes as quite a surprise when he takes an active interest in a lonely young woman, Jessica Rhony, whom he befriends – and falls for – through a social network connection. The kindred spirits develop a bond, sharing intimate thoughts and confidences with one another. There’s just one hitch, though – there is no Jessica. Her profile is the fabrication of a pair of prankster classmates, Jason (Colin Ford) and Frye (Aviad Bernstein). The impish wags get a good laugh out of their geeky target’s online reactions and responses, but their scheme backfires when things take a shocking left turn. (So much for fun and games.)

* Cindy Hull (Paula Patton) and her husband Derek (Alexander Skarsgård) are sliding toward a breakup. Having tragically lost their young son, they’ve grown apart, rarely speaking to one another. Derek, a hardened military veteran, refuses to deal with his grief, losing himself in his work and in protracted online gambling sessions. Cindy, meanwhile, escapes her circumstances by frequenting the chat room of an online grief support network, communicating extensively – and quite intimately – with a fellow survivor who goes by the screen name “fearandloathing.” But, if this growing chasm of emotional separation weren’t enough, Cindy and Derek soon find themselves the victims of identity theft, their bank accounts having been emptied and their credit cards having been maxed out for all kinds of fraudulent purchases. They hire cyber crime investigator Mike Dixon (Frank Grillo), a tough-nosed former cop, to look into the matter, a painful process that winds up exposing the many secrets that Cindy and Derek have been keeping from one another. The investigation also identifies a suspected culprit (Michael Nyqvist), a middle-aged out-of-town dry cleaner who goes by the all-too-familiar online alias fearandloathing. Feeling violated and seeking justice, Derek decides to take matters into his own hands, but his decision carries its own share of unforeseen consequences, circumstances that no one involved is expecting – or adequately prepared to handle.

* Reporter Nina Dunham (Andrea Riseborough) has grown tired of doing endless puff pieces for her television station’s local news broadcasts. She wants to do work that’s more meaningful and substantive. And she gets her shot at that when her editor, Peter (Norbert Leo Butz), agrees to let her do a report about the life of a young internet sex worker named Kyle (Max Thieriot), who unabashedly flaunts his wares over web cams for cash. Kyle agrees to Nina’s proposal as long as she guarantees his anonymity, fearing repercussions from his boss, Harvey (Marc Jacobs), who runs an online network of live erotic web sites, some of which involve allegedly legitimate (but obviously underage) cyber models. Nina’s reporting is well-received, even capturing the attention of CNN. But, given the age of some of the parties involved in Harvey’s network, the broadcast also gets the attention of the FBI. Investigator Roberta Washington (Kasi Lemmons) wants to contact Nina’s sources, but, given the promise of anonymity she made to Kyle, Nina resists divulging what she knows. Faced with suspension from her job and possible criminal charges, Nina must decide whether to keep her word or to keep herself out of jail, a hard choice that has implications for everyone involved.

As the story progresses, the interconnecting threads of the various plot lines become apparent, revealing connections that are peppered with highly synchronistic twists. For example, Mike Dixon, Cindy and Derek’s internet investigator, turns out to be the father of Jason, one of the teens posing as Jessica in the mercilessly cruel online teasing of his emotionally vulnerable classmate. Likewise, when Nina’s employer needs legal advice in the wake of the pending FBI investigation, Peter calls on the station’s lawyer, Rich Boyd, for counsel. And, as events play out, characters once thought to be widely separated from one another come together for ironic encounters as the film approaches its dramatic climax.

Of course, that illusion of separation is what this film is ultimately out to dispel. As anyone versed in any number of metaphysical disciplines (including conscious creation) can attest, there is an intrinsic connectedness binding everything. The notion that any of us or any of the elements that make up our reality are somehow separate, distinct and apart from one another is the height of folly, a grand misconception of how the Universe operates. And, regrettably, it’s also the source of the isolation that so many of us are feeling these days.

Getting reacquainted with our sense of connection as a means to overcome our feelings of separation is at the heart of what “Disconnect” is all about, but it doesn’t take a direct route in reaching that destination. In fact, its path is deliberately convoluted, an approach that ultimately serves to heighten viewer awareness and appreciation of what’s missing, and the fulfillment that comes from getting it back, by intentionally focusing, at least initially, on its palpable absence. The picture accomplishes this by showcasing characters who, as the movie’s title implies, feel disconnected from one another. They turn to the internet to reach out to others, a tool that, at least in theory, has the potential to strengthen our connections to one another, ultimately bringing us closer together. But, as the protagonists discover for themselves, surfing the web can sometimes have exactly the opposite effect, creating even greater emotional distance and deeper isolation, leaving us feeling more disconnected than ever. Indeed, technology is no substitute for intimacy.

So why does this happen? By attempting to employ something outside of ourselves as a means for fixing something that inherently arises from within us, we not only fail to repair what’s broken, but we also reinforce the prevailing dissatisfaction. Trying to eliminate our isolation by making use of a technology that can sometimes promote it only exacerbates our circumstances. Now, this is not meant to demonize the internet, because comparable results will arise with any externalized materialization that we attempt to use to rectify an internal deficiency. As conscious creators know, to change our reality, we must change the beliefs that spawn it. So, in order to effectively rid ourselves of our feelings of isolation, we must look inward and eliminate the thoughts that give rise to them in the first place. We get what we concentrate upon, so if we’re focused on feelings of separation, that’s what will be reflected back to us in all we experience, even in the externalized tools we use to try to correct the problem.

In attaining what we want, however, we must often first experience (and then sometimes even endure) what we don’t want. In this case, the characters must create, and then tire of, their sense of isolation as a means to eradicate it and to open up space for something to replace it – like a renewed awareness of connectedness. Clearing that space can be an arduous undertaking, though, especially if the beliefs that perpetuate the prevailing conditions are particularly entrenched. Reaching that goal, then, may require drastic measures, including the introduction of beliefs and the ensuing manifestation of circumstances and events that dramatically upend the status quo, ripping out the roots of the metaphysical weeds that threaten to overgrow the garden of one’s happiness and contentment. Such experiences may be anything but pleasant; however, they also hold the promise for ushering in a renewed sense of peace, enjoyment and fulfillment.

Derek and Cindy’s relationship, for example, is so far gone that there’s precious little to save it if they continue down the path they’ve been on for so long. They obviously must significantly change their circumstances if they hope to hold on to their marriage. The revelation of hurtful secrets and the need to fight for their collective economic survival are volatile conditions, but they’re also incentives powerful enough to raise the question, “Is this relationship worth salvaging, or do we end it now?” The beliefs that created those events, and the beliefs that will arise to address the foregoing question, will determine how things ultimately play out between them.

Taking such radical steps to change one’s circumstances may seem unnecessary, but, then, sometimes there may be no other way to achieve that goal under such intractable conditions. In films like “Crash” (2005) and “Ordinary People” (1980), for instance, we see characters so desperate to feel anything that they’re even willing to experience negative emotions just to be able to restore their ability to feel at all. So it is also with the principals in “Disconnect,” who are so desperate to restore their sense of connection that they’re willing to endure anything to be able to reestablish their capacity for it. For their sake, we can only hope they succeed.

“Disconnect” is a real knock-out of a picture. Filmmaker Henry-Alex Rubin’s debut fictional feature is an impressive effort, excellent in every respect but especially in its writing, editing and direction. The picture’s deft fusion of live action and on-screen text graphics make for imaginative storytelling (given the subject matter), and its innovative use of sound and its engaging soundtrack provide added dimensions to the material. The film also features terrific performances across the board, especially Bateman (who shows surprising depth), Grillo, Riseborough and Patton, as well as the young performers (Thieriot, Ford, Bobo and Bernstein), who demonstrate an acting maturity beyond their years.

Some viewers and critics have labeled “Disconnect” an overwrought melodrama whose messages aren’t especially original. However, I would contend that heartfelt emotion – the kind often on display in this film – is not the same as melodrama, and it’s refreshing to see a movie that reflects this quality as well as this one does. And, even if its messages aren’t particularly groundbreaking, either in terms of their cyber world cautions or their metaphysical precepts, they’re far from trite or insignificant (and certainly can’t hurt by being repeated). “Disconnect” is easily the best release of 2013 thus far, and I sure hope it doesn’t get forgotten at awards time (though its release this early in the year, unfortunately, could hurt its chances in that regard).

Restoring our connections to one another, as well as to our awareness of the innate connectedness of all things in the Universe, is one of the chief challenges we face these days. Movies like “Disconnect” help to remind us of that, providing us with insights into its importance, as well as illustrations for how we might go about getting it back. And we’d be wise to pay attention, for the stakes are quite high – both for the future of our species and our planet.


Photo courtesy of LD Entertainment.

Copyright © 2013, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

‘Jurassic Park 3D’ instills respect for the power of creation

“Jurassic Park 3D” (1993 original release, 2013 3D re-release). Cast: Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, Richard Attenborough, Bob Peck, Martin Ferrero, Joseph Mazzello, Ariana Richards, Samuel L. Jackson, B.D. Wong, Wayne Knight. Director: Steven Spielberg. Screenplay: Michael Crichton and David Koepp. Book: Michael Crichton. Web site. Trailer.

The power behind acts of creation, no matter how seemingly trivial, is tremendous. The process of bringing forth an idea into manifestation is truly miraculous, something not to be taken lightly. But, when we treat this notion casually, we run the risk of paying a high price. Such is the message of a recently re-released screen classic presented in a new format, “Jurassic Park 3D.”

Theme park developer John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) has a full plate of problems to resolve. He’s heavily invested in getting his latest venture off the ground, routinely proclaiming that he’s “spared no expense” in doing so. Even with that, though, the project is beset by technical glitches, untrustworthy employees, worker safety issues and investor jitters, concerns so worrisome that major backers have asked attorney Donald Gennaro (Martin Ferrero) to investigate the attraction’s viability. But then that should probably come as no surprise for an undertaking as audacious as Jurassic Park, a unique fusion of Disneyland and a prehistoric version of the Bronx Zoo where the main attraction is truly something to see – live dinosaurs.

To qualm investors’ fears, John decides to seek the endorsement of several experts, convinced that their stamp of approval will lend legitimacy to the project and enable plans to move forward. He contacts paleontologist Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and paleobotanist Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern), whose field excavations he’s been bankrolling for some time, and invites them to tour the park. Although initially hesitant, Alan and Ellie quickly relent with the promise of three years’ additional funding for their research, a handsome payoff for one weekend’s work. And so, before long, the scientists, along with attorney Gennaro and mathematician Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), are off to Isla Nublar, a tiny island west of Costa Rica, to see John’s newest playground. It’s an experience they relish with wonder and anticipation, but little do they know what they’re getting themselves into.

Upon arrival at Jurassic Park, the visitors are blown away by what they see. Wide-eyed idealists Alan and Ellie witness their life’s work come to life – literally. Gennaro, meanwhile, gleefully envisions dollar signs filling his head (and his backers’ pockets). But, despite his peers’ enthusiasm, Malcolm, as an expert in the unpredictability of chaos theory, sees trouble – big trouble – at the prospect of what this place represents. And, when his fellow scientists learn how the Jurassic Park staff managed to create this spectacle, their amazement quickly turns to skepticism, too. Alan, Ellie and Malcolm raise their concerns with John, who tries to deflect their criticisms with deft touches of spin, but the only one sold by his arguments is Gennaro, who’s too busy counting the money investors will make to truly hear what the others are saying.

Despite the visitors’ doubts, John nevertheless convinces them to take the park tour, joined by two additional guests, his grandchildren, Tim (Joseph Mazzello) and Lex (Ariana Richards). And so, with a curious mixture of hope and anxiety, the visitors set out on a narrated afternoon excursion. Anticipation quickly turns to disappointment, however, when the featured attractions seclude themselves in the tropical underbrush, out of sight. The hoped-for excitement dissipates as the stars of the show fail to make an appearance. But that all changes when the park’s shortcomings begin to make their presence felt. What was supposed to have been a pleasant day at the park turns into a nightmare beyond expectations. Needless to say, John’s problems suddenly get a lot worse.

On the surface, Jurassic Park probably sounds like a really cool idea. So why do the scientists (especially Malcolm) see it as such a potential danger? Well, when’s the last time you had an up-close and personal encounter with a dinosaur? And, if you’ve never had such an experience, do you have any idea how you might react? Not a clue, right?

On one hand, delving into such unexplored territory can indeed be exhilarating. But, at the same time, it can also be fraught with a host of unknowns. Now, since humans and dinosaurs have never been known to co-exist, there’s no telling what could happen, even with whatever well-meaning “precautions” we might take. Such precautions may seem sufficient, based on our expectations, but they might ultimately prove to be wholly inadequate, given that we have no practical experience interacting with these creatures. Our beliefs about their behavior could be fundamentally way off base, so, if they act differently than anticipated, we’d be left with problems to solve for which we’re totally unprepared. Then what?

The foregoing exemplifies one of the key problems that can result when we approach the act of creation recklessly, both materially and metaphysically. By seeking to manifest our conceptions without due consideration for the consequences, we disregard the innate power underlying conscious creation, as well as the inherent responsibility that comes with the materialization process. This practice, known as un-conscious creation or creation by default, can set us up for real trouble if we’re not careful, perhaps resulting in wide-ranging impacts far beyond anything we can conceive of. Indeed, as Malcolm so astutely points out, just because we can create something doesn’t necessarily mean that we should. Using the dinosaur example for illustration, Malcolm notes that nature selected these creatures for extinction, that they represented a line of evolution that played itself out, and that, even though we may be able to facilitate their return, perhaps it’s an idea best left alone. When viewed through the lens of conscious creation, the dinosaurs represented a line of probability that was carried through as far as it could go, and their disappearance marked the end of a line, one not to be revisited.

The act of going back – no matter what the endeavor – seldom pans out as hoped for. In part that’s because, as conscious creators are well aware, “everything is in a constant state of becoming.” The consciousness that permeates all things in the Universe – what some might call the essence of God – seeks to continually discover itself through its myriad manifestations (with us serving as its corporeal emissaries of discovery). In doing so, however, it’s not disposed to staying put for any length of time, let alone returning to revisit an expression of itself that it has already experienced. If this sounds a bit abstract, think about what it’s like to peer down the tube of a kaleidoscope, noting that the colorful patterns it creates never repeat themselves. So it is also with the constant state of becoming, a phenomenon we physical beings might more commonly know as “evolution.”

Based on the foregoing, and for what should be obvious reasons, “evolution” is integral to the narrative of this film. It applies on multiple levels, too, not only where the dinosaurs and their progeny are concerned, but also in the nature of the characters and their relationships with one another. Their experiences in Jurassic Park help to foster their own personal evolution, helping them to discover parts of themselves they never knew existed and allowing them to go through their own process of becoming. Alan, for instance, is not comfortable around children, a quality that impinges on the evolution of his romantic relationship with Ellie. However, when faced with imminent peril in the company of two defenseless youngsters, his outlook toward kids changes drastically, a realization that gives him access to a previously unexplored aspect of himself and that holds promise for making a significant alteration in the nature of his romance with Ellie.

While such self-discovery is often accompanied by tremendous wonder, it also speaks to the unpredictability factor that Malcolm raises. Unpredictability often makes us uncomfortable, because we can’t see what’s coming, filling us with feelings of vulnerability. This is where becoming “conscious” has its benefits, because it provides us with a deeper understanding of how and why things materialize as they do. By “waking up,” we have an opportunity to fashion realities more to our liking. But, as noted earlier, manifesting in this way comes with conditions we must bear in mind (such as the aforementioned power and responsibility considerations).

The aim of conscious creation, of course, is creation. But, in arriving at that outcome, we must be aware of the driving forces behind it, our beliefs and intents, for they ultimately determine the result. Being clear, or conscious, about them is essential to getting where we want to be.

So, in light of that, how do the characters in “Jurassic Park 3D” end up under the circumstances they experience? When we consider where each of them is coming from, they’re exactly where their beliefs put them. Alan and Ellie, for instance, are quite awe-struck with what the park’s creators have wrought, and given that it embodies their life’s study, they can’t help but behave like the proverbial kids in a candy store. But, like those giddy youngsters, they also may not be aware of the consequences of consuming too many gumdrops until it’s too late.

In a similar vein, John is a grand visionary who dreams large and is exceedingly successful at bringing his imagination to life. However, he’s so focused on an idealized outcome that he can’t fathom that others, such as some of his closest associates, might not operate from the same noble intent. For instance, while he no doubt wants a fair return on his investment, he’s not the shameless greed monger that Gennaro is, who can hardly contain himself when he thinks about the cash this venture will generate. But, even worse, John’s oblivious to the devious schemes of shifty computer programmer Dennis Nedry (Wayne Knight), who self-servingly tries to manipulate circumstances to his advantage and ends up setting in motion a chain of events destined for disaster. (So much for John’s honorable vision.)

As things fall apart, John reflects on where he went wrong, citing a need for having better control over the conditions he employed in realizing his vision. But Ellie correctly points out that such hoped-for control is an illusion, akin to trying to place an undersized lid on an oversized pot and hoping it will suffice for an extended period. Conscious creators are well aware of the futility of this misconception, cognizant of the principle that the present moment is the only time at which we have any direct control over our circumstances. If a creation is inherently “faulty” or if its attributes are fundamentally inadequate, they’ll continue to be so going forward, no matter how much we might like to think we have “control” over it. Wishing for something to be true without adequate beliefs to support it simply doesn’t work. This is particularly true for co-creations, because the parties involved in the undertaking may not be approaching it with the same underlying intents. Considering where John and Dennis are each coming from, for example, it’s no wonder that things play out as they do.

All of this is not to suggest that we should never try the untried; no progress would ever be made if we took such a timid approach to life. However, we must bear in mind the beliefs we employ in shaping our existence, for if we don’t, we just might end up sharing the fate of the occupants of Jurassic Park – and I don’t necessarily mean the dinosaurs.

“Jurassic Park 3D” is a thoughtful, edge-of-your-seat thriller that holds viewer attention from start to finish. It’s classic Steven Spielberg in the same vein as “Jaws” (1975), “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” (1977), “Raiders of the Lost Ark” (1981) and “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial” (1982), pictures the director made when he was clearly at the top of his game. It features an excellent, substantive screenplay co-written by famed science fiction author Michael Crichton, terrific performances across the board (particularly Goldblum and Attenborough), and one of composer John Williams’ more underrated musical scores. In fact, perhaps the only disappointment is the picture’s 3D effects, which don’t really add much to the movie (not unlike other recent retrofit re-releases, such as “Titanic” (1997 original release, 2012 re-release)). That said, however, the film’s truly outstanding special effects have held up well since its original release 20 years ago, elements that earned the movie three Oscars (on three nominations) for sound, sound effects editing and visual effects.

Those who tempt fate by casually tampering with the power of creation should take this cautionary tale to heart. Such carelessness can yield disastrous consequences, with outcomes that might be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. We’d be wise to heed the lessons of “Jurassic Park 3D,” not only for the sake of our well-being but perhaps for our very survival as well.


Photo courtesy of Universal City Studios, Inc. and Amblin Entertainment, Inc.

Copyright © 2013, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

Sparkling ‘Sapphires’ reveals how to shine

“The Sapphires” (2012 production, 2013 release). Cast: Chris O’Dowd, Deborah Mailman, Jessica Mauboy, Shari Sebbens, Miranda Tapsell, Tory Kittles, Eka Darville, Cleave Williams, Lynette Narkle, Kylie Belling, Gregory J. Fryer, Don Battee, Hunter Page-Lochard, Meyne Wyatt, T.J. Power. Director: Wayne Blair. Screenplay: Keith Thompson and Tony Briggs. Play: The Sapphires, by Tony Briggs. Web site. Trailer.

Stepping into the spotlight is something many of us have likely fantasized about at one time or another, but how many of us actually follow through on that dream? Some of us end up shooting ourselves in the foot. Others among us lack the courage or conviction to carry through. And others still simply don’t know how to make things happen. But there are steps we can take to achieve success, many of which are outlined in the delightful new comedy-drama, “The Sapphires,” a story inspired by actual events.

The Australian Outback may not seem like the birthplace of a pop singing sensation, but don’t tell that to a talented quartet from the Aboriginal community of Cummeragunja. At one time, the long odds of anyone from Australia’s native population making it big in the face of the country’s oppressive, but legally sanctioned, segregation policies might have easily deterred those who dared dream of a better life. But even those challenging circumstances were no match for the determination of the Cummeragunja Songbirds.

In 1958, three young sisters (Gail, Julie and Cynthia) and a cousin (Kay) formed an impromptu singing group, mainly to perform at family functions. However, no sooner did the aspiring artists get their start when Kay, a light-skinned biracial Aborigine, was forcibly seized (and subsequently relocated) by government authorities to acculturate her into the conventions of “white ways.” Like other natives of fair complexion, Kay was thus coerced into abandoning her way of life, her family and her fellow musicians. The Songbirds’ prospects suddenly looked bleak.

Fast forward 10 years to 1968, where the film’s main story picks up with the older, wiser and more musically polished sisters seeking to launch their singing careers. They’re encouraged by the recent passage of new laws granting civil rights to Australia’s black citizens, hopeful that conditions might at last be changing enough to make their dreams possible. But, despite the legal abolition of discrimination, prejudicial attitudes linger, as the girls find out firsthand when they put their skills on the line in a local talent contest.

And that’s just the beginning of their challenges. In addition to their tepid reception at the contest, Gail (Deborah Mailman), Julie (Jessica Mauboy) and Cynthia (Miranda Tapsell) each have personal and family matters that they’re grappling with, as well as performance-related rivalry issues that sometimes get quite contentious. Then there’s their ill-conceived choice of country music as singing material (even the most broad-minded audience members can’t help but snicker at an Aborigine threesome crooning a Merle Haggard tune, no matter how beautiful the rendition). And, of course, as gifted as the trio is, it’s just not the same without their cousin Kay (Shari Sebbens), who now lives “the white life” in Melbourne.

Fortunately, an unlikely savior comes to the Songbirds’ rescue in the guise of Dave Lovelace (Chris O’Dowd), a boozy, struggling Irish musician who emcees the talent contest – and who promptly gets blown away by their singing. After the competition, Dave chats with the girls, who show him a newspaper clipping about auditions seeking musicians to perform for American GIs serving in Vietnam. They admit to knowing nothing about that faraway land or the war that’s raging there, but they also know an opportunity when they see it. And, even though Dave is aware of the conflict and what that could entail for a successful concert tour, he nevertheless sees this unconventional gig as a chance to strike it big. So the would-be impresario agrees to take on this high-stakes challenge on one condition – that the Songbirds forego their country tunes in favor of soul music, a genre he loves and one that he knows the troops will dig.

Before long, Dave and the Songbirds are off to Melbourne for their audition. Once there, the sisters are reunited with Kay, who agrees to rejoin the group. The girls also undergo their dramatic transformation from country crooners to soul sisters, a change that proceeds surprisingly easily. And, shortly thereafter, Dave and the renamed quartet – now known as the Sapphires – are winging their way to Saigon and their concert tour of Vietnam, a journey filled with diverse experiences that enable them to grow both as performers and as individuals. Their odyssey infuses change in their lives in many ways, including their music, their love lives, their relationships with one another and, most importantly, how they see themselves. It’s truly a time for the Sapphires to sparkle.

Getting to the top often means getting out of one’s own way, something that both Dave and the Sapphires must do if they hope to attain success. And, fortunately for them, they’re sharp enough to realize this as they climb the ladder of accomplishment. They’re thus able to scale the heights of personal growth and development, attainments that allow them to be all that they can, enabling them to live up to their potential and to fulfill their individual destinies. And, in doing so, the protagonists employ a number of key conscious creation principles in materializing the new realities they each experience:

* The point of power is in the present moment. The only time over which any of us has any power to directly control what transpires in our existence is the present. Therefore, if we hope to make the most of our manifestation efforts, we must strive to be conscious of this concept, as well as the particulars of what is actually unfolding around us at the time, for it is only in that moment that we can prompt meaningful, desired outcomes. For instance, when the girls meet Dave and pitch him on their idea, they’re clearly aware of the elements that are coming together to make their future possible, and they don’t hesitate to pounce upon the synchronicity playing out before them. It subsequently propels them to results that more than exceed their expectations.

Letting go of the past and refraining from unduly pinning our hopes on the future are crucial to remaining present. Failing on either of these points can hold us back, leading to frustration and futility. Gail, for example, discovers this for herself in a number of ways, particularly in her dealings with Kay, a love-hate relationship based on past events that keeps Gail from moving forward, not only in her connection with her cousin but also in her own understanding of herself. Only when Gail gets past these self-imposed hurdles can she begin to see significant improvements in her relationship with Kay – and with herself.

* To thine own self be true. As self-evident as this might seem, we often lose sight of it, drifting away from our “true” selves in an attempt to become people we’re not. Making proper use of this concept requires us to draw upon our inner sense of knowing and to realistically assess the beliefs we employ in creating the reality around us. Julie, for instance, knows that she’s the linchpin to the Songbirds’ success, and she fights for her place in the group, even when others, like her mother (Kylie Belling), try to hold her back. Her resolute insistence on assuming her rightful role within the group garners her the attention and support she needs to make that outcome happen and to help the group fulfill the destiny it was meant to attain.

Similarly, Gail needs to come to terms with her role as the group’s “mama bear.” As the eldest member of the ensemble, she’s “the responsible one,” always looking after her younger relatives, a calling she takes seriously and succeeds at, even if it’s not the most glamorous role. However, as the eldest, she also believes she’s entitled to the limelight, an aspiration that can be difficult to fulfill when one’s always busy looking after others. Indeed, reconciling ourselves to our destined roles can be difficult, especially when belief conflicts become wrapped up in the equation, but the sooner we recognize the part we’re meant to play and follow through on it accordingly, the quicker we’ll shine at living out who we are ordained to be. Ironically, on some level, Gail realizes this, too, as seen in her impassioned efforts to encourage Kay to acknowledge her innate black ancestry rather than continuing to embrace the faux white “heritage” that was involuntarily thrust upon her. One can only hope that Kay follows her elder cousin’s advice – and that Gail recognizes the wisdom of her own teachings for herself.

The merits of being true to oneself become apparent when one looks at the biographies of the women who provided the inspiration for the characters in this film (presented just prior to the closing credits). Sisters Laurel Robinson and Lois Peeler and cousins Beverley Briggs and Naomi Meyers courageously followed through on their aspirations, becoming the performers – and the people – they knew they could be. And the example they set, in turn, inspired Beverley’s playwright/screenwriter son Tony, who went on to tell their story through the play he wrote about them and the script he co-wrote for this picture. So, if anyone doubts the value of living genuinely, one need only look to the experiences of these artists to see the validity of this concept.

* Don’t be afraid to evolve. As we grow and develop as individuals, either personally or professionally, we’re almost certain to evolve as our true selves and true talents emerge from the formless world of our inner being into the outer materialized world of our daily existence. Leaving ourselves open to change, being willing (as necessary) to rewrite the beliefs that manifest the reality we experience, recognizing the synchronicities that contribute to the unfolding of our existence as they occur and moving forward without fear all combine to bring about that essential evolution, allowing us to blossom in ways we might have never thought possible.

Upon hearing the Songbirds croon their country tunes, it’s difficult to knock them for their talent, especially since this music seems to make up a big part of who they are as artists. But, considering who they want to become, it’s obvious they need to leave it behind in the Outback. For many of us, abandoning something that’s such an intrinsic aspect of our being might be difficult, but the girls don’t hesitate to make much-needed changes, because they know what’s at stake. They’re amenable to letting the Songbirds morph into the Sapphires, willingly trading their soft serenades of tearful country melodies for belting out soul numbers like nobody’s business. And, because they don’t resist making these essential changes, their rise to success comes that much more easily, an example we’d all be wise to emulate.

* See the “roadblocks” for what they are. Whenever we encounter difficulties along the path to success, we may be tempted to abandon our plans, seeing them as inevitable impossibilities. But this approach overlooks the true intent of what underlies roadblocks. In most cases, they’re designed to help galvanize us in our resolve, making us more determined to see our plans through. In other instances, they’re intended to help us make adjustments in our trajectories, prompting course corrections to get us on a more suitable path. Thus, if we view these “setbacks” in this light, we’re much more likely to roll with the punches (and a lot less likely to throw in the towel).

The protagonists in this story all encounter their share of roadblocks, but they generally don’t let them get in the way of their progress. As a single mother, for example, Julie is initially discouraged to pursue her music, but her passion for singing is so great that she won’t permit those who would block her from having their way. And then there are the many dangers of going on a concert tour in a war zone, but Dave and the girls refuse to let those potential obstacles derail their efforts. Solutions always seem to arise when needed, enabling them to keep making music – and enjoying the journey along the way.

* Relish the joy and power of creation. This should go without saying, but all too often we don’t allow ourselves to experience this simple – yet quite natural – principle. We frequently deny ourselves such enjoyment either through acts of self-sabotage or a fundamental disbelief in the possibility itself. However, if conscious creation makes all options possible, then this one is just as viable as all of those others that, regrettably, we’re all too eager to embrace.

Again, the Sapphires are well aware of the joy and power associated with acts of creation (especially those that spring forth from their own hand), and they unhesitatingly immerse themselves in such undertakings with passion and commitment. They clearly have fun doing what they’re doing, getting the most out of every minute of bringing joy into the lives of those who have precious little of it. That’s the way life should be, though many of us have unfortunately lost sight of it; maybe watching this film can help some of us restore that feeling.

If it’s not already apparent, “The Sapphires” is a real charmer of a film, a genuine feel-good picture deserving of the label. The superbly written screenplay develops its characters well and leaves no story threads unresolved, accomplishments sorely lacking in many scripts these days. It’s also a great period piece with authentic reproductions of ʼ60s hairstyles and outfits, right down to the signature white patent leather go-go boots. But, above all, it’s the music that makes the film; its soundtrack includes many soul and Motown standards like “I’ll Take You There,” “I Can’t Help Myself,” “What a Man” and “I Heard It Through the Grapevine,” performed faithfully but with just enough restrained kitsch to bring a wry, nostalgic smile to one’s eye. Admittedly, the pacing could be a little livelier in the first 30 minutes, but that minor drawback doesn’t detract significantly from the picture’s overall quality.

“The Sapphires” is currently playing in limited release, though I’m hoping that this picture finds an audience for itself through word of mouth, much the way other sleeper hits like “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” (2002) and “The Full Monty” (1997) did in years past. This one is worth seeing, not only for the inspiration it evokes but also for the sheer entertainment it provides. It’s indeed a pleasure to see a picture that delivers on both fronts in the same fun-loving package.

Director Wayne Blair has made an impressive debut in his first feature film, and I’m anxious to see what he comes up with next. This picture provides a clear roadmap of many of the principles needed for successfully creating a reality to one’s liking. And, after all, isn’t that what life is all about? Creating an existence that’s meant to be enjoyed, rather than just endured, should be the aim of our conscious creation efforts. The Sapphires clearly know how to do this, and we should follow their lead. And, by doing so, we all just might be able to shine.


Photo by Lisa Tomasetti, courtesy of The Weinstein Co.

Copyright © 2013, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.