‘Rust and Bone’ examines reinventing oneself

"Rust and Bone" ("De rouille et d’os") (2012). Cast: Marion Cotillard, Matthias Schoenaerts, Armand Verdure, Corinne Masiero, Jean-Michel Correia, Yannick Choirat, Céline Sallette, Bouli Lanners, Mourad Frarema. Director: Jacques Audiard. Screenplay: Jacques Audiard and Thomas Bidegain. Story: Craig Davidson. Web site. Trailer.

Starting over in life can be quite daunting, particularly when one is faced with exceptionally devastating conditions. Getting a foothold on a new way of living can be difficult, too, filling one’s head with images of the seeming futility of grasping at those proverbial straws. But, no matter how seemingly cruel such circumstances might appear, beginning anew is essential to our continued exploration of physical existence as two lost souls discover for themselves in the edgy new French romance, "Rust and Bone."

Alain "Ali" van Versch (Matthias Schoenaerts) is seeking a fresh start. As a single father with virtually no money in his pocket and his five-year-old son Sam (Armand Verdure) in tow, he leaves his home in northern France for the southern resort town of Antibes, where his sister Anna (Corinne Masiero) has agreed to take him in while he gets his house in order. The former security guard who dabbled as a kick boxer quickly lands a job as a bouncer at a local nightclub. Things seem to be shaping up well, but they take an unexpected turn one night while at work.

In the course of breaking up a bar fight, he comes to the aid of a young woman caught up in the midst of the melee, Stéphanie (Marion Cotillard). Unlike most of the other women at the club, whom he tends to look upon mostly as potential one-night stands, he’s strangely captivated by this unlikely damsel in distress, who’s simultaneously aloof and alluring. He goes out of his way to help her, doing more than he typically would under the circumstances, eventually giving her a ride home – and his phone number.

Not long thereafter, Stéphanie experiences a serious setback of her own. As an orca trainer at the local marine park, she’s severely injured during a showtime accident that costs her both of her legs. Depressed and confined to a wheelchair, she decides to make use of the phone number of the stranger who was so kind to her, reaching out not only for his assistance but also in an effort to reconnect with life. They slowly forge a bond, one that simultaneously gives Stéphanie a new will to live and that inspires Ali to pursue the boxing interests he had previously left behind. It’s an unusual relationship but one that transcends love; it’s also one that pushes each partner to better understand themselves and to grow as individuals, an outcome that pays benefits in myriad ways.

Reinventing oneself in the face of adversity can be a daunting task, especially when one harbors personal beliefs that run counter to, or even undermine, such attempts at transformation. It’s easy to allow oneself to become discouraged, especially when the challenges mount and progress is slow. But having someone to serve as a source of encouragement can go a long way to dispel such obstacles, especially when one views the other as having greater tests to overcome. Such inspiration can lead to levels of personal growth never dreamed possible.

Of course, to reinvent ourselves, we need to know from whence we’re starting. This involves becoming intimately familiar with who we truly are and getting real about it. We need to take stock of the beliefs we hold and how they manifest the reality we experience through the conscious creation process. Only by doing so can we see where alterations and adjustments are needed to come up with new beliefs that are more in line with the existence we ultimately hope to create.

Accomplishing this sometimes requires us to get in touch with feelings that are very raw. We have to take a hard look at ourselves, a process that’s often far from easy. Ali, for example, needs to overcome the self-centeredness that has characterized much of his life. But, to attain that goal, he must first recognize its existence before he can even begin to think about changing it, a behavior to which he has been largely oblivious. In doing so, he must also take responsibility for all of the creations that arise within his life, and there’s no better tonic for this than having to become accountable for the materializations that comprise our existence. Having to take on the responsibility of caring for a five-year-old child and a disabled girlfriend can go a long way to achieving that objective for someone trying to get over being preoccupied with only himself. Such actions open new doors for us, leading to whole new levels of personal growth and development.

Stéphanie has challenges of her own to overcome as well. In addition to rising above the despair over the loss of her limbs, she must learn that there are other things in life to love than her beloved whales, for all practical purposes the almost-exclusive source of joy in her life before her accident. Because she’s unable to continue her work at the marine park, Stéphanie must find a new outlet for her passions and affections. And, if people are to become the beneficiaries of such emotions, she must come to realize that being aloof toward them won’t do much to win them over. A new approach, and beliefs that support it, are clearly needed. But the payoff from such newfound awareness can be tremendous, such as the realization that love may very well arise from sources that weren’t previously envisioned.

"Rust and Bone" is a film full of passions, many of which are depicted in a very honest, graphic manner. The boxing sequences and love scenes, for instance, are both filmed in a very uncompromising manner, so sensitive viewers take heed. The picture also features passionate, heartfelt portrayals by the two leads, particularly Cotillard, who has deservedly earned best actress nominations for her outstanding performance in the annual Golden Globe, Screen Actors Guild and Critics Choice award competitions. The movie itself has also earned its own share of accolades, capturing nominations for best foreign film in the Golden Globe, Critics Choice and Independent Spirit award competitions.

As well as the characters are fleshed out, however, their motivations aren’t always made as clear as they could be. A lot is left to implication, which, if unrecognized, might justifiably lead some viewers to think that the narrative meanders aimlessly at times, a shortcoming that probably could have been overcome with some additional clarity in the writing, editing and direction. Nevertheless, this drawback doesn’t seriously detract from an otherwise-fine film. The picture’s performances, cinematography, soundtrack and emotional intensity more than make up for this.

The struggle to be reborn can be a challenging one, but it can be made that much easier when there’s a companion for the journey, someone to offer encouragement, inspiration and, above all, love. When faced with such circumstances, perhaps intentionally seeking to draw someone to us who can aid us in our efforts is one of the wisest courses we can follow, providing us with a source of support, reassurance and comfort. "Rust and Bone" illustrates one such example of this and does so without becoming sloppy or sentimental in the process. It shows us how love can help conquer all – and rather handily at that.

Photo © by Roger Arpajou/Why Not Productions, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.

Copyright © 2012-13, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

Check out the Latest at Master Heart Magazine!

Check out my latest film review, Truth and deceit take center stage in 'Argo', an in-depth look at the new Ben Affleck thriller, "Argo," available at Master Heart Magazine (www.MasterHeartMagazine.com). To find out more about the movie, click here, and to see the film's trailer, click here.

Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures

‘Hitchcock’ portrays a master creator at work

“Hitchcock” (2012). Cast: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, Danny Huston, Toni Collette, Michael Stuhlbarg, Michael Wincott, Jessica Biel, James D’Arcy, Richard Portnow, Ralph Macchio, Kurtwood Smith, Josh Yeo. Director: Sacha Gervasi. Screenplay: John J. McLaughlin. Book: Stephen Rebello, Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho. Web Site. Trailer.

It’s always a joy to watch a master creator at work, no matter what endeavor is being pursued. The passion for producing one’s heartfelt desires is indeed something to behold, not only for the one ensconced in the creative process but also for anyone fortunate enough just to watch. Such is the focus of the engaging new biopic, “Hitchcock.”

In 1959, legendary film director Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) was at the top of his game. Having just released “North by Northwest,” yet another in a string of successful pictures, he was riding high in Hollywood. Or was he? The master of suspense had earned a well-deserved reputation for making thrillers that captivated viewers and lit up box offices. But, despite his impressive track record, some began raising questions about the filmmaker and his work. He had made so many movies like his most recent release that some were wondering whether his creativity had peaked. Some also suggested that his recent foray into television with his enormously popular series Alfred Hitchcock Presents had “cheapened” his image as an artist. So was the auteur truly a man at the pinnacle of his career? Or was he perched atop the crest of a wave that was about to come crashing down?

As for the director himself, in spite of his advancing age and faltering health, he believed he still had some untapped creativity in the tank. Nevertheless, he also recognized that perhaps his work was becoming a little stale, that maybe he had taken his singular style of suspense as far as it could go and needed to plumb new territory if he really wanted to push the creative envelope. To address this, he believed he needed to tackle material that was uniquely fresh and unreservedly audacious. But he also knew he’d meet with studio resistance in taking on such a risky project, mainly because any of his prior films that attempted to chart new ground, such as “Vertigo” (1958), generally (and inexplicably) bombed at the box office.

No matter how daunting these circumstances were, though, Hitchcock refused to be deterred, pushing ahead to find the right story that would meet his criteria, and he found it in, of all places, a chilling, grisly novel titled Psycho, by Robert Bloch. The book, loosely based on true events, chronicled the gruesome exploits of serial killer Norman Bates, and it told a horrific tale, one that Hitchcock knew would make a terrific picture.

Needless to say, given the movie’s grotesque subject matter (which represented new territory in the film industry at the time), production on “Psycho” (1960) met with resistance at every turn. Members of the media were aghast at the picture’s premise when Hitchcock introduced it at a press conference. Paramount Pictures President Barney Balaban (Richard Portnow) refused to bankroll it. Production Code Administrator Geoffrey Shurlock (Kurtwood Smith), who oversaw film industry censorship issues, threatened to withhold approval of the movie’s release certificate. Even Hitchcock’s wife and fiercely loyal collaborator, Alma Reville (Helen Mirren), was uncharacteristically hesitant about supporting the project, viewing it as a sensationalist, sadistic exercise that was beneath his considerable talent, sarcastically suggesting that maybe he should produce it as a musical starring Doris Day.

Hitchcock disagreed, criticisms and impediments notwithstanding, going so far as to mortgage his home to raise money and fund the movie as an independent production, with the studio serving only as distributor. He cast actress Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johansson) as his leading lady and relative newcomer Anthony Perkins (James D’Arcy) as the troubled protagonist, along with Hollywood staple Vera Miles (Jessica Biel) in a supporting role. “Psycho” was a huge gamble financially, artistically and professionally, but, in the end, it was one that paid off handsomely, becoming the most successful film of Hitchcock’s career.

So much for the detractors.

Regardless of what one might think about the subject matter of Hitchcock’s films, one can’t deny that he truly was a master of his genre. “Psycho” in particular, as gruesome as it was, broke cinematic ground in many ways, featuring unprecedented depictions of violent and suggestive content never before seen on screen. It was even the first picture to show the highly controversial image of a flushing toilet (horrors!). But, for better or worse, “Psycho” went on to attain considerable acclaim, including the distinction of being named the top celluloid thriller of all time according to the American Film Institute.

Hitchcock’s tremendous accomplishments, both in “Psycho” and in virtually all of his films, stemmed from his conscious creation proficiency. He believed so passionately in his work that the elements of his creations came together with seemingly effortless precision, just as any materialization birthed by an ardent conscious creator operating from a position of unfettered intent would inevitably manifest. And, because Hitchcock intuitively understood this, success naturally followed. Like a maestro conducting a symphony, he took control of the creative process and milked it for all it was worth, even down to his expert, perfectly timed manipulation of audience responses (wait until you see the sequence portraying Hitchcock’s reaction to viewers seeing the film for the first time!).

Even when faced with challenges to overcome, Hitchcock was masterful at being able to attract workable solutions. For instance, when he searched for someone to adapt Bloch’s novel for the screen, he “fortuitously” stumbled upon Joseph Stefano (Ralph Macchio), an aspiring script writer with his own share of self-avowed neuroses (and who better to flesh out a character like Norman Bates?). Similarly, in casting Anthony Perkins as the tortured protagonist, Hitchcock found the perfect actor for the part, especially when Perkins confided to the director that there were elements of his character that he could relate to personally. Such synchronicities, as macabre as they might be, are nevertheless indicative of a conscious creator operating in top form.

Of course, the director’s success as a conscious creator arose in large part from him being true to himself and not really caring what others thought about it, a quality that typified both his personal and professional lives. For example, he made little attempt to conceal his passions for excess and the unconventional, be it in his work, his love of food and drink, and his infatuation with blonde femme fatales. He embraced such obsessions, attitudes and behaviors, no matter how crass, self-serving or unusual they may have been perceived, even by his beloved Alma.

Hitchcock also didn’t let fear stand in his way. He had no reservation examining subjects that no one else would touch. He believed, as conscious creation maintains, that all probabilities are capable of being expressed, including those that arise from “the dark side,” a quality that he sincerely believed we each possess. Some of us would probably like to deny our shadow’s existence, but Hitchcock wasn’t afraid to acknowledge it, or even to explore it, as he did unhesitatingly (albeit “benignly”) through his films. In that regard, we should all be so forthright.

When in need of insight, Hitchcock readily drew upon the resources available to him, too, again no matter how unconventional they were. For example, when he sought inspiration during the filming of “Psycho,” he would try to envision what the killer would do, occasionally even appearing to tap into the consciousness of Ed Gein (Michael Wincott), the real-life individual on whom Norman’s character was based. The “advice” of this ghoulish muse would invariably help to show him the way. Likewise, when shooting the infamous shower scene in “Psycho,” Hitchcock was not getting the reaction he wanted out of his leading lady; he believed Janet Leigh was coming across too timidly for the imminent terror her character was facing, and the actress’s repeated failure to live up to his expectations angered him. He became so frustrated at this that he assumed the reins of Bates’s character and lunged ferociously at Leigh, his rage fueled by the anger he was harboring toward those who he thought were sabotaging his project, such as Balaban and Shurlock. Needless to say, that impulsive gesture got him the reaction he was looking for.

But what was perhaps most significant about Hitchcock’s work as a filmmaker (and his proficiency as a conscious creator) was his enduring desire to innovate. As noted above, he believed he still had untapped creativity within him at a time when some were suggesting that he should hang things up. He proved through his choice of “Psycho” as a project, his inventiveness in filming the picture, his inspired marketing campaign for the movie and even his novel means of financing it (atypical at the time) that he was willing to try the untried, pushing the envelope not only for himself but also for his art form and his industry. His eagerness to boldly take things in such new directions is one of the hallmarks of conscious creation, aptly reflecting the oft-cited observation of author/philosopher Jane Roberts that “we’re all in a constant state of becoming.”

“Hitchcock” is one of the most enjoyable movies I’ve seen in a long time, fun in virtually every respect. It’s a terrifically campy romp through the Hollywood of 1960, a well-made period piece reminiscent of movies like “My Week with Marilyn” (2011), meticulous in all of its historical details. It also features ample laughs and superb performances by Hopkins (a strong awards contender), Mirren and a fine supporting cast. The film’s portrayal of Hitchcock’s private life (particularly the strain in his relationship with Alma) doesn’t work quite as well as its depiction of his professional and creative sides, but it doesn’t take away from the picture’s overall quality either.

Alfred Hitchcock truly was an original, a one-of-a-kind whose likes and works may be imitated but never duplicated (as the forgettable 1998 remake of “Psycho” clearly illustrates). His contributions to cinema, no matter how one sees them, were undeniably innovative, opening doors that were previously closed, even unenvisioned, thereby paving the way for the many successors who would follow. In conscious creation terms, this is known as living out one’s value fulfillment, and live it out he did, masterfully and with distinction. “Hitchcock” is a fitting tribute to the man and his art and to what we can all achieve when we allow ourselves to be the master creators we were all born to be.

Photo by Suzanne Tenner, courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.

Copyright © 2012, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

Noble intents, practical thinking join forces in ‘Lincoln’

“Lincoln” (2012). Cast: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Hal Holbrook, John Hawkes, Jackie Earle Haley, Michael Stuhlbarg, Jared Harris, Lee Pace, Peter McRobbie, Gulliver McGrath, Gloria Reuben, Boris McGiver, David Costabile, Walton Goggins, David Warshofsky, Colman Domingo, David Oyelowo, Bill Raymond. Director: Steven Spielberg. Screenplay: Tony Kushner. Book: Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. Web site. Trailer.

Bold moves often pay off in big rewards. Thinking through one’s aspirations, and then following them up with practical, inspired action, frequently yield tremendous benefits, not only for the initiator, but also for all who are touched by their realization. It’s a concept made plain in the sweeping new historical drama, “Lincoln.”

In January 1865, not long after Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) was elected to his second term as the sixteenth President of the United States, the commander-in-chief oversaw the waning days of the American Civil War, an exceedingly bloody conflict that divided the nation and turned brother against brother. Yet, despite the heavy toll that the war had taken on the country, it was only a matter of time before the Union forces led by General Ulysses S. Grant (Jared Harris) would defeat their Confederate counterparts.

But Lincoln wanted more than just an end to the conflict; he also sought to have the House of Representatives pass a Constitutional amendment, to be sent to the states for ratification, bringing a formal end to slavery, one of the driving forces that prompted the outbreak of the war. And, even though he had issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves two years earlier, Lincoln was uncertain whether this Presidential directive would successfully withstand legal challenges after the war’s end, so he wanted the amendment passed to ensure slavery’s demise – once and for all.

Since slavery had contributed so significantly to the nation’s deep, painful schism, Lincoln was convinced that ending this abomination was essential to reunite the country and heal its wounds. But, even more than that, he believed it was fundamentally the right thing to do. However, with the conflict quickly drawing to a close and the peace movement steadily gaining momentum, Lincoln had to act fast to see his goal realized. The nation had grown war weary, so there was strong support to end hostilities and negotiate peace with the Confederacy, regardless of what happened on the slavery issue. Even avid proponents of the amendment, such as Francis Preston Blair (Hal Holbrook), the founder of Lincoln’s own political party, believed the Union had to pursue peace overtures with the South, an initiative that the President reluctantly sanctioned to secure Blair’s backing for solidifying support for the amendment among his fellow Republicans in the House.

Appeasing both the abolitionists and the pacifists required Lincoln to walk a rather precarious tightrope, an effort that often required him to keep mum on certain matters, such as Blair’s peacemaking mission. And, to win over enough votes for passage of the amendment, he had to assemble a coalition of members of both political parties, an effort that took a great deal of old-fashioned horse trading to accomplish. However, with the zealous support of abolitionist legislator Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones), the pragmatic diplomacy of Secretary of State William Seward (David Strathairn), and the wheeling and dealing of lobbyist/operative William Bilbo (James Spader), Lincoln genuinely believed he could secure the amendment’s passage – provided that time didn’t run out on him first.

In addition to balancing all of his political priorities, Lincoln had his share of domestic challenges to juggle at the time. Chief among them was the ongoing emotional instability of his wife, First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln (Sally Field), who was devastated by the loss of their son Willie in 1862. The President and First Lady also wrestled with the decision of their son Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) to enlist in the military, a move that both parents strongly opposed. Yet, for all of the trials and tribulations that Lincoln encountered in both his political and family lives, none of them would compare to the one he would face on a fateful evening at the theatre in April 1865.

Conscious creators who truly understand how the philosophy works realize that the external reality we experience springs forth from our internal beliefs and intents. The more aware we are of those aims, the more proficient we become at manifesting an existence that suits us. Indeed, the more clearly we express ourselves metaphysically, the more likely we’re able to attract to us materializations in line with our expectations. Inspiration thus soars, making potential solutions more readily apparent and goals more readily attainable. In essence, then, conscious creation, when properly executed, makes it possible to bring our internal and external worlds into alignment, marrying the intangible and the tangible, the theoretical and the pragmatic, even the idealistic and the achievable.

For his part, Lincoln understood this need for balance perfectly. He truly believed that noble intents could give birth to virtuous outcomes. But he also realized that practical means were frequently required to bring such results into being; vacuous optimism and purely altruistic arguments simply wouldn’t cut it. And, even if workable solutions didn’t instantly materialize when needed, he knew intuitively that they would synchronistically appear.

For instance, Lincoln was convinced that he could win over the support of representatives who were reluctant to back the Constitutional amendment, but he also knew that it would take more than just lofty speeches to get them in his corner. Some palms would need to be greased, some compromises would have to be struck and even some gentle arm-twisting was in order. But, given the tremendous stakes at issue – the elimination of slavery and the reunification of the nation – he wasn’t above employing such shrewd measures if they would further these causes and contribute to the eventual manifestation of his heartfelt beliefs. Those seeking fulfillment of idealistic objectives would be wise to take a cue from Lincoln’s success, because wishful thinking or merely hoping desired outcomes into being in most instances won’t suffice (at least as long as we choose to express ourselves as physical beings).

Lincoln was also acutely aware that it was unrealistic to bring about sweeping radical change all at once. Like many of his fellow abolitionists, he envisioned a nation in which the freed slaves would be able to enjoy a broad range of rights, such as voting. But, considering the magnitude of the change that abolishing slavery entailed, he realized that he couldn’t aggressively push such a progressive agenda at the time; getting an amendment passed to eliminate an institution that had been around since colonial times was quite an exacting ordeal in itself. Nevertheless, he was aware of the power of beliefs and of how ideas grow, so, with the amendment’s passage secured, he wasn’t averse to planting seeds for the future, introducing these notions into the national consciousness in hopes that they would one day take root (and we all know how those efforts eventually turned out).

Again, those looking to foment significant changes, be they in one’s own life or in society at large, should take a page from Lincoln on this. Even if the changes don’t occur in one’s own lifetime, that doesn’t mean they won’t eventually materialize. Individuals from all walks of life and all segments of society, from Susan B. Anthony to Jackie Robinson to Harvey Milk to Barack Obama, can attest to what the power of beliefs and their sustained nurturing can make possible.

Of course, none of us would get anywhere with this unless we’re also willing to face our fears. Drastic changes like those Lincoln sought to implement can be quite intimidating, if for no other reason than they involve trying the untried, stepping into the realm of uncharted territory, a daunting experience for many of us, to say the least. However, we’ll never know what can come from those dreamed-of probabilities unless we’re willing to take the first steps to explore them. As this film illustrates, Lincoln was willing to do that, and he set an example we can all draw from in our own pursuits into the unknown.

In many regards, “Lincoln” is quite an accomplished piece of filmmaking. As a period piece, it’s technically meticulous in its detail. And, as an actor’s showcase, it provides an excellent venue for the cast members to brilliantly show off their considerable talent, including Jones, Field, Strathairn and Holbrook, all of whom are strong, or at least potential, contenders for awards consideration. But Day-Lewis is the real star of this show; his magnificent portrayal of the beleaguered President easily makes him the frontrunner for best lead actor in this year’s awards competitions. In addition, John Williams’ beautiful original score, one of his best in years, provides a majestic musical backdrop for the action taking place on screen.

For all its virtues, however, “Lincoln” suffers from one huge undermining flaw – its tedious pacing. The campaign to secure passage of the Thirteenth Amendment is examined in such painstaking detail that the picture’s flow gets bogged down, resulting in a series of protracted talky sequences that can try the patience of even the most ardent history buff, yours truly included (at the screening I attended, audience members began walking out after only 45 minutes into the movie’s 2½-hour runtime).

In my opinion, the main problem is that the film never should have been made for the big screen. Since there is so little action and so much dialogue, “Lincoln” would have been a project much better suited to the small screen – as a public television broadcast or DVD – or as a stage play. It’s the kind of story that you want to watch when time isn’t an issue, perhaps while curled up on the couch on a gloomy winter afternoon or while spending a pleasant Saturday evening at the theatre. In its present form, however, it’s wasted on the big screen, rarely capitalizing on the attributes this cinematic milieu affords. Perhaps it will fare better as a home entertainment vehicle.

Still, despite this inherent drawback, the story in “Lincoln” is one worthy of being told. Were it not for the diligence of Lincoln’s efforts in securing the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, the United States would likely be a very different country today. His passion, tenacity, practicality, leadership and skillful political maneuvering combined to bring about one of the biggest fundamental changes in the nation’s character, one that has often made it an example for other emerging democracies to emulate. And we’d all be wise to follow that inspired lead in our personal lives as well.

Photo by David James, courtesy of Dreamworks II Distribution Co. LLC.

Copyright © 2012, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

‘Silver Linings Playbook’ seeks a game plan for living

"Silver Linings Playbook" (2012). Cast: Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver, Chris Tucker, Anupam Kher, John Ortiz, Julia Stiles, Shea Whigham, Paul Herman, Dash Mihok, Cheryl Williams, Patrick McDade, Brea Bee. Director: David O. Russell. Screenplay: David O. Russell. Book: Matthew Quick. Web site. Trailer.

As any sports enthusiast can attest, it helps to have a game plan to achieve victory. The same is true in life, a challenge made all the more onerous when hampered by extenuating circumstances. The search for solutions under such conditions can be quite trying, too, as is revealed in the edgy romantic comedy, "Silver Linings Playbook."

Pat Solatano Jr. (Bradley Cooper) has a full plate to manage. Having been released from a mental health care facility where he was committed after flying into a jealous rage and assaulting the lover of his cheating wife Nikki (Brea Bee), he’s now attempting to reintegrate himself back into the routine of everyday life. He’s placed in the custody of his parents, Dolores (Jacki Weaver) and Pat Sr. (Robert De Niro), a risky proposition for an aging couple that has its own share of challenges to contend with, such as dad’s unemployment, his tendency toward obsessive-compulsive behavior and his habitual bookmaking on Philadelphia Eagles football games. Yet the folks’ issues pale in comparison to those of their son, who, despite eight months of treatment, is still seriously in need of getting a grip on reality.

While it’s important that Pat Jr. get a handle on his bipolar condition (diligently taking his meds and following the advice of his psychiatrist (Anupam Kher) would probably help), it’s more crucial that he make the attempt to face his life realistically. Specifically, he needs to address his denial regarding the state of his marriage, which, for all practical purposes, is over. Nikki wants nothing to do with Pat, even going so far as having a restraining order imposed against him, prohibiting all contact with her.

Nevertheless, Pat still loves Nikki, and he sincerely believes she still loves him. He’s desperate to prove his devotion and that he’s a changed man, and he’s willing to do anything to rekindle their romance, no matter what the cost. And, despite the odds seemingly being stacked against him, he’s convinced he can achieve the results he wants. Pat believes "silver linings" are not only possible but a foregone conclusion as long as he maintains a positive attitude and takes the right steps from his personal playbook to achieve them. But is this a realistic outlook or uncontrolled wishful thinking?

Not long after his release, Pat attends a dinner party hosted by his friends Ronnie (John Ortiz) and Veronica (Julia Stiles), one of Nikki’s best girlfriends. At the party, the couple introduces Pat to Veronica’s younger sister, Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a recent widow with her own share of personal issues. Tiffany quickly takes a liking to Pat (her cool, detached way of showing it notwithstanding), but Pat resists her advances, citing the fact that he’s married. Tiffany tries to win him over, however, by mentioning that she’s occasionally in contact with Nikki through her older sister. She even says that she might be able to slip Nikki a letter from him, a clear violation of Pat’s restraining order, but a chance that both Pat and Tiffany are willing to take, each for their own very different reasons.

Pat ultimately decides to take Tiffany up on her offer, but she agrees on one condition: that Pat be her partner in an upcoming dance competition. Pat initially dismisses the idea, but, when faced with the prospect that this might be the only way to get a message to Nikki, he relents and agrees to Tiffany’s request. Much to his surprise, he quickly finds this new partnership quite enjoyable. In fact, dancing proves to be very therapeutic, enabling him to achieve focus in his life in ways that other measures previously haven’t allowed. Of course, the positive changes in Pat’s life occur as a result of more than just the dancing; his relationship with his partner has something to do with it, too. And, as the intimacy between the partners grows, it becomes apparent that something more than just two-stepping may be going on. It just might even make Pat forget all about wanting to see his message delivered.

Grasping the essence of our own reality is perhaps one of the most daunting tasks that budding practitioners of conscious creation will ever undertake. It requires waking up to the true nature of how our existence manifests, becoming aware of how our beliefs shape the character of the world around us. And that’s often difficult enough when we approach the task under "normal" conditions, but, when mental health issues get thrown into the mix, the challenge becomes that much more difficult (and one that those who are unaffected frequently misunderstand). Indeed, as conscious creation author Jane Roberts and her noncorporeal channeled entity Seth wrote in their seminal work The Nature of Personal Reality, mental illness is typically a condition in which those affected by it are generally incapable of reconciling the beliefs they hold for manifesting their realities with those employed by the rest of society, thereby creating a fundamental disconnect between the two. Overcoming that discrepancy thus becomes the principal task that the afflicted must face, one fraught with multiple challenges on multiple levels. And that’s essentially what Pat and, to a lesser degree, Tiffany must deal with if they ever hope to achieve peace of mind and contentment in their lives. The question, of course, is, will they be successful?

Getting to that point involves attaining mastery and control over one’s creations and the beliefs that spawn them. It requires an awareness of how the process works and the synchronicities that help point the way. It involves materializing elements that fill in the gaps needed to achieve happiness and fulfillment. But, perhaps even more importantly, it requires us to let go of the elements of our lives that no longer serve us, as well as whatever ego-driven pride that we’ve allowed to become associated with their creation. And all of this calls for a firm commitment on our part to see things through and to take responsibility for what we’ve done and will do going forward. That can be a pretty tall order for someone whose mental state is operating capably, but it can be that much more difficult for someone who’s combatting mental illness on top of it. Such are the challenges that the protagonists in this film must face, and most of us probably wouldn’t envy their burdens.

Fortunately, there are ways of compensating for inherent "deficiencies" that can help to keep us on track, and this is where the role of our conscience comes into play. Manifestations reflecting its presence in our lives can work wonders for keeping us in line. For instance, throughout the picture, Pat’s movements are shadowed by a policeman, Officer Keogh (Dash Mihok), who’s charged with keeping tabs on his actions and whereabouts. Whenever Pat gets out of line, the good constable always seems to have a way of showing up and reminding his subject of what he must to do to toe the line. To some this might seem like a strong-arm tactic, but, if Pat is ever to make good on the goals he’s set for himself, such scrutiny is a necessary creation to help ensure their fulfillment, and he should be thankful for manifesting the officer’s appearance whenever his presence would be most opportune. Anyone who has earnestly sought to realize a personally significant objective can no doubt relate to the value of such perfectly timed materializations and the benefits they ultimately afford, for, in the end, they just might yield success.

For all its strengths in exploring the foregoing themes, however, "Silver Linings Playbook" comes up short in many respects. The picture combines a strange amalgamation of elements that makes it come across like part "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", part Dancing with the Stars and part Monday Night Football, all wrapped in what is allegedly a romantic comedy. And I say "allegedly" here because the movie’s sometimes-edgy nature makes this label seem quite ill-fitting. A number of emotionally volatile scenes quite justifiably had me questioning “So this is a romantic comedy?”

Moreover, I found the film was often quite enamored with the sense of its own quirkiness, an all-too-obvious attempt at trying to keep the picture from being seen as what is essentially a formula film characterized by inevitable predictability. These qualities, in turn, give rise to some very uneven writing. When it’s on, it works well, but when it’s not, it becomes rather trying, especially in several scenes that seem to go on unduly long. Its examination of the mental illness issue is somewhat uneven, too, sometimes handled deftly and at others clumsily. (For those interested in a picture that truly approaches this subject well, I’d heartily recommend the Ben Stiller comedy-drama "Greenberg" (2010) instead.)

Despite these shortcomings, the film does have its share of laughs, as well as a number of fine performances. Lawrence and De Niro are both excellent in their respective roles and have to be seen as strong contenders for awards consideration. And, for their part, Cooper and Weaver handle their characters quite capably as well. However, these assets aren’t enough to save a picture that’s trying to come across as being better than it truly is.

Saving ourselves from ourselves is, arguably, one of the most valuable pursuits we can undertake in life, and having a good grasp on our conscious creation skills can go a long way toward this goal’s realization. And, in getting there, it certainly helps to have a playbook to show us the way. Unfortunately, the example set by this film has far too many diversions to set us on a meaningful path to success, and, by following it, those hoped-for silver linings just may remain as elusive as ever.

Photo courtesy of The Weinstein Co.

Copyright © 2012, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

‘Life of Pi’ looks for meaning in the unlikeliest of places

“Life of Pi” (2012). Cast: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Ayush Tandon, Gautam Belur, Adil Hussain, Tabu, Vibish Sivakumar, Mohd Abbas Khaleeli, Ayan Khan, Rafe Spall, Gérard Depardieu, Shravanthi Sainath, Andrea Di Stefano, Bo-Chieh Wang. Director: Ang Lee. Screenplay: David Magee. Book: Yann Martel. Web site. Trailer.

The search for the meaning of life is as old as mankind, and countless thinkers have devoted innumerable hours pondering it. But not all of those seekers have been scholarly intellects residing in ivory towers; some have been average, everyday folks thrust into the unlikeliest of places or circumstances. Yet, no matter what conditions may prevail, they proceed with their searches in earnest, hoping to make sense out of the seemingly nonsensical, as is the case in the mythic new adventure, “Life of Pi.”

To hear it told, Professor Piscine Militor Patel (or “Pi” for short) has lived quite a remarkable life, though most people would probably never know it from meeting him. As an adult (Irrfan Khan), Pi lives a quiet life in Montreal with his wife and children, a far cry from the eventful days of a childhood and adolescence that he doesn’t talk much about. But, when word of that captivating upbringing catches the ear of an aspiring writer (Rafe Spall), Pi keeps his silence no longer and shares the story of his life.

Pi was born and raised in Pondicherry, India, a community that had once been under French control. Because of this, Pondicherry was influenced by a variety of religious, spiritual and metaphysical traditions, including those of the local Hindus and Muslims, as well as the Western teachings of Christians and rationalists. Pi was thus exposed to a wide variety of ideas growing up, and, as a serious and studious young man, he took them all to heart in an attempt to understand his world and his place in it.

Pi’s father, Santosh (Adil Hussain), was the proprietor of a privately owned zoo housed in the local botanical garden. He, too, was exposed to the same traditions as his son, but, as a businessman interested in the ways of the modern world, he took a much more “pragmatic” approach to life, choosing to embrace reason as his guiding principle. Santosh told his young son to “enjoy the stories” of the ancient religious traditions but urged him to take a rational approach to life, firmly believing that reason, and not “superstition,” would ultimately see him through life’s challenges.

With this background in place, the stage was thus set for Pi when he would come face to face with the biggest test of his life – and his faith – as an adolescent (Suraj Sharma). With changing political conditions and possible economic hardship looming, Santosh announced his plan to sell the animals in his zoo and use the funds to relocate his family to Winnipeg, where new business opportunities – and a new life – awaited them. Pi initially railed at the idea, but, when left with no choice, he was forced to go along with his father’s decision. And so, before long, Santosh, Pi, his mother Gita (Tabu), his brother Ravi (Vibish Sivakumar) and the family’s animal collection boarded a Japanese freighter bound for Canada.

Leaving India behind was painful for Pi. But it wasn’t nearly as devastating as what would happen next. During a powerful Pacific storm, the freighter capsized and sank. Pi’s parents and brother were lost, but he managed to escape, making his way to one of the lifeboats. He wasn’t alone, either; several of the animals managed to join him, including a zebra, a hyena, an orangutan and, most significantly, an adult Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. Thus began an incredible journey of survival, self-discovery and transformation for the young man who would clearly come to see the inner world of his beliefs reflected back to him through the eyes of another – and one who wasn’t even human.

This is the story that Pi tells his friend the author, who hangs on his every word. But is Pi’s story truly how things happened? Or is it his own version of one of “those stories” his father cautioned him about, a tale to be enjoyed but not to be taken literally? That, of course, is a question that viewers of “Life of Pi” must answer for themselves.

So much of what Pi experiences while lost at sea brings back the lessons of his youth. He comes to see the relevance and value of the various teachings he learned from the different religious, spiritual and metaphysical traditions he was exposed to while growing up. He experiences firsthand how the principles underlying those disciplines can serve him during this challenging time of personal growth and development, a true test of his integrity, morality and fortitude. And, fortunately, for his sake, he has the wherewithal to recognize their significance as they happen, enabling him to appreciate the wisdom of the teachings and their applicability to his current circumstances.

Indeed, the reality of the shipwreck draws sharply into focus the notion that our outer world is a mirror of our internal beliefs, one of the primary concepts behind conscious creation. And, because Pi so devotedly embraced the many spiritual traditions he encountered in his youth, he’s built up a storehouse of enlightened outlooks that make up the inherent character of his inner world, many of which are not only spiritual concepts but conscious creation principles as well, including the following:

• All things that manifest in our reality, for better or worse, happen for a reason, even if we’re not aware of that fact at the time we experience a particular phenomenon. The origin of such manifestations always begins with us, and their materialization is made possible through our relationship with our divine collaborator. This is true whether the phenomena are clothed in either metaphorical or practical guise. Understanding this also goes a long way toward appreciating the true nature of religious parables, those stories that provide us with valuable nuggets of insight about our relationship with the divine, the nature of our true character, and the joys and challenges of daily living.

• All of our experiences inevitably help to prepare us for what is to come in our lives, again, even if we’re not aware of it at the time they occur. For instance, Santosh is an avid swimmer, having embraced it as a means to overcome a childhood health issue. So, because he saw swimming in such a beneficial light, he strongly encouraged a youthful (and sometimes reluctant) Pi to become proficient at it, an ability that would obviously prove positively essential years later when he was adrift at sea – and in a better position to see its merit.

• An awareness of the foregoing notions leads to a better understanding of how the Universe fundamentally works and how our reality unfolds, and this is a skill that only gets stronger with more practice. This, in turn, allows us to achieve greater degrees of mastery and control over our abilities as conscious creators.

• Paying attention to life’s synchronicities, no matter how seemingly improbable and, again, whether clothed metaphorically or practically, gives us a richer sense of our lives and how they blossom. In many ways, such awareness speaks directly to the “rational” approach to life that Santosh so passionately adheres to. But it also falls in line with the spiritual traditions Pi has so fervently embraced, disciplines that rely on such “knowing” as a means to better understand our divine conscious creation partner.

• Given that the existence we experience stems from us working in collaboration with our divine co-creator, there’s nothing that comes to us that we haven’t had a hand in manifesting. Therefore, there’s value to be had in everything we experience, for better or worse. It means that we dwell in an inherently “safe” Universe, one that helps provide the means for our personal growth and development and will not give us more than we’re capable of handling. This is particularly true in the areas of facing our fears, overcoming limitations that impede our advancement and enabling us to grow stronger as individuals, as Pi discovers for himself repeatedly in his often-tumultuous relationship with Richard Parker.

• If we truly believe in the power of All That Is to provide us with materializations that are in line with our beliefs, wants and needs, then we must have faith in its ability to so comply. To that end, we need to let go of our expectations regarding the form those manifestations ultimately take. We must relinquish our control over the “how” of materialization and let the Universe provide, for, as author and conscious creation advocate Jane Roberts observed, it invariably “leans in our direction.” Pi witnesses this repeatedly while shipwrecked. For example, when he pleads with the Universe to supply fish to feed the ravenously carnivorous Richard Parker and meets with no success in catching any on his own, a school of flying fish appears miraculously, seemingly out of nowhere, filling the boat with food that more than meets the big cat’s needs. The intention was thus fulfilled, even if it didn’t take the form Pi was expecting. In that regard, then, we’d all be better off if we just sit back and let All That Is do its thing; it’s far more capable than we could ever hope to be at coming up with solutions that effectively fulfill our requests.

Clearly, “Life of Pi” has much to offer in the way of metaphysical and spiritual insights. Regrettably, however, these eloquent, profound ideas aren’t always conveyed as well as they could be. The many notions it touches upon aren’t always developed as fully or presented as coherently as they might have been. Perhaps it’s because there are so many notions vying for viewer attention that they end up unwittingly competing with one another. The expectation of profound “aha!” moments is instead met with a series of underwhelming “oh, ok” moments. A stronger, better defined script would have gone a long way toward alleviating this problem.

Uneven pacing, an issue all too common in director Ang Lee’s work, makes its presence felt again in this film, and correcting this deficiency may have also helped clarify the picture’s messages. For instance, the movie’s opening sequence, which provides the necessary setup for what’s to come, goes on unduly long and is somewhat clumsily handled. We’re introduced to two of the film’s principal characters – Pi as an adult and his author friend – through a bland, plodding and sometimes seemingly pointless conversation that can’t help but cause viewers to legitimately wonder “Who are these people, why are we meeting them and why we should care?” As a consequence, the director nearly loses control of the room in the first 30 minutes. Admittedly, Lee redeems himself somewhat as the picture progresses, but the impact is somewhat watered down by the ill-handled opening.

Despite these faults, “Life of Pi” is exquisitely filmed, with terrific cinematography and excellent special effects (even if it doesn’t always make the best use of its 3-D technology). The picture also features a fine performance by first-timer Sharma, capably handling the exacting demands of the role of unexpected castaway, and a lovely, emotive soundtrack. It’s unfortunate that the quality of the rest of the film doesn’t measure up to that of these strengths; if it had, this would have been a truly epic picture, but, instead, viewers are left with an ambitious near-miss.

Meaning has a way of showing up when one least expects it, even under the most unforeseen conditions. That should give us all hope to go on, no matter how seemingly dire the circumstances are. “Life of Pi” illustrates that (albeit not always as effectively as it could), but it nevertheless inspires us to keep searching, for, in the end, we’ll never know what we’ll find unless we continue looking.

Photo courtesy of Rhythm & Hues and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

Copyright © 2012, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

‘The Sessions’ probes the beliefs underlying sexuality

"The Sessions" (2012). Cast: John Hawkes, Helen Hunt, William H. Macy, Adam Arkin, Moon Bloodgood, Annika Marks, Rhea Perlman, Robin Weigert, W. Earl Brown, Blake Lindsley, Ming Lo, Rusty Schwimmer, Jennifer Kumiyama. Director: Ben Lewin. Screenplay: Ben Lewin. Source Material: Mark O’Brien, “On Seeing a Sex Surrogate,” The Sun magazine. Website. Trailer.

It’s been said “We are what we eat,” an observation that frequently proves right on the money. But, in my experience, I’ve found that we often are everything we do in our lives, especially the acts that comprise a part of our existence that many of us are averse to talk about, sex. Yet, if we’re truly honest with ourselves, we’re likely to find that we indeed are what we do sexually. So imagine what it must be like for someone who’s living a life without it – what would that say about him? And what would it say about him once he finally has the opportunity to experience it? Such is the odyssey of a disabled, middle-aged virgin who finally has the chance to come of age in the touching, fact-based story of "The Sessions."

Mark O’Brien (John Hawkes) lives a life most people would probably find discouraging. As a childhood polio victim who defied the odds and grew into adulthood, he has no use of his limbs, spends most of his time confined to an iron lung and requires nearly constant care. But, despite these limitations, Mark has not allowed his disabilities to deter him from living his life. He earned his college degree from the University of California, Berkeley, becoming a writer, poet and advocate for the disabled.

However, his academic and career accomplishments notwithstanding, Mark’s life has been anything but typical. Many of the things that we take for granted simply aren’t part of his everyday existence, and this is perhaps most apparent in an area many of us would consider significant – sex. At age 38, he’s never experienced anything even remotely approaching a sexual encounter, and, with his longevity increasingly in question (given the nature of his condition and his advancing age), it’s an area he’d like to explore while he still has the chance.

Mark’s physical state, by itself, makes this prospect a challenging proposition; the logistics alone are indeed problematic. But, if that weren’t enough, Mark’s desire to explore this uncharted part of his life is further complicated by the conflicted beliefs he holds about sex, thanks mostly to his devout Roman Catholic upbringing. He’s so uncertain about how to proceed that, before he even begins examining his options, he consults his parish priest, Father Brendan (William H. Macy), for guidance.

One might question the wisdom of seeking advice on a subject from someone who’s likely to be just as clueless about it as the inquirer is. But that issue quickly proves irrelevant. Through their many conversations, Mark and Father Brendan develop a rapport more like friends than like priest and parishioner, even though their discussion topics involve profound questions of personal morality and spirituality. For instance, Mark expresses sincere trepidation about his desire to explore sexuality outside of marriage, a cardinal prohibition of traditional Catholicism and, allegedly, the word of God. At the same time, he also freely admits to a belief that God has a "wicked sense of humor," one that he envisions typified by such images as a Heavenly Father chortling over his trials and tribulations at reconciling the challenge foisted upon him. So, when Mark finally asks Father Brendan how he should proceed, the kindly vicar says reflectively, "Given your circumstances, I think He’d give you a pass on this one." And so, with that "blessing," Mark begins investigating his options.

After several false starts at initiating a sex life, such as with one of his caregivers, Amanda (Annika Marks), Mark finally decides to engage the services of a sexual surrogate, Cheryl Cohen-Greene (Helen Hunt). Their sessions together, though definitely sexual in nature, are intended to be educational and therapeutic, not tawdry or lascivious. Because Mark has never experienced much in the way of physical touch, let alone physical touch of an erotic nature, Cheryl focuses on issues of body awareness, teaching him about sensations with which he’s largely unacquainted. She also coaches him about what it’s like to interact with a partner. And, through it all, she approaches her work with a curious mixture of professional detachment and intimate, though not necessarily personal, involvement, a practice that often involves precariously walking a very fine line.

Through their sessions, which are limited to six meetings (a professional standard meant to distinguish the services of a surrogate from those of a prostitute), Mark comes to learn what pleases him and what it takes to please a woman. And he definitely enjoys the sessions, no matter how unintentionally "abbreviated" they might be. Over time, though, he grows more accustomed to and comfortable with the sensations and the experience. In fact, sex even becomes quite revelatory for him, especially as he becomes more intimately acquainted with the feelings associated with the experience. But the awakenings that come out of these sessions are anything but one-sided; as the student learns from the teacher, so, too, does the teacher learn from the student, an unexpected development that stuns even the seasoned instructor. The experience ultimately changes everyone in profound and unexpected ways – and forever.

As with any experience that’s part of our reality, there are beliefs driving what we manifest. This cornerstone principle of the conscious creation process underlies all aspects of our existence, from the environment in which we dwell to the people with whom we interact to all of the activities in which we engage – even sex. The idea that this act can be reduced to purely a mechanistic operation or animalistic urge fails to recognize that it, too, arises from underlying beliefs that impel its manifestation from the realm of potential into the world of the physically expressed.

How that experience unfolds, of course, depends on the beliefs in question, and they often involve factors that go beyond one’s preferences for superficial physical considerations like gender and body type. It often includes less tangible, less recognizable qualities, such as one’s own self-image, expectations and limitations, elements that frequently do more to define the nature of the materialized sexual experience than anything having to do with partiality for a particular shade of hair color or physique.

These considerations become apparent in both protagonists’ experiences. For instance, someone in Mark’s circumstances might easily look upon his personal physical limitations as an insurmountable hindrance to enjoying a sex life of any kind, let alone a fulfilling one. The same could be said of the religious notions he wrestles with, those self-imposed, guilt-driven barriers that could easily derail one’s path to pleasure. On some level, though, Mark obviously believes otherwise; if he didn’t, he would not have been able to manifest the experiences he ultimately encounters, both during his time with Cheryl and in his life thereafter. In large part, this becomes possible as a result of his beliefs associated with, first, genuinely accepting his circumstances and, subsequently, envisioning their transcendence, moving past his initial creation to one greater than what he initially materialized. He uses his powers of conscious creation to plug the gaps in his reality, filling in the missing pieces that allow him to actually experience what might otherwise remain merely a vision. This is truly significant personal growth, and its relevance in the sexual arena is just as valid as in any other area of one’s life.

Interestingly, though, Mark is not the only one to experience such transcendence. Cheryl goes through her own transformation as well, thanks to unexpected developments in her dealings with Mark. As someone who has long managed to skillfully maneuver the razor’s edge separating professional distance from personal engagement, Cheryl initially handles her involvement with Mark as she would with any other client. But, as time passes and she begins to see the effect she’s having on him, she begins to shift her own beliefs, coming to appreciate the impact of what she’s now enabling for him, allowing herself to receive the feelings he so freely gives her and, perhaps most importantly, letting her own personal emotions regarding a client to surface for the first time. Suddenly, her work seems less clinical, more heartfelt, than she’s ever experienced before, a development that impacts her not only professionally, but also personally.

In the end, then, our sexual experiences are as much a product of who we are and what beliefs we hold as they are of any particular preferences we have or any particular acts in which we engage, and the evolution of Mark’s and Cheryl’s beliefs bears this out. The better the handle we have on what beliefs we hold, the more conscious we’ll be of the experiences they yield and the degree of pleasure that we get out of them. Such awareness will also allow us to make whatever adjustments we deem necessary to improve the quality of eroticism we enjoy. The richness and fulfillment to come out of these experiences thus serve as some of the best examples of the joy and power inherent in the act of creation.

"The Sessions" is arguably one of the best, and thus far most underrated, offerings of this year’s awards season films. It exceeded my expectations by a long shot, skillfully telling a story that’s simultaneously heartfelt, touching and wickedly funny. It’s also one of those unusual pictures that starts out well and gets better as it goes along (how often does one see something like that these days?). The performances by Hawkes and Hunt are exemplary, perhaps the best work each of them has ever done, and both have to be considered highly viable awards contenders. The writing, editing and direction are top-notch, too, making for a very cohesive overall package.

Two cautions are in order, however. First, don’t be deceived by the movie’s promotional trailer; it paints a somewhat misleading picture of the film, making it look like a high-end sex comedy, which, despite ample humor, it clearly is not (and, regrettably, sells the movie short). Second, the film is very sexually explicit, with frequent nudity and unabashed discussion and depiction of sexual topics; those who are sensitive to these issues or are easily offended should clearly avoid this picture.

A rewarding sex life has the potential to show us much about ourselves, yet all too often we allow personal or philosophical limitations to get in the way, keeping us from enjoying the experience and perhaps even preventing us from discovering unknown parts of ourselves. "The Sessions" illustrates the significance of this – the value of breaking through such barriers, of finding our own personal uncharted territories and of exploring the resplendent beauty within them. Indeed, making time for "sessions," be they those depicted in this movie or those of your own creation, is undoubtedly time well spent.

Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.

Copyright © 2012, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.