Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Check Out The After Show
Join me this Wednesday, April 15, at 11 am ET, when I'll be a guest on The After Show with host Justice Putnam on NetRoots Radio. Tune in for some lively chat about conscious creation and the movies.
Friday, April 10, 2015
‘Woman in Gold’ chronicles the search for one’s calling in life
“Woman in Gold” (2015). Cast: Helen Mirren, Ryan Reynolds, Daniel Brühl, Katie Holmes, Tatiana Maslany, Max Irons, Charles Dance, Antje Traue, Elizabeth McGovern, Jonathan Pryce, Frances Fisher, Moritz Bleibtreu, Tom Schilling, Allan Corduner, Henry Goodman, Nina Kunzendorf, Alma Hasun, Nellie Schilling, Milica Bogojevic, Justus Von Dohnányi, Olivia Silhavy, Ben Miles, Ludger Pistor. Director: Simon Curtis. Screenplay: Alexi Kaye Campbell. Story: The life stories of E. Randol Schoenberg and Maria Altmann. Web site. Trailer.
Taking a stand is something most of us will eventually find ourselves doing with regard to some aspect of our lives. It may not be especially easy, frequently taking us out of our comfort zones, nudging us to face our fears and ultimately prompting us to embrace our sense of self. The effort, however, could prove tremendously rewarding, making it possible to find our reason for living. That’s one of many remarkable personal revelations to emerge out of the experiences of the principals in the excellent new fact-based historical drama, “Woman in Gold.”
At the age of 81, many of us might be content to settle in and get comfortable for the remaining days of our lives. But not Maria Altmann (Helen Mirren). Despite her advancing age, she embarked on one of the most arduous, yet satisfying, undertakings of her life.
As a Jewish refugee who fled her native Vienna at the time of the Nazi annexation of Austria – the Anschluss – in 1938, a youthful Maria (Tatiana Maslany) made a harrowing escape to America with her husband, Fritz (Max Irons). In doing so, however, she left behind everything, including most of her family and virtually all of her belongings. And, not long after fleeing, the family’s possessions were looted by the invading Germans, who confiscated a wealth of jewelry, artwork and other items of value.
Chief among the stolen items was a portrait of Maria’s Aunt Adele (Antje Traue) by famed Austrian symbolist painter Gustav Klimt (Moritz Bleibtreu). Even though German Chancellor Adolf Hitler was not a fan of Klimt’s work, his Nazi minions nevertheless saw the value of the painting and readily added it to their stockpile of plundered artworks. Of course, given Adele’s Jewish heritage, the Nazis deemed a name change necessary for the painting, so what was originally titled Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I became Woman in Gold.
However, once World War II ended, the painting – like so many others that were stolen – was not returned to its rightful owners. Instead, it remained in the hands of Austrian authorities, becoming one of the prized items in the collection of Vienna’s famed Belvedere Gallery. The portrait eventually came to be known as “the Mona Lisa of Austria,” and, because of that, Austrian authorities were not about to part with it, even in the wake of a legally sanctioned art restitution program launched in the late 1990s to make amends for past misdeeds.
Despite the resistance of Austrian authorities, Maria refused to be deterred. After a brief conversation with longtime family friend Barbara Schoenberg (Frances Fisher), Maria contacted Barbara’s son Randy (Ryan Reynolds), a lawyer struggling to put his career back together after a failed attempt at launching his own practice, to see if he could help her. Although initially reluctant to become involved in Maria’s case, Randy had a change of heart when he learned that the painting had an estimated value in excess of $100 million. But, all financial considerations aside, there was another reason behind Randy’s decision to pursue the matter: As the grandson of Austrian composer Arnold Schoenberg, who also fled his homeland during the rise of the Third Reich, Randy had a personal stake in this crusade. Before long, the unlikely duo set off on a quest to retrieve the lost portrait – and to seek justice.
Jewish refugee Maria Altmann (Helen Mirren, left) and struggling attorney Randy Schoenberg (Ryan Reynolds, right) make for an unlikely duo in taking on the Austrian government over a controversial art restitution issue in director Simon Curtis’s engaging new drama, “Woman in Gold.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Company.
At the outset, the deck seemed heavily stacked against Maria and Randy. But, even with the odds against them, they soon found themselves in the company of helpful allies, most notably investigative journalist Hubertus Czernin (Daniel Brühl), whose intrepid reporting exposed the Nazi past of former Austrian President Kurt Waldheim and inspired passage of the country’s art restitution law. As a concerned citizen committed to seeing Austria’s history of fascist complicity exposed, Hubertus helped Maria and Randy cut through the bureaucratic red tape to formulate a strategy for taking on their opponents. Their solution was, to say the least, unique, one that would eventually land them before the U.S. Supreme Court and Chief Justice William Rehnquist (Jonathan Pryce). And their efforts ultimately set the worlds of art and international diplomacy on their ear.
So much for underestimating the underdog.
When it comes to incidents of the distant past, some of us may want to overlook them, dismissing them by simply saying “That was so long ago, just let it go.” However, when the events in question are painful or leave strong, lasting impressions, it may not be so easy to turn a blind eye. Given the circumstances under which Maria fled Vienna and what happened to her family subsequently, both at the hands of the Nazis during the war and Austrian authorities afterward, it’s understandable how she would want to seek justice. This is especially true when legal mechanisms, such as the art restitution program, and knowledgeable allies, such as Randy Schoenberg and Hubertus Czernin, become available. The desire to see matters set right is thus energized, a phenomenon that quickly takes on spirited momentum, even a life of its own.
Such suitable conditions typically emerge when we focus our attention on achieving desired ends through the conscious creation process, the philosophy that maintains we manifest our existence through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents. In this instance, Maria and her colleagues have done exactly that. They sought justice and then materialized the means to make it possible.
In her younger days, Jewish refugee Maria Altmann (Tatiana Maslany, right) and her husband, Fritz (Max Irons, left), flee their native Vienna in the days leading up to World War II with the advance of Nazi occupying forces in the inspiring new historical drama, “Woman in Gold.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Company.
But, in this scenario, objectives other than exacting justice were involved, some of which had ramifications extending beyond the issue at hand. For Randy, for example, taking on Maria’s case was crucial to finding his purpose, a career that has since focused on the legal aspects of art-related matters, something that was not part of his career previously. However, at the time he agreed to pursue this matter, Randy did so somewhat hesitantly, partly because he knew little about the subject and partly because he was just starting a new job under a boss (Charles Dance) who wasn’t especially enthusiastic or encouraging about the idea. Through this experience, though, coupled with the impact of his own emotional connection to the circumstances, Randy found a new vocation, as well as a new calling in life, something that conscious creation practitioners call value fulfillment.
Maria and Hubertus discovered their own brands of value fulfillment, too. For both of them, seeking restitution was about more than just recovering a wrongfully obtained piece of artwork; it was also about drawing attention to a cause that had affected many families during and after the war and that had previously received comparatively little fanfare. Their efforts helped raise the profile of this issue, making it possible for others similarly situated to seek reparation.
In fleshing out their new callings, Maria, Randy and Hubertus all needed to develop certain aspects of their conscious creation skills. For starters, they discovered the importance of listening to (and acting upon) their intuition, one of the elements that contributes to the beliefs we form to create our respective realities. Intuition is something many of us readily dismiss, because it lacks “logic,” the quality we typically use to characterize the overarching nature of our existence. Faced with staggering odds stacked against them, this trio of champions might have easily abandoned their cause before they ever got started if they had followed a purely “rational” approach. But, instead, they chose to acknowledge their intuitional impulses in convincing themselves what was truly achievable, a skill that invariably helped make them more effective conscious creators.
Attorney Randy Schoenberg (Ryan Reynolds, right) faces some tough career choices in determining how to provide for his pregnant wife, Pam (Katie Holmes, left), and young family in “Woman in Gold.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Company.
One of the benefits that comes from being a more effective conscious creator is the ability to envision a wider range of probabilities for materialization. Thinking more broadly allows ideas to emerge that might not have been considered previously, and that was the case in the team’s legal strategy. By employing a never-before-tried approach, they explored new territory in the world of jurisprudence, testing the waters of possibility to see if it could yield the desired result. If successful, not only would it benefit their cause, but it would also set a precedent that others could draw upon in future litigation, a creation that had wider implications – and the potential to help others facing similar circumstances at a later time.
Facing fears was another skill that the protagonists honed through this creative experience. Randy, for example, needed to face the fear of taking on a risky cause at a time when his career was in a precarious position, not an easy decision for a young father whose wife (Katie Holmes) was expecting their second child. Meanwhile, Maria had to address her fear of returning to Vienna, something she vowed she would never do after her perilous flight to freedom. And, as for Hubertus, he needed to become involved to exorcise the demons of his family’s past, setting matters to right for the honor of his future relations and his country. These issues were challenging for each of them, but they rose to the occasion, thanks to the development and deployment of beliefs that would allow them to do so.
Through their efforts, Randy, Maria and Hubertus succeeded in exposing the truth, an undertaking they pursued with integrity, a crucial consideration for bringing desired results into being. This is essential for achieving satisfaction and fulfillment in our conscious creation initiatives, and it’s obvious that these crusaders were wholly earnest in their approach. They clearly set an example for all of us to follow.
Attorney Randy Schoenberg (Ryan Reynolds, left) and refugee-turned-activist Maria Altmann (Helen Mirren, center), aided by investigative journalist Hubertus Czernin (Daniel Brühl, right), take on the Austrian government to seek restitution for an improperly acquired work of art in the inspiring new docudrama, “Woman in Gold.” Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Company.
“Woman in Gold” tells its story capably, deftly mixing present-day and flashback sequences, with another great performance by Mirren and a surprisingly good (though sometimes uneven) portrayal by Reynolds. The film’s production values (especially in the historical sequences) are top-notch, and its cinematography and soundtrack lend themselves well to the finished product. The picture also does a great job of outlining and explaining some rather complicated legal concepts, not an easy feat to pull off.
However, despite these many strengths, the movie has come under a fair share of criticism. Some have contended that its approach is overly sentimental, perhaps even Pollyanna. Others have said that its underdog-against-the-odds narrative featuring an unlikely dynamic duo is rather formulaic and unoriginal, mimicking the story lines found in such films as “Philomena” (2013) and “Erin Brockovich” (2000). And others still have claimed (and, admittedly, not entirely without merit) that the script is too heavy-handed and self-righteous at times. However, this is a story that needs to be told, and, given its subject matter, there’s not a lot of room for subtlety, something for which the filmmakers should have no need to apologize. The picture sheds light on this topic more effectively than others that have attempted to do so, such as the highly touted but ultimately disappointing comedy-drama, “The Monuments Men” (2014).
Finding our way in the world may take us down some unfamiliar (and seemingly unlikely) paths. Yet, if we follow the impulses leading us in those directions, we might find ourselves reaching degrees of fulfillment never before considered. In even greater terms, however, we also could discover that our creations serve a greater purpose, one that benefits both us and those around us in the true spirit of value fulfillment. And that would be work of art if there ever were one.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Taking a stand is something most of us will eventually find ourselves doing with regard to some aspect of our lives. It may not be especially easy, frequently taking us out of our comfort zones, nudging us to face our fears and ultimately prompting us to embrace our sense of self. The effort, however, could prove tremendously rewarding, making it possible to find our reason for living. That’s one of many remarkable personal revelations to emerge out of the experiences of the principals in the excellent new fact-based historical drama, “Woman in Gold.”
At the age of 81, many of us might be content to settle in and get comfortable for the remaining days of our lives. But not Maria Altmann (Helen Mirren). Despite her advancing age, she embarked on one of the most arduous, yet satisfying, undertakings of her life.
As a Jewish refugee who fled her native Vienna at the time of the Nazi annexation of Austria – the Anschluss – in 1938, a youthful Maria (Tatiana Maslany) made a harrowing escape to America with her husband, Fritz (Max Irons). In doing so, however, she left behind everything, including most of her family and virtually all of her belongings. And, not long after fleeing, the family’s possessions were looted by the invading Germans, who confiscated a wealth of jewelry, artwork and other items of value.
Chief among the stolen items was a portrait of Maria’s Aunt Adele (Antje Traue) by famed Austrian symbolist painter Gustav Klimt (Moritz Bleibtreu). Even though German Chancellor Adolf Hitler was not a fan of Klimt’s work, his Nazi minions nevertheless saw the value of the painting and readily added it to their stockpile of plundered artworks. Of course, given Adele’s Jewish heritage, the Nazis deemed a name change necessary for the painting, so what was originally titled Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I became Woman in Gold.
However, once World War II ended, the painting – like so many others that were stolen – was not returned to its rightful owners. Instead, it remained in the hands of Austrian authorities, becoming one of the prized items in the collection of Vienna’s famed Belvedere Gallery. The portrait eventually came to be known as “the Mona Lisa of Austria,” and, because of that, Austrian authorities were not about to part with it, even in the wake of a legally sanctioned art restitution program launched in the late 1990s to make amends for past misdeeds.
Despite the resistance of Austrian authorities, Maria refused to be deterred. After a brief conversation with longtime family friend Barbara Schoenberg (Frances Fisher), Maria contacted Barbara’s son Randy (Ryan Reynolds), a lawyer struggling to put his career back together after a failed attempt at launching his own practice, to see if he could help her. Although initially reluctant to become involved in Maria’s case, Randy had a change of heart when he learned that the painting had an estimated value in excess of $100 million. But, all financial considerations aside, there was another reason behind Randy’s decision to pursue the matter: As the grandson of Austrian composer Arnold Schoenberg, who also fled his homeland during the rise of the Third Reich, Randy had a personal stake in this crusade. Before long, the unlikely duo set off on a quest to retrieve the lost portrait – and to seek justice.
At the outset, the deck seemed heavily stacked against Maria and Randy. But, even with the odds against them, they soon found themselves in the company of helpful allies, most notably investigative journalist Hubertus Czernin (Daniel Brühl), whose intrepid reporting exposed the Nazi past of former Austrian President Kurt Waldheim and inspired passage of the country’s art restitution law. As a concerned citizen committed to seeing Austria’s history of fascist complicity exposed, Hubertus helped Maria and Randy cut through the bureaucratic red tape to formulate a strategy for taking on their opponents. Their solution was, to say the least, unique, one that would eventually land them before the U.S. Supreme Court and Chief Justice William Rehnquist (Jonathan Pryce). And their efforts ultimately set the worlds of art and international diplomacy on their ear.
So much for underestimating the underdog.
When it comes to incidents of the distant past, some of us may want to overlook them, dismissing them by simply saying “That was so long ago, just let it go.” However, when the events in question are painful or leave strong, lasting impressions, it may not be so easy to turn a blind eye. Given the circumstances under which Maria fled Vienna and what happened to her family subsequently, both at the hands of the Nazis during the war and Austrian authorities afterward, it’s understandable how she would want to seek justice. This is especially true when legal mechanisms, such as the art restitution program, and knowledgeable allies, such as Randy Schoenberg and Hubertus Czernin, become available. The desire to see matters set right is thus energized, a phenomenon that quickly takes on spirited momentum, even a life of its own.
Such suitable conditions typically emerge when we focus our attention on achieving desired ends through the conscious creation process, the philosophy that maintains we manifest our existence through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents. In this instance, Maria and her colleagues have done exactly that. They sought justice and then materialized the means to make it possible.
But, in this scenario, objectives other than exacting justice were involved, some of which had ramifications extending beyond the issue at hand. For Randy, for example, taking on Maria’s case was crucial to finding his purpose, a career that has since focused on the legal aspects of art-related matters, something that was not part of his career previously. However, at the time he agreed to pursue this matter, Randy did so somewhat hesitantly, partly because he knew little about the subject and partly because he was just starting a new job under a boss (Charles Dance) who wasn’t especially enthusiastic or encouraging about the idea. Through this experience, though, coupled with the impact of his own emotional connection to the circumstances, Randy found a new vocation, as well as a new calling in life, something that conscious creation practitioners call value fulfillment.
Maria and Hubertus discovered their own brands of value fulfillment, too. For both of them, seeking restitution was about more than just recovering a wrongfully obtained piece of artwork; it was also about drawing attention to a cause that had affected many families during and after the war and that had previously received comparatively little fanfare. Their efforts helped raise the profile of this issue, making it possible for others similarly situated to seek reparation.
In fleshing out their new callings, Maria, Randy and Hubertus all needed to develop certain aspects of their conscious creation skills. For starters, they discovered the importance of listening to (and acting upon) their intuition, one of the elements that contributes to the beliefs we form to create our respective realities. Intuition is something many of us readily dismiss, because it lacks “logic,” the quality we typically use to characterize the overarching nature of our existence. Faced with staggering odds stacked against them, this trio of champions might have easily abandoned their cause before they ever got started if they had followed a purely “rational” approach. But, instead, they chose to acknowledge their intuitional impulses in convincing themselves what was truly achievable, a skill that invariably helped make them more effective conscious creators.
One of the benefits that comes from being a more effective conscious creator is the ability to envision a wider range of probabilities for materialization. Thinking more broadly allows ideas to emerge that might not have been considered previously, and that was the case in the team’s legal strategy. By employing a never-before-tried approach, they explored new territory in the world of jurisprudence, testing the waters of possibility to see if it could yield the desired result. If successful, not only would it benefit their cause, but it would also set a precedent that others could draw upon in future litigation, a creation that had wider implications – and the potential to help others facing similar circumstances at a later time.
Facing fears was another skill that the protagonists honed through this creative experience. Randy, for example, needed to face the fear of taking on a risky cause at a time when his career was in a precarious position, not an easy decision for a young father whose wife (Katie Holmes) was expecting their second child. Meanwhile, Maria had to address her fear of returning to Vienna, something she vowed she would never do after her perilous flight to freedom. And, as for Hubertus, he needed to become involved to exorcise the demons of his family’s past, setting matters to right for the honor of his future relations and his country. These issues were challenging for each of them, but they rose to the occasion, thanks to the development and deployment of beliefs that would allow them to do so.
Through their efforts, Randy, Maria and Hubertus succeeded in exposing the truth, an undertaking they pursued with integrity, a crucial consideration for bringing desired results into being. This is essential for achieving satisfaction and fulfillment in our conscious creation initiatives, and it’s obvious that these crusaders were wholly earnest in their approach. They clearly set an example for all of us to follow.
“Woman in Gold” tells its story capably, deftly mixing present-day and flashback sequences, with another great performance by Mirren and a surprisingly good (though sometimes uneven) portrayal by Reynolds. The film’s production values (especially in the historical sequences) are top-notch, and its cinematography and soundtrack lend themselves well to the finished product. The picture also does a great job of outlining and explaining some rather complicated legal concepts, not an easy feat to pull off.
However, despite these many strengths, the movie has come under a fair share of criticism. Some have contended that its approach is overly sentimental, perhaps even Pollyanna. Others have said that its underdog-against-the-odds narrative featuring an unlikely dynamic duo is rather formulaic and unoriginal, mimicking the story lines found in such films as “Philomena” (2013) and “Erin Brockovich” (2000). And others still have claimed (and, admittedly, not entirely without merit) that the script is too heavy-handed and self-righteous at times. However, this is a story that needs to be told, and, given its subject matter, there’s not a lot of room for subtlety, something for which the filmmakers should have no need to apologize. The picture sheds light on this topic more effectively than others that have attempted to do so, such as the highly touted but ultimately disappointing comedy-drama, “The Monuments Men” (2014).
Finding our way in the world may take us down some unfamiliar (and seemingly unlikely) paths. Yet, if we follow the impulses leading us in those directions, we might find ourselves reaching degrees of fulfillment never before considered. In even greater terms, however, we also could discover that our creations serve a greater purpose, one that benefits both us and those around us in the true spirit of value fulfillment. And that would be work of art if there ever were one.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Friday, April 3, 2015
‘Kumiko’ maintains ‘never lose sight of your dreams’
“Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter” (2014 production, 2015 release). Cast: Rinko Kikuchi, Nobuyuke Katsube, Kanako Higashi, Yumiko Hioki (voice), Ichi Kyokaku, Shirley Venard, David Zellner, Nathan Zellner, Brad Prather, Lucy Luu, Phil Hall, Steve Buscemi (archive footage). Director: David Zellner. Screenplay: David Zellner and Nathan Zellner. Web site. Trailer.
Dreamers often possess a special sensibility that sets them apart from others. They dare to envision what many would consider unfathomable, and they generally pursue the fulfillment of their aspirations with quixotic determination, usually in spite of what others say. They have faith in their convictions, moving ahead to flesh them out at all costs, even in the face of the worst odds. Such is the kind of resolve on display in the offbeat new comedy-drama, “Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter.”
Kumiko (Rinko Kikuchi) is bored by her life. As a twenty-something Tokyo “office lady,” she sees herself stuck in a dead-end job. She quietly detests the demands and intrusiveness of her condescending boss, Mr. Sakagami (Nobuyuke Katsube), and the incessant phone calls of her nagging mother (voiced by Yumiko Hioki). She’s even loath to address such everyday activities as keeping up her apartment, collecting her mail or spending time with a onetime acquaintance, Michi (Kanako Higashi). In fact, the only things that seem to give Kumiko any pleasure are caring for her pet rabbit, Bunzo, and her pursuit of an unusual hobby – treasure hunting.
Treasure hunting?
Kumiko (Rinko Kikuchi), a Tokyo “office lady” bored with her life, sets off to seek her fortune a world away in the quirky new comedy-drama, “Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter.” Photo by Sean Porter, courtesy of Amplify Releasing.
As unconventional as this rather anachronistic diversion might seem to many, it thoroughly captivates Kumiko. She devotes much of her free time to it, because she believes she’s destined to make great discoveries at it one day. And that commitment grows even stronger when she stumbles upon what she considers to be her greatest find – an old videotape that she’s convinced will lead her to a stash of untold wealth.
The video plainly states at its beginning that the story it’s about to relate is true, even if the names of those involved have been changed. As the film plays out, it clearly depicts someone burying a briefcase full of American money in a desolate Midwestern snowbank, its location marked with a small red ice scraper stuck in the endless mass of white. Tremendous riches obviously await.
So what’s the source of this miraculous revelation? It turns out to be a copy of the Coen Brothers’ Academy Award-winning movie, “Fargo” (1996), which is based on a true story but is, in fact, a fictional re-creation. Unfortunately, Kumiko mistakenly believes the film is a documentary because of its opening statement. She’s convinced the briefcase really is buried somewhere in the Midwestern landscape, and she spends hours trying to figure out exactly where.
As Kumiko’s obsession with finding the treasure grows, so, too, does her dissatisfaction with her everyday life, prompting her to eventually abandon everything in an effort to seek her fortune. Armed with her boss’s company credit card, a map of Minnesota and a steely resolve, she takes off on her quest. Like a Spanish conquistador, she heads for the New World – and an appointment with destiny.
Caring for her pet rabbit, Bunzo, is one of life’s few pleasures for Kumiko (Rinko Kikuchi), a would-be fortune hunter bored with her existence, in the Zellner Brothers’ unusual new release, “Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter.” Photo by Sean Porter, courtesy of Amplify Releasing.
Upon her arrival in Minnesota, Kumiko is clearly out of her element. She speaks almost no English. She hasn’t packed suitable clothing for surviving one of the region’s infamously frigid winters. And she has only the vaguest of notions about where the alleged treasure actually might be buried (presuming, based on the film’s title, that it must be somewhere in the vicinity of Fargo). But those hindrances don’t deter her; she single-mindedly embarks on a trek into the Minnesota wilderness.
While on her journey, Kumiko encounters an array of colorful characters seeking to help her. Among them are a pair of dubious tourism guides (Nathan Zellner, Brad Prather), a kindly older woman who shelters Kumiko from the cold and is anxious to show her the Mall of America (Shirley Venard), a sincerely helpful though somewhat clueless sheriff’s deputy (David Zellner), a Chinese restaurant owner (Lucy Luu) and a deaf cab driver (Phil Hall). Despite their help, though, Kumiko must find her own way. It’s an odyssey she’s determined to see through – no matter what it takes.
Many might view Kumiko’s journey as a lonely one, but then that’s because it’s in the nature of what she seeks to materialize for herself through the conscious creation process, the philosophy that maintains we manifest the reality we experience through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents. As a would-be treasure hunter, Kumiko’s ambitions aren’t exactly mainstream, so the likelihood of her openly sharing this interest with others isn’t high. What’s more, given her disinterest in the everyday aspects of life that others so willingly embrace, it’s easy to see how she would eschew her peers and their concerns. Considerations like marriage and children, which are obviously important to Kumiko’s cohorts, just don’t matter to her, which is why she doesn’t devote time, energy or attention in drawing them into her life; those things would only get in the way of her trying to seek her fortune in other ways.
In light of that, Kumiko serves as a shining example of someone not being afraid to hold on to her dreams, no matter what others may think or how outlandish those aspirations might seem. As long as we have faith in the validity of our beliefs, as Kumiko does, anything is possible. And, as anyone who has achieved success under comparable circumstances can attest, realizing goals under such conditions can ultimately be transformative, even transcendent.
Upon her arrival in Minnesota, Kumiko (Rinko Kikuchi, left), a would-be Japanese fortune seeker, encounters an array of colorful characters as part of her journey, including a pair of dubious tourism guides, Robert (Nathan Zellner, middle) and Brad (Brad Prather, right), in “Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter.” Photo by Sean Porter, courtesy of Amplify Releasing.
Of course, maintaining resolve is essential in taking on such pursuits, and seekers chasing such goals shouldn’t be afraid to reject outsiders’ calls for conformity or the criticisms of naysayers. Again, Kumiko shows us the way. She dismisses these considerations without reservation, remaining true to her vision as she forges ahead.
Given the foregoing, it’s obvious that pursuing our dreams requires effort and dedication, sometimes even sacrifice. Indeed, if we want to see such goals fulfilled, we must often let go of what no longer serves us or what holds us back. For things we dislike, such as unsatisfying relationships or possessions that weigh us down, letting go can be comparatively easy, even providing a welcome sense of relief. But realizing our aspirations may also occasionally call upon us to release things we hold dear, as becomes painfully apparent when Kumiko must decide what to do about Bunzo when preparing for her journey. Such heartrending experiences truly test our tenacity, but they’re often essential in determining the strength of our commitment and the degree of faith we place in what are supposedly our most cherished beliefs.
In that regard, proceeding without fear is crucial. When faced with the pressures of those who try to dissuade Kumiko from her course, such as her boss, her mother and even the well-meaning deputy, she remains steadfast, moving forward, no matter what impediments or forms of intimidation they try to place in her path. Onward she goes, rejecting these metaphysical speed bumps as little more than inconveniences along the way.
Ironically, by drawing such task masters into her life, Kumiko may actually have created an intriguing means for galvanizing her courage and her faith in her beliefs (even if she’s unaware of having done so). In fact, these are just a few of the many unconventional yet useful items she’s amassed in her metaphysical toolbox, which also includes such skills as the ability to think quickly and live by her wits, a strong sense of personal intuition, and receptivity to hidden meanings. (Even her choice of a rabbit as a pet reflects these qualities, as it’s an animal that is said to embody these wisdom teachings, according to the web site animalspirits.com.)
When Kumiko (Rinko Kikuchi, right), a would-be Japanese fortune seeker, finds herself out of her element in the wilds of Minnesota, she receives help from a sincere yet clueless sheriff’s deputy (David Zellner, left) in “Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter.” Photo by Sean Porter, courtesy of Amplify Releasing.
Keeping an open mind about the nature of the goal being sought is imperative, too. When we use our beliefs to create something, we should pay attention to the qualities that characterize the finished manifestation, not necessarily the form it takes. By failing to do so, we may not realize we’ve attained our objective when, in fact, we have. Treasures imbued with certain attributes can take a variety of forms, and, for her part, Kumiko fortunately realizes that. We’d be wise to follow her lead on this, especially when assessing the effectiveness of our own materialization skills. If we don’t, we might miss out on the wealth the Universe has in store for us.
“Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter” is one of the most unusual yet thoroughly enjoyable theatrical releases to come along in quite some time. The picture’s gorgeous cinematography and its ethereal soundtrack by the Octopus Project provide a beautiful, dreamy backdrop for a narrative that seamlessly blends gentle humor, touching moments and profound thoughtfulness. The film incorporates a variety of moods, from the homespun folksiness reminiscent of the picture that inspired Kumiko to the exaggeratedly noble campiness frequently found in contemporary samurai movies to the reflective sense of wonder often seen in spiritual cinematic offerings. But, as impressive as these elements are, it’s the Zellner Brothers’ superb writing and Kikuchi’s excellent performance that make the film work so brilliantly. And, despite a few easily overlooked pacing issues, few recent films capture and hold viewer attention as well as this one does.
The frozen Minnesota landscape can be a lonely place, as would-be fortune seeker Kumiko (Rinko Kikuchi) discovers for herself in the offbeat new Zellner Brothers’ comedy-drama, “Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter.” Photo by Sean Porter, courtesy of Amplify Releasing.
The film has received some notable recognition for its efforts, too. It deservedly earned nominations in the best director and best female lead performance categories at the recent Independent Spirit Awards competition, as well as a number of accolades at various film festivals. The picture is currently showing in theaters specializing in independent and foreign cinema.
In a world where all too many are willing to aimlessly follow convention, it’s refreshing when nonconformists like Kumiko make their presence felt – and their wishes known. Were it not for enlightened spirits like her, there’s no telling how much “smaller” our world would be. So thank goodness for the dreamers out there – and the hope that they all might help to inspire the rest of us.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Dreamers often possess a special sensibility that sets them apart from others. They dare to envision what many would consider unfathomable, and they generally pursue the fulfillment of their aspirations with quixotic determination, usually in spite of what others say. They have faith in their convictions, moving ahead to flesh them out at all costs, even in the face of the worst odds. Such is the kind of resolve on display in the offbeat new comedy-drama, “Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter.”
Kumiko (Rinko Kikuchi) is bored by her life. As a twenty-something Tokyo “office lady,” she sees herself stuck in a dead-end job. She quietly detests the demands and intrusiveness of her condescending boss, Mr. Sakagami (Nobuyuke Katsube), and the incessant phone calls of her nagging mother (voiced by Yumiko Hioki). She’s even loath to address such everyday activities as keeping up her apartment, collecting her mail or spending time with a onetime acquaintance, Michi (Kanako Higashi). In fact, the only things that seem to give Kumiko any pleasure are caring for her pet rabbit, Bunzo, and her pursuit of an unusual hobby – treasure hunting.
Treasure hunting?
As unconventional as this rather anachronistic diversion might seem to many, it thoroughly captivates Kumiko. She devotes much of her free time to it, because she believes she’s destined to make great discoveries at it one day. And that commitment grows even stronger when she stumbles upon what she considers to be her greatest find – an old videotape that she’s convinced will lead her to a stash of untold wealth.
The video plainly states at its beginning that the story it’s about to relate is true, even if the names of those involved have been changed. As the film plays out, it clearly depicts someone burying a briefcase full of American money in a desolate Midwestern snowbank, its location marked with a small red ice scraper stuck in the endless mass of white. Tremendous riches obviously await.
So what’s the source of this miraculous revelation? It turns out to be a copy of the Coen Brothers’ Academy Award-winning movie, “Fargo” (1996), which is based on a true story but is, in fact, a fictional re-creation. Unfortunately, Kumiko mistakenly believes the film is a documentary because of its opening statement. She’s convinced the briefcase really is buried somewhere in the Midwestern landscape, and she spends hours trying to figure out exactly where.
As Kumiko’s obsession with finding the treasure grows, so, too, does her dissatisfaction with her everyday life, prompting her to eventually abandon everything in an effort to seek her fortune. Armed with her boss’s company credit card, a map of Minnesota and a steely resolve, she takes off on her quest. Like a Spanish conquistador, she heads for the New World – and an appointment with destiny.
Upon her arrival in Minnesota, Kumiko is clearly out of her element. She speaks almost no English. She hasn’t packed suitable clothing for surviving one of the region’s infamously frigid winters. And she has only the vaguest of notions about where the alleged treasure actually might be buried (presuming, based on the film’s title, that it must be somewhere in the vicinity of Fargo). But those hindrances don’t deter her; she single-mindedly embarks on a trek into the Minnesota wilderness.
While on her journey, Kumiko encounters an array of colorful characters seeking to help her. Among them are a pair of dubious tourism guides (Nathan Zellner, Brad Prather), a kindly older woman who shelters Kumiko from the cold and is anxious to show her the Mall of America (Shirley Venard), a sincerely helpful though somewhat clueless sheriff’s deputy (David Zellner), a Chinese restaurant owner (Lucy Luu) and a deaf cab driver (Phil Hall). Despite their help, though, Kumiko must find her own way. It’s an odyssey she’s determined to see through – no matter what it takes.
Many might view Kumiko’s journey as a lonely one, but then that’s because it’s in the nature of what she seeks to materialize for herself through the conscious creation process, the philosophy that maintains we manifest the reality we experience through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents. As a would-be treasure hunter, Kumiko’s ambitions aren’t exactly mainstream, so the likelihood of her openly sharing this interest with others isn’t high. What’s more, given her disinterest in the everyday aspects of life that others so willingly embrace, it’s easy to see how she would eschew her peers and their concerns. Considerations like marriage and children, which are obviously important to Kumiko’s cohorts, just don’t matter to her, which is why she doesn’t devote time, energy or attention in drawing them into her life; those things would only get in the way of her trying to seek her fortune in other ways.
In light of that, Kumiko serves as a shining example of someone not being afraid to hold on to her dreams, no matter what others may think or how outlandish those aspirations might seem. As long as we have faith in the validity of our beliefs, as Kumiko does, anything is possible. And, as anyone who has achieved success under comparable circumstances can attest, realizing goals under such conditions can ultimately be transformative, even transcendent.
Of course, maintaining resolve is essential in taking on such pursuits, and seekers chasing such goals shouldn’t be afraid to reject outsiders’ calls for conformity or the criticisms of naysayers. Again, Kumiko shows us the way. She dismisses these considerations without reservation, remaining true to her vision as she forges ahead.
Given the foregoing, it’s obvious that pursuing our dreams requires effort and dedication, sometimes even sacrifice. Indeed, if we want to see such goals fulfilled, we must often let go of what no longer serves us or what holds us back. For things we dislike, such as unsatisfying relationships or possessions that weigh us down, letting go can be comparatively easy, even providing a welcome sense of relief. But realizing our aspirations may also occasionally call upon us to release things we hold dear, as becomes painfully apparent when Kumiko must decide what to do about Bunzo when preparing for her journey. Such heartrending experiences truly test our tenacity, but they’re often essential in determining the strength of our commitment and the degree of faith we place in what are supposedly our most cherished beliefs.
In that regard, proceeding without fear is crucial. When faced with the pressures of those who try to dissuade Kumiko from her course, such as her boss, her mother and even the well-meaning deputy, she remains steadfast, moving forward, no matter what impediments or forms of intimidation they try to place in her path. Onward she goes, rejecting these metaphysical speed bumps as little more than inconveniences along the way.
Ironically, by drawing such task masters into her life, Kumiko may actually have created an intriguing means for galvanizing her courage and her faith in her beliefs (even if she’s unaware of having done so). In fact, these are just a few of the many unconventional yet useful items she’s amassed in her metaphysical toolbox, which also includes such skills as the ability to think quickly and live by her wits, a strong sense of personal intuition, and receptivity to hidden meanings. (Even her choice of a rabbit as a pet reflects these qualities, as it’s an animal that is said to embody these wisdom teachings, according to the web site animalspirits.com.)
Keeping an open mind about the nature of the goal being sought is imperative, too. When we use our beliefs to create something, we should pay attention to the qualities that characterize the finished manifestation, not necessarily the form it takes. By failing to do so, we may not realize we’ve attained our objective when, in fact, we have. Treasures imbued with certain attributes can take a variety of forms, and, for her part, Kumiko fortunately realizes that. We’d be wise to follow her lead on this, especially when assessing the effectiveness of our own materialization skills. If we don’t, we might miss out on the wealth the Universe has in store for us.
“Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter” is one of the most unusual yet thoroughly enjoyable theatrical releases to come along in quite some time. The picture’s gorgeous cinematography and its ethereal soundtrack by the Octopus Project provide a beautiful, dreamy backdrop for a narrative that seamlessly blends gentle humor, touching moments and profound thoughtfulness. The film incorporates a variety of moods, from the homespun folksiness reminiscent of the picture that inspired Kumiko to the exaggeratedly noble campiness frequently found in contemporary samurai movies to the reflective sense of wonder often seen in spiritual cinematic offerings. But, as impressive as these elements are, it’s the Zellner Brothers’ superb writing and Kikuchi’s excellent performance that make the film work so brilliantly. And, despite a few easily overlooked pacing issues, few recent films capture and hold viewer attention as well as this one does.
The film has received some notable recognition for its efforts, too. It deservedly earned nominations in the best director and best female lead performance categories at the recent Independent Spirit Awards competition, as well as a number of accolades at various film festivals. The picture is currently showing in theaters specializing in independent and foreign cinema.
In a world where all too many are willing to aimlessly follow convention, it’s refreshing when nonconformists like Kumiko make their presence felt – and their wishes known. Were it not for enlightened spirits like her, there’s no telling how much “smaller” our world would be. So thank goodness for the dreamers out there – and the hope that they all might help to inspire the rest of us.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Friday, March 27, 2015
‘She’s Beautiful’ charts a culture-changing movement
“She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry” (2014). Interview Footage: Alta, Chude Pamela Allen, Judith Arcana, Nona Willis Aronowitz, Fran Beal, Heather Booth, Rita Mae Brown, Susan Brownmiller, Linda Burnham, Jacqui Michot Ceballos, Mary Jean Collins, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Muriel Fox, Jo Freeman, Carol Giardina, Susan Griffin, Karla Jay, Kate Millett, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Denise Oliver-Velez, Trina Robbins, Ruth Rosen, Vivian Rothstein, Marlene Sanders, Alix Kates Shulman, Ellen Shumsky, Marilyn Webb, Virginia Whitehill, Ellen Willis, Alice Wolfson, Miriam Hawley, Jane Pincus, Joan Ditzion, Paula Doress-Worters, Wendy Sanford, Judy Norsigian, Vilunya Diskin, Pam Berger. Archive Footage: Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem. Director: Mary Dore. Web site. Trailer.
The impact of an idea can be considerable. When that notion is infused with the energy of a mass collaboration, it can become huge. And, when that initiative is linked with others of like tenor, a movement is born. So it was when the women of America united to get behind a cause that liberated them from the shackles of stifling limitation, a culture-changing crusade that reshaped society forever, the subject of the engaging new documentary, “She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry.”
In 1963, author Betty Friedan set off a social and cultural firestorm with the release of her immensely popular book, The Feminine Mystique, which revealed that a sizable number of American women were dissatisfied with the limitations of their roles as wives and mothers. That literary spark, in turn, gave rise to what would become one of the most influential social crusades in the nation’s history – the women’s liberation movement.
The dissatisfaction Friedan chronicled went beyond the aforementioned role limitations, however. Once word of these sentiments began to spread, women started expressing their discontent with the way their gender was being treated (or ignored) on a variety of fronts, all of which quickly fed into the blossoming of a multifaceted social crusade.
Chief among the movement’s initiatives was the push for equal pay and job opportunities. Many women had grown tired of being relegated to the domestic arena and began seeking change. But things didn’t stop with these economic and vocational initiatives; campaigns aimed at securing equal rights of all kinds were subsequently launched.
Protestors gather to participate in the August 26, 1970 Women’s Strike march, one of the principal events of the women’s liberation movement depicted in the excellent new documentary, “She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry.” Photo by Diana Davies, courtesy of International Film Circuit, Inc.
This new focus of the crusade was an outgrowth of the era’s civil rights movement, which had benefited tremendously from the participation of many formidable, strong-minded women, some of whom encountered gender-based discrimination of their own at the hands of their male counterparts. The indignation that these and other women experienced helped fuel their passion for feminist initiatives. It inspired organizers to rally and amass ranks of followers. And, with the rise of nonviolent public protests over issues like voting rights and the Vietnam War, women now had a model to draw upon to make their platform known – and their voices heard.
The other causes the crusade took on covered a wide range of topics, including the needs of minority women (particularly in the African-American, Latina and Lesbian communities), support for rape victims and women coerced into forced servitude, better funding for women’s health research and education, reproductive rights advocacy (especially in the areas of legalized abortion and access to contraceptives), increased child care availability, and political activism (including such areas as equitable representation in office and passage of the Equal Rights Amendment). This agenda made for a very full plate, but it was one that women in the movement eagerly pursued with vigor.
Members of the Lavender Menace, an organization devoted to addressing the needs of the Lesbian community of the women’s liberation movement, made their voices heard through provocative, innovative tactics, as detailed in director Mary Dore’s “She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry.” Photo by Diana Davies, courtesy of International Film Circuit, Inc.
Urban centers became significant hubs for activism, especially in cities like Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, San Francisco and Berkeley. A number of advocate groups sprang up, such as the National Organization for Women, and their members became experts at networking and recruiting huge numbers of followers (a pretty amazing accomplishment, given that there was no Internet at the time). Public events also became important, such as the 1970 Women’s Strike, which attracted throngs of participants to raise public consciousness about the movement’s issues.
As successful as these conventional measures were, however, an array of innovative tactics were employed, too. A number of high-profile initiatives aimed at taking on bastions of the old order (and generating significant media coverage) were organized, such as protests at the Miss America pageant, a sit-in at the offices of the Ladies Home Journal, public bra burnings and performances of an all-female activist rock band (an innovation for the time). Many women used humor to make their points, too, as evidenced by the emergence of protest groups like the Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell (W.I.T.C.H.), an organization whose followers intentionally dressed like the namesake of their group’s acronym to taunt those who openly mischaracterized the liberation movement. Given the effectiveness of these efforts, those who condescendingly criticized the crusade (nearly always men) opened their mouths at their peril.
Performances by the Chicago Women’s Liberation Rock Band, one of the first all-female rock acts, captured the attention of more than just curiosity seekers and supporters of the cause during the rise of the women’s rights movement, as seen in director Mary Dore’s engaging new documentary, “She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry.” Photo by Virginia Blaisdell, courtesy of International Film Circuit, Inc.
Despite the movement’s many successes, it was not without its challenges, either, some of which came from within as well as from without. For instance, minority women sometimes questioned whether their interests were being adequately represented within the movement, given that many of its leaders and members came from more mainstream economic, social and ethnic backgrounds. Then there was the question of radicalism, which prompted many women to wrestle with the question of “How far is too far?” For example, suggestions put forth by radical Lesbians that all women should abandon the heterosexual lifestyle and willingly embrace their “innate” gay nature didn’t go over well with many of the movement’s more conservative members, who were eager to fight for equal rights but not anxious to be coerced into a change in their sexual orientation. Women who were mothers were similarly chastised at times, their critics contending that children bound them to a more traditional, “unliberated” way of life. When such issues became public knowledge, they sometimes discouraged women who were on the fence about getting involved, especially when word of them was gleefully spread by chauvinists in the backlash movement seeking to discredit and stymie the crusade. But, as the movement progressed, solutions to these challenges gradually emerged, allowing them to be addressed in their own time and on their own terms.
The impact the women’s liberation movement had on society was substantial, to say the least. The gains made between 1966 and 1973, the principal period covered in the film, changed the country in profound ways, something that becomes particularly apparent in film clips depicting American culture before the rise of the crusade. And, while it may be tempting to think that there’s no going back in the wake of these many accomplishments, the picture nevertheless makes it clear that there’s work yet to be done, especially in the area of protecting reproductive rights in battleground states like Texas. But, if contemporary women rise to the challenge in the same way their predecessors did, their opponents have cause for concern.
The movement’s achievements also make apparent its constituents’ proficiency as practitioners of conscious creation, the philosophy that maintains we each manifest our reality through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents. As evidenced in the film, the power inherent in their impassioned beliefs is considerable. Indeed, such potent convictions aptly illustrate the contention of conscious creation author and advocate Jane Roberts that there’s more power in a focused intent than is required to send a rocket to the moon. They also depict what’s attainable when we employ the ability to envision desired outcomes, a notion espoused in The Lost Mode of Prayer by author Gregg Braden, who asserts that it’s entirely possible to reach our goals when we act as if the hoped-for results have already occurred. The visionaries who launched the women’s liberation movement obviously had these elements going for them, and the outcomes speak for themselves.
Members of W.I.T.C.H. (the Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell), an organization whose followers intentionally dressed like the namesake of their group’s acronym to taunt those who openly mischaracterized the liberation movement, caused a humorous stir during the emergence of the women’s liberation movement, as chronicled in “She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry.” Photo by Jo Freeman, courtesy of International Film Circuit, Inc.
Of course, much of the success behind these efforts stems from the numbers who got behind them. The women’s liberation movement is a prime example of a consciously created mass event carried out with confidence and determination. The fusion of multiple consciousnesses working together can yield unfathomable rewards, and this crusade illustrates this idea as well as any that society has ever witnessed. The movement’s capacity for invoking sweeping change on a mass scale is undeniable, and, if anyone were to doubt that, one need only look at some the picture’s archive footage depictions of once-commonplace attitudes and social conventions that would never be tolerated today.
The movement’s accomplishments also demonstrate how it’s possible for change to arise at the grass-roots level. Many of the milestones attained through these initiatives were launched by women who came from modest, everyday backgrounds. Their names aren’t household words by any means, but they had impact nonetheless. They saw needs, envisioned solutions and formed beliefs to bring them into being. So it was, for example, for abortion rights advocates Judith Arcana and Heather Booth, who helped women gain access to safe procedures in the days before the landmark Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. The same was true for those who advocated for the needs of women of color, including Fran Beal, Linda Burnham and Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was eventually elected to Congress. And then there were the authors of Our Bodies, Ourselves, who collectively compiled this quintessential work on women’s health and sexuality at a time when no comparable work existed. These remarkable women are just a few of the many liberation pioneers who are profiled in the film, and, even though they may not possess the same notoriety as movement luminaries like Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem (all of whom are depicted in archive footage), their contributions – and creations – are no less significant.
Eight of the 12 authors who created the quintessential women’s health and sexuality book, “Our Bodies, Ourselves,” reunite to share their experiences in creating this groundbreaking opus that helped launch the women’s health movement in director Mary Dore’s new documentary, “She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry.” Pictured (from left) are Miriam Hawley, Jane Pincus, Joan Ditzion, Paula Doress-Worters, Wendy Sanford, Judy Norsigian, Vilunya Diskin and Pam Berger. Photo courtesy of International Film Circuit, Inc.
“She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry” is an excellent, capably packaged documentary that covers its subject thoroughly, tautly and poignantly, with a style that’s both informative and refreshingly humorous. Director Mary Dore has skillfully blended a mix of contemporary interview segments and archival footage, creating a finished product that’s both enlightening and entertaining. The film is playing primarily at venues specializing in independent and documentary cinema, with theater listings posted on the picture’s official web site.
When a great idea is blessed with recognition and acceptance, there’s no telling what it can yield. The women’s liberation movement is an example of one of those grand notions, one whose impact has spread far and wide, spanning the globe and even crossing gender lines, amassing support beyond the boundaries of its core constituency. Such success is a fitting tribute to those who gave life to it, and “She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry” effectively echoes those sentiments, providing viewers with a meticulous chronicle that fondly yet objectively recognizes the efforts of those who freely gave so much to benefit so many.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
The impact of an idea can be considerable. When that notion is infused with the energy of a mass collaboration, it can become huge. And, when that initiative is linked with others of like tenor, a movement is born. So it was when the women of America united to get behind a cause that liberated them from the shackles of stifling limitation, a culture-changing crusade that reshaped society forever, the subject of the engaging new documentary, “She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry.”
In 1963, author Betty Friedan set off a social and cultural firestorm with the release of her immensely popular book, The Feminine Mystique, which revealed that a sizable number of American women were dissatisfied with the limitations of their roles as wives and mothers. That literary spark, in turn, gave rise to what would become one of the most influential social crusades in the nation’s history – the women’s liberation movement.
The dissatisfaction Friedan chronicled went beyond the aforementioned role limitations, however. Once word of these sentiments began to spread, women started expressing their discontent with the way their gender was being treated (or ignored) on a variety of fronts, all of which quickly fed into the blossoming of a multifaceted social crusade.
Chief among the movement’s initiatives was the push for equal pay and job opportunities. Many women had grown tired of being relegated to the domestic arena and began seeking change. But things didn’t stop with these economic and vocational initiatives; campaigns aimed at securing equal rights of all kinds were subsequently launched.
This new focus of the crusade was an outgrowth of the era’s civil rights movement, which had benefited tremendously from the participation of many formidable, strong-minded women, some of whom encountered gender-based discrimination of their own at the hands of their male counterparts. The indignation that these and other women experienced helped fuel their passion for feminist initiatives. It inspired organizers to rally and amass ranks of followers. And, with the rise of nonviolent public protests over issues like voting rights and the Vietnam War, women now had a model to draw upon to make their platform known – and their voices heard.
The other causes the crusade took on covered a wide range of topics, including the needs of minority women (particularly in the African-American, Latina and Lesbian communities), support for rape victims and women coerced into forced servitude, better funding for women’s health research and education, reproductive rights advocacy (especially in the areas of legalized abortion and access to contraceptives), increased child care availability, and political activism (including such areas as equitable representation in office and passage of the Equal Rights Amendment). This agenda made for a very full plate, but it was one that women in the movement eagerly pursued with vigor.
Urban centers became significant hubs for activism, especially in cities like Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, San Francisco and Berkeley. A number of advocate groups sprang up, such as the National Organization for Women, and their members became experts at networking and recruiting huge numbers of followers (a pretty amazing accomplishment, given that there was no Internet at the time). Public events also became important, such as the 1970 Women’s Strike, which attracted throngs of participants to raise public consciousness about the movement’s issues.
As successful as these conventional measures were, however, an array of innovative tactics were employed, too. A number of high-profile initiatives aimed at taking on bastions of the old order (and generating significant media coverage) were organized, such as protests at the Miss America pageant, a sit-in at the offices of the Ladies Home Journal, public bra burnings and performances of an all-female activist rock band (an innovation for the time). Many women used humor to make their points, too, as evidenced by the emergence of protest groups like the Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell (W.I.T.C.H.), an organization whose followers intentionally dressed like the namesake of their group’s acronym to taunt those who openly mischaracterized the liberation movement. Given the effectiveness of these efforts, those who condescendingly criticized the crusade (nearly always men) opened their mouths at their peril.
Despite the movement’s many successes, it was not without its challenges, either, some of which came from within as well as from without. For instance, minority women sometimes questioned whether their interests were being adequately represented within the movement, given that many of its leaders and members came from more mainstream economic, social and ethnic backgrounds. Then there was the question of radicalism, which prompted many women to wrestle with the question of “How far is too far?” For example, suggestions put forth by radical Lesbians that all women should abandon the heterosexual lifestyle and willingly embrace their “innate” gay nature didn’t go over well with many of the movement’s more conservative members, who were eager to fight for equal rights but not anxious to be coerced into a change in their sexual orientation. Women who were mothers were similarly chastised at times, their critics contending that children bound them to a more traditional, “unliberated” way of life. When such issues became public knowledge, they sometimes discouraged women who were on the fence about getting involved, especially when word of them was gleefully spread by chauvinists in the backlash movement seeking to discredit and stymie the crusade. But, as the movement progressed, solutions to these challenges gradually emerged, allowing them to be addressed in their own time and on their own terms.
The impact the women’s liberation movement had on society was substantial, to say the least. The gains made between 1966 and 1973, the principal period covered in the film, changed the country in profound ways, something that becomes particularly apparent in film clips depicting American culture before the rise of the crusade. And, while it may be tempting to think that there’s no going back in the wake of these many accomplishments, the picture nevertheless makes it clear that there’s work yet to be done, especially in the area of protecting reproductive rights in battleground states like Texas. But, if contemporary women rise to the challenge in the same way their predecessors did, their opponents have cause for concern.
The movement’s achievements also make apparent its constituents’ proficiency as practitioners of conscious creation, the philosophy that maintains we each manifest our reality through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents. As evidenced in the film, the power inherent in their impassioned beliefs is considerable. Indeed, such potent convictions aptly illustrate the contention of conscious creation author and advocate Jane Roberts that there’s more power in a focused intent than is required to send a rocket to the moon. They also depict what’s attainable when we employ the ability to envision desired outcomes, a notion espoused in The Lost Mode of Prayer by author Gregg Braden, who asserts that it’s entirely possible to reach our goals when we act as if the hoped-for results have already occurred. The visionaries who launched the women’s liberation movement obviously had these elements going for them, and the outcomes speak for themselves.
Of course, much of the success behind these efforts stems from the numbers who got behind them. The women’s liberation movement is a prime example of a consciously created mass event carried out with confidence and determination. The fusion of multiple consciousnesses working together can yield unfathomable rewards, and this crusade illustrates this idea as well as any that society has ever witnessed. The movement’s capacity for invoking sweeping change on a mass scale is undeniable, and, if anyone were to doubt that, one need only look at some the picture’s archive footage depictions of once-commonplace attitudes and social conventions that would never be tolerated today.
The movement’s accomplishments also demonstrate how it’s possible for change to arise at the grass-roots level. Many of the milestones attained through these initiatives were launched by women who came from modest, everyday backgrounds. Their names aren’t household words by any means, but they had impact nonetheless. They saw needs, envisioned solutions and formed beliefs to bring them into being. So it was, for example, for abortion rights advocates Judith Arcana and Heather Booth, who helped women gain access to safe procedures in the days before the landmark Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. The same was true for those who advocated for the needs of women of color, including Fran Beal, Linda Burnham and Eleanor Holmes Norton, who was eventually elected to Congress. And then there were the authors of Our Bodies, Ourselves, who collectively compiled this quintessential work on women’s health and sexuality at a time when no comparable work existed. These remarkable women are just a few of the many liberation pioneers who are profiled in the film, and, even though they may not possess the same notoriety as movement luminaries like Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem (all of whom are depicted in archive footage), their contributions – and creations – are no less significant.
“She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry” is an excellent, capably packaged documentary that covers its subject thoroughly, tautly and poignantly, with a style that’s both informative and refreshingly humorous. Director Mary Dore has skillfully blended a mix of contemporary interview segments and archival footage, creating a finished product that’s both enlightening and entertaining. The film is playing primarily at venues specializing in independent and documentary cinema, with theater listings posted on the picture’s official web site.
When a great idea is blessed with recognition and acceptance, there’s no telling what it can yield. The women’s liberation movement is an example of one of those grand notions, one whose impact has spread far and wide, spanning the globe and even crossing gender lines, amassing support beyond the boundaries of its core constituency. Such success is a fitting tribute to those who gave life to it, and “She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry” effectively echoes those sentiments, providing viewers with a meticulous chronicle that fondly yet objectively recognizes the efforts of those who freely gave so much to benefit so many.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Sign up for the Wisdom Summit!
Looks pretty interesting to me -- and it's free to sign up. Check The Wisdom Summit by clicking here. I'm in!
Monday, March 23, 2015
Check out Amazon Author Central!
Fans of Amazon.com can now see my updated Author Central Page by clicking here. The page lists all the editions of my books, my biography and Tweets from my Twitter feed (@Brent_Marchant). It also allows page visitors to follow me and to start discussions about my work and other related topics. Check it out!
Cover designs by Paul L. Clark, Inspirtainment (www.inspirtainment.com)
Cover designs by Paul L. Clark, Inspirtainment (www.inspirtainment.com)
Friday, March 20, 2015
‘Gett’ puts perspective on trial
“Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem” (2014). Cast: Ronit Elkabetz, Simon Abkarian, Menashe Noy, Sasson Gabai, Eli Gornstein, Rami Danon, Roberto Pollak, Gabi Amrani, Dalia Beger. Directors: Ronit Elkabetz and Shlomi Elkabetz. Screenplay: Ronit Elkabetz and Shlomi Elkabetz. Web site. Trailer.
To many of us, the resolution of certain types of situations may seem obvious. But are they really? Some might contend that such views are overly simplistic, that multiple impressions – and outcomes – are possible. This is especially true in courtroom settings, where the advocates for each side present compelling arguments for their clients. How everything shakes out depends on who makes the better case, a result that’s based (at least in part) on the beliefs employed in interpreting those contentions. That’s the scenario that unfolds in the engaging new Israeli drama, “Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem.”
Viviane Amsalem (Ronit Elkabetz) no longer loves her husband, Elisha (Simon Abkarian), and wants a divorce. There’s just one hitch – she’s unlikely to receive it. As a citizen of Israel, where civil marriage and divorce don’t exist, Viviane can dissolve her union only with the approval of an orthodox rabbinical tribunal and her spouse’s consent. And, under such a male-dominated paradigm, circumstances are nearly always stacked against women; the chances of Viviane receiving her divorce (a gett) depend heavily on what the men want.
Ronit Elkabetz co-wrote, co-directed and plays the title role in “Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem,” the saga of an Israeli woman who endures a painfully protracted proceeding to seek a divorce from her husband before a rabbinical tribunal. Photo courtesy of Music Box Films.
Viviane’s case is particularly problematic, because Elisha refuses to grant her request. As a devoutly religious man, he’s committed to upholding tradition, preserving the supposed sanctity of his marriage at all costs, despite an obvious attitude of indifference toward his wife. The burden thus falls on Viviane to establish why she should receive her gett.
To make her case, Viviane offers some fairly simple reasoning: She’s not in love with Elisha, and it sounds like she never really was, having been more or less coerced into the arrangement. In spite of these circumstances, she nevertheless devoted years to her commitment as a dutiful wife and mother. But, after putting up with that situation for so long, she’s now ready to move on with her life – provided her husband will agree to it.
While conducting the divorce proceeding, the rabbis (Eli Gornstein, Rami Danon, Roberto Pollak) ask Viviane if Elisha has ever been abusive or unfaithful or if he has ever failed to provide for her, grounds for which a divorce would readily be granted. Viviane freely admits that these considerations have never been issues but that she still wants her gett. The rabbis, in response, are dumbfounded – why would a woman willingly want to give up such “stability”? They thus side with Elisha.
Elisha (Simon Abkarian, right), an intractable, quietly vindictive spouse, refuses to grant a divorce to his wife, Viviane (Ronit Elkabetz, left), despite her best efforts and the fervent advocacy of her attorney, Carmel (Menashe Noy, center), in “Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem.” Photo courtesy of Music Box Films.
But Viviane and her attorney, Carmel Ben Tovim (Menashe Noy), press their case, asking, “Why would a man want to stay stuck in a marriage with no love, passion or hope for the future?” Elisha’s response is, “because he can”; if he can no longer have a functioning relationship with his wife, at least he can take “comfort” in the notion that no one else will, either. Vindictiveness thus becomes the reasoning behind Elisha’s refusal, a decision that remains unchanged every time he’s asked.
Despite Elisha’s unwillingness to grant the divorce, Viviane appeals the decision, setting in motion a lengthy process through which family members, friends and neighbors offer their impressions of the relationship to the tribunal. During such testimony, the witnesses present their views of the marriage in response to an array of queries from the rabbis, Carmel, and Elisha’s advocate, Rabbi Shimon (Sasson Gabai). The inquisitors rely on these responses – which range from the sublime to the utterly ridiculous – to qualify the character of the marriage to determine whether Viviane’s divorce request is warranted. In doing so, Carmel makes an impassioned plea for common sense, while Shimon repeatedly and ludicrously suggests that there must be something wrong with Viviane for wanting to give up such an allegedly good deal.
After years of contentious courtroom proceedings and legal maneuverings, the embattled couple struggles to seek resolution. Will Viviane’s request finally be granted? Or will the couple stay perpetually stuck in limbo? With the institution of marriage and the integrity of personal character on trial, it remains to be seen which viewpoint will ultimately prevail.
Viviane Amsalem (Ronit Elkabetz, second from left), aided by her attorney, Carmel Ben Tovim (Menashe Noy, middle), battles an often-buffoonish yet surprisingly convincing opponent, Rabbi Shimon (Sasson Gabai, far right), in attempting to secure a divorce from her husband in the absorbing new Israeli drama, “Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem.” Photo courtesy of Music Box Films.
In examining this situation, one of the questions that arises is, “Why does everyone involved hold such differing views of the circumstances?” The answer, quite simply, lies in the nature of conscious creation, the philosophy that maintains we each manifest our own existence through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents. And, in this case, everything depends on each party’s fundamental beliefs and how they apply them in the creation of their respective realities.
To Viviane, divorce is the only logical course, since there’s seemingly no point in continuing the marriage. In her view, the relationship has outlived whatever usefulness it might have had, and it’s time to move on. She’s now seeking to materialize a reality commensurate with such beliefs.
For Elisha, however, maintaining a traditional Jewish marriage and household is paramount above all else, and he can’t fathom why Viviane won’t cooperate in that endeavor (especially in light of her onetime agreement to it and despite his personal indifference toward her). He sees divorce as anathema to the pursuit of this venture, so he can’t possibly agree to her request. And, to maintain that posture, he justifies his stance by drawing upon one of his most potent creations – the force of law – to galvanize his convictions and what springs forth from them.
As for everyone else involved, their views of these circumstances fall in line with their beliefs, too. Viviane’s attorney and witnesses, for example, hold opinions that support her thinking, while Elisha’s witnesses, his advocate and, to a certain extent, the rabbis side with his views. Since these individuals routinely apply their respective beliefs in the materialization of their realities, it’s only natural that they would do the same in viewing the character of the couple’s marriage. In essence, they employ the same metaphysical lenses and filters to both situations.
The diverse yet uniform character of these individuals’ manifestations – both inside and outside of the courtroom – suggest that these creations are products of their originators’ core beliefs, the intents that underlie most, if not all, of their respective materializations. Such beliefs, in turn, provide the basis of their prevailing perspectives, the overarching outlooks they hold, which all end up getting put on trial during these proceedings. Some of these perspectives are heartbreaking, as evidenced by Viviane’s emotional testimony. Some are indifferent, as is apparent in Elisha’s attitude toward Viviane. Others are impassioned, as seen in Carmel’s fervent advocacy. And others still are utterly laughable, as seen in Shimon’s often-absurd line of questioning. But, no matter what perspectives they adhere to, they’re all ultimately based on the core beliefs that spawn them.
Viviane Amsalem (Ronit Elkabetz, left), a woman trapped in a loveless marriage, consults her attorney, Carmel Ben Tovim (Menashe Noy, right), in seeking a divorce from her indifferent husband in “Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem.” Photo courtesy of Music Box Films.
As divergent as these perspectives are, however, they’re all part of the overall drama playing out here. They each feed into the creation of a mass event, the product of our collective consciousnesses joining forces to materialize a larger, multifaceted phenomenon. The manifestation of an event like this affords an opportunity to examine all of its component perspectives, thereby allowing assessments of the merits and drawbacks of each. Those who participate in such a scenario thus become champions for their respective causes and perspectives, something that accounts for the diverse range of events and emotions that emerge from it, which, in this case, spans a range encompassing everything from the heartfelt to the circus-like.
Given Viviane’s ordeal, one might wonder why she’s chosen to put herself through it. Yet, as a champion for her cause – both personally and for others similarly situated – it could be argued that she needed to create these circumstances as a means to draw attention to the issue. Indeed, to address what some would see as an inherent gender bias in Israeli divorce proceedings, advocates for amending the process must first expose and spotlight this inequity if a movement aimed at changing it is ever to gain a foothold. And, for a nation that claims to aspire to democratic principles, one could easily make a case that such reform is needed.
But, with that said, Viviane clearly faces an uphill battle, given that her opponents – Elisha, Shimon and even the tribunal itself – are equally ardent champions of their cause, the maintenance of the status quo. As anachronistic as their views may seem to some, they nonetheless firmly believe in the perpetuation of tradition. And, because conscious creation maintains that all lines of probability are equally viable, they believe they have a valid case. Whether they succeed, though, depends on how committed they are to their beliefs – and how well the opposition’s intents counter their contentions. In the end, though, as with any type of manifestation, it will all come down to which beliefs prevail.
“Gett” is an absorbing drama, if a bit stagey at times (not entirely unexpected, though, given the courtroom setting of the story). Elkabetz gives a riveting performance, displaying a range of emotions reflective of the many moods that make up the narrative. The picture’s excellent script does a fine job of presenting different sides of the same story, effectively demonstrating how the circumstances of a situation may not always be as cut and dried as we might like to think they are. This affords viewers an opportunity to see how beliefs and perspectives allow a “single” scenario to be interpreted in multiple ways, something we should bear in mind when faced with having to make up our own minds under comparable circumstances. The film, a Golden Globe nominee for best foreign language film, is primarily playing at theaters specializing in foreign and independent cinema.
Situations whose character might seem self-evident at first glance can quickly become muddled when confronted with the slippery slope of perspective. Under such circumstances, different outlooks may emerge. We may become ever more convinced of our position. Or we could inexplicably find ourselves changing our minds. Or we might wind up perplexed, unsure what to believe. But, no matter what happens, we must always remember that our viewpoints stem from us, from the beliefs we hold and the perspectives we maintain. And, once we remind ourselves of that, we may find that it’s just what we need to see our way clear.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
To many of us, the resolution of certain types of situations may seem obvious. But are they really? Some might contend that such views are overly simplistic, that multiple impressions – and outcomes – are possible. This is especially true in courtroom settings, where the advocates for each side present compelling arguments for their clients. How everything shakes out depends on who makes the better case, a result that’s based (at least in part) on the beliefs employed in interpreting those contentions. That’s the scenario that unfolds in the engaging new Israeli drama, “Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem.”
Viviane Amsalem (Ronit Elkabetz) no longer loves her husband, Elisha (Simon Abkarian), and wants a divorce. There’s just one hitch – she’s unlikely to receive it. As a citizen of Israel, where civil marriage and divorce don’t exist, Viviane can dissolve her union only with the approval of an orthodox rabbinical tribunal and her spouse’s consent. And, under such a male-dominated paradigm, circumstances are nearly always stacked against women; the chances of Viviane receiving her divorce (a gett) depend heavily on what the men want.
Viviane’s case is particularly problematic, because Elisha refuses to grant her request. As a devoutly religious man, he’s committed to upholding tradition, preserving the supposed sanctity of his marriage at all costs, despite an obvious attitude of indifference toward his wife. The burden thus falls on Viviane to establish why she should receive her gett.
To make her case, Viviane offers some fairly simple reasoning: She’s not in love with Elisha, and it sounds like she never really was, having been more or less coerced into the arrangement. In spite of these circumstances, she nevertheless devoted years to her commitment as a dutiful wife and mother. But, after putting up with that situation for so long, she’s now ready to move on with her life – provided her husband will agree to it.
While conducting the divorce proceeding, the rabbis (Eli Gornstein, Rami Danon, Roberto Pollak) ask Viviane if Elisha has ever been abusive or unfaithful or if he has ever failed to provide for her, grounds for which a divorce would readily be granted. Viviane freely admits that these considerations have never been issues but that she still wants her gett. The rabbis, in response, are dumbfounded – why would a woman willingly want to give up such “stability”? They thus side with Elisha.
But Viviane and her attorney, Carmel Ben Tovim (Menashe Noy), press their case, asking, “Why would a man want to stay stuck in a marriage with no love, passion or hope for the future?” Elisha’s response is, “because he can”; if he can no longer have a functioning relationship with his wife, at least he can take “comfort” in the notion that no one else will, either. Vindictiveness thus becomes the reasoning behind Elisha’s refusal, a decision that remains unchanged every time he’s asked.
Despite Elisha’s unwillingness to grant the divorce, Viviane appeals the decision, setting in motion a lengthy process through which family members, friends and neighbors offer their impressions of the relationship to the tribunal. During such testimony, the witnesses present their views of the marriage in response to an array of queries from the rabbis, Carmel, and Elisha’s advocate, Rabbi Shimon (Sasson Gabai). The inquisitors rely on these responses – which range from the sublime to the utterly ridiculous – to qualify the character of the marriage to determine whether Viviane’s divorce request is warranted. In doing so, Carmel makes an impassioned plea for common sense, while Shimon repeatedly and ludicrously suggests that there must be something wrong with Viviane for wanting to give up such an allegedly good deal.
After years of contentious courtroom proceedings and legal maneuverings, the embattled couple struggles to seek resolution. Will Viviane’s request finally be granted? Or will the couple stay perpetually stuck in limbo? With the institution of marriage and the integrity of personal character on trial, it remains to be seen which viewpoint will ultimately prevail.
In examining this situation, one of the questions that arises is, “Why does everyone involved hold such differing views of the circumstances?” The answer, quite simply, lies in the nature of conscious creation, the philosophy that maintains we each manifest our own existence through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents. And, in this case, everything depends on each party’s fundamental beliefs and how they apply them in the creation of their respective realities.
To Viviane, divorce is the only logical course, since there’s seemingly no point in continuing the marriage. In her view, the relationship has outlived whatever usefulness it might have had, and it’s time to move on. She’s now seeking to materialize a reality commensurate with such beliefs.
For Elisha, however, maintaining a traditional Jewish marriage and household is paramount above all else, and he can’t fathom why Viviane won’t cooperate in that endeavor (especially in light of her onetime agreement to it and despite his personal indifference toward her). He sees divorce as anathema to the pursuit of this venture, so he can’t possibly agree to her request. And, to maintain that posture, he justifies his stance by drawing upon one of his most potent creations – the force of law – to galvanize his convictions and what springs forth from them.
As for everyone else involved, their views of these circumstances fall in line with their beliefs, too. Viviane’s attorney and witnesses, for example, hold opinions that support her thinking, while Elisha’s witnesses, his advocate and, to a certain extent, the rabbis side with his views. Since these individuals routinely apply their respective beliefs in the materialization of their realities, it’s only natural that they would do the same in viewing the character of the couple’s marriage. In essence, they employ the same metaphysical lenses and filters to both situations.
The diverse yet uniform character of these individuals’ manifestations – both inside and outside of the courtroom – suggest that these creations are products of their originators’ core beliefs, the intents that underlie most, if not all, of their respective materializations. Such beliefs, in turn, provide the basis of their prevailing perspectives, the overarching outlooks they hold, which all end up getting put on trial during these proceedings. Some of these perspectives are heartbreaking, as evidenced by Viviane’s emotional testimony. Some are indifferent, as is apparent in Elisha’s attitude toward Viviane. Others are impassioned, as seen in Carmel’s fervent advocacy. And others still are utterly laughable, as seen in Shimon’s often-absurd line of questioning. But, no matter what perspectives they adhere to, they’re all ultimately based on the core beliefs that spawn them.
As divergent as these perspectives are, however, they’re all part of the overall drama playing out here. They each feed into the creation of a mass event, the product of our collective consciousnesses joining forces to materialize a larger, multifaceted phenomenon. The manifestation of an event like this affords an opportunity to examine all of its component perspectives, thereby allowing assessments of the merits and drawbacks of each. Those who participate in such a scenario thus become champions for their respective causes and perspectives, something that accounts for the diverse range of events and emotions that emerge from it, which, in this case, spans a range encompassing everything from the heartfelt to the circus-like.
Given Viviane’s ordeal, one might wonder why she’s chosen to put herself through it. Yet, as a champion for her cause – both personally and for others similarly situated – it could be argued that she needed to create these circumstances as a means to draw attention to the issue. Indeed, to address what some would see as an inherent gender bias in Israeli divorce proceedings, advocates for amending the process must first expose and spotlight this inequity if a movement aimed at changing it is ever to gain a foothold. And, for a nation that claims to aspire to democratic principles, one could easily make a case that such reform is needed.
But, with that said, Viviane clearly faces an uphill battle, given that her opponents – Elisha, Shimon and even the tribunal itself – are equally ardent champions of their cause, the maintenance of the status quo. As anachronistic as their views may seem to some, they nonetheless firmly believe in the perpetuation of tradition. And, because conscious creation maintains that all lines of probability are equally viable, they believe they have a valid case. Whether they succeed, though, depends on how committed they are to their beliefs – and how well the opposition’s intents counter their contentions. In the end, though, as with any type of manifestation, it will all come down to which beliefs prevail.
“Gett” is an absorbing drama, if a bit stagey at times (not entirely unexpected, though, given the courtroom setting of the story). Elkabetz gives a riveting performance, displaying a range of emotions reflective of the many moods that make up the narrative. The picture’s excellent script does a fine job of presenting different sides of the same story, effectively demonstrating how the circumstances of a situation may not always be as cut and dried as we might like to think they are. This affords viewers an opportunity to see how beliefs and perspectives allow a “single” scenario to be interpreted in multiple ways, something we should bear in mind when faced with having to make up our own minds under comparable circumstances. The film, a Golden Globe nominee for best foreign language film, is primarily playing at theaters specializing in foreign and independent cinema.
Situations whose character might seem self-evident at first glance can quickly become muddled when confronted with the slippery slope of perspective. Under such circumstances, different outlooks may emerge. We may become ever more convinced of our position. Or we could inexplicably find ourselves changing our minds. Or we might wind up perplexed, unsure what to believe. But, no matter what happens, we must always remember that our viewpoints stem from us, from the beliefs we hold and the perspectives we maintain. And, once we remind ourselves of that, we may find that it’s just what we need to see our way clear.
Copyright © 2015, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)