The 85th Academy Award nominations were announced earlier this month, and most of those receiving Oscar nods followed projections, with a few surprises (and snubs) thrown in just to keep things interesting. But making predictions on this year’s winners is a bit trickier than in the past; with roughly a month to go until Oscar night, there are some genuine horse races in progress, unlike recent years, when most of the recipients were pretty much foregone conclusions. So, with that said, here’s what I expect out of the major categories in this year’s competition as of now.
Best Picture
The Field: “Amour,” “Argo,” “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” “Django Unchained,” “Les Misérables,” “Life of Pi,” “Lincoln,” “Silver Linings Playbook,” “Zero Dark Thirty”
Who Will Likely Win: “Argo.” This picture has the momentum behind it at the moment, having recently won best picture (drama) honors at the Golden Globe and the Critics Choice Awards. It’s also well-represented in the nominations for the upcoming Screen Actors Guild Awards. And, as an entertaining, critically acclaimed, technically well-made picture that honors unsung American heroes, it’s a popular and politically correct choice, even if it isn’t the best offering in the pack.
Who Should Win: “Les Misérables.” Given the sheer scale of this production, not to mention its stellar performances, director Tom Hooper’s cinematic opus outpaces everything else in the field. It’s already won best picture (musical or comedy) at the Golden Globe Awards and truly deserves to take home top honors at the Oscars.
Possible Dark Horses: Despite the plethora of nominations it received, “Lincoln” realistically has to be seen as a dark horse at best at this point. Its mediocre performance at the Golden Globe and Critics Choice Awards doesn’t bode well, either. The same can be said of “Zero Dark Thirty,” a picture that garnered a lot of early buzz but whose star has faded since becoming embroiled in several controversies involving its content.
Also-Rans: All of the field’s other entries are likely to end up as also-rans, even though they may take home awards in specific categories. “Amour” and “Beasts of the Southern Wild” should be grateful just for having been nominated, given their marginal audience appeal. And as for “Silver Linings Playbook,” “Life of Pi” and “Django Unchained,” all of which are audience and/or critical favorites that have achieved varying degrees of excellence and/or acclaim, they’re all almost certain to be outgunned by their more superior competition.
Who Else Should Have Been Considered: I know I’m way out on a limb on this one, but I was seriously disappointed that the reincarnational drama “Cloud Atlas” was overlooked. This incredibly ambitious offering merited much more recognition than it received from audiences and critics alike, not to mention the annual awards competitions. I also was disappointed that “The Dark Knight Rises” was ignored (though, given the unfortunate stigma lingering over this picture, its snubbing does not come as a surprise). The heartwarming independent films “The Sessions” and “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” would have made fine nominees in this category as well (certainly much more deserving than the vastly overrated, utterly pretentious “Beasts of the Southern Wild”).
Best Actor
The Field: Bradley Cooper, “Silver Linings Playbook”; Daniel Day-Lewis, “Lincoln”; Hugh Jackman, “Les Misérables”; Joaquin Phoenix, “The Master”; Denzel Washington, “Flight”
Who Will Likely Win: Daniel Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis has been a prohibitive favorite for this honor even before awards season began. He’s a virtual lock in this category, especially in the wake of his wins as best actor (drama) at the Golden Globe and Critics Choice Awards.
Who Should Win: Daniel Day-Lewis. As admirable as the other nominees are in their performances, none of them can approach the caliber of Day-Lewis’ outstanding portrayal of the nation’s 16th President.
Possible Dark Horse: If any dark horse emerges, it would be truly shocking. However, if I had to select one, I’d most likely choose Hugh Jackman, who recently captured the Golden Globe Award for best actor (musical or comedy). Nevertheless, despite this win, I believe his chances are so slim at this point that the possibility is barely worth discussing.
Also-Rans: Anyone who isn’t Daniel Day-Lewis.
Who Else Should Have Been Considered: The biggest snub in this category was the exclusion of John Hawkes for his outstanding portrayal of handicapped writer Mark O’Brien in “The Sessions.” Hawkes’ performance, easily the best of his career, was much more deserving of a nomination than Joaquin Phoenix’s overwrought portrayal of a misguided drifter in “The Master.” Other contenders who would have made admirable nominees (but who obviously didn’t make the cut) were Bill Murray for “Hyde Park on Hudson,” Anthony Hopkins for “Hitchcock,” Tommy Lee Jones for “Hope Springs,” Jean-Louis Trintignant for “Amour” and Frank Langella for the quirky “Robot & Frank.”
Best Actress
The Field: Jessica Chastain, “Zero Dark Thirty”; Jennifer Lawrence, “Silver Linings Playbook”; Emmanuelle Riva, “Amour”; Quvenzhané Wallis, “Beasts of the Southern Wild”; Naomi Watts, “The Impossible”
Who Will Likely Win: This is basically a two-horse race between Jessica Chastain and Jennifer Lawrence. At this point, I’d give the edge to Chastain, partly because of the weightier, more demanding nature of her role and partly because of her wins as best actress (drama) at the Golden Globe and Critics Choice Awards. As commendable as Lawrence’s performance is, and despite her wins as best actress (comedy) at the Golden Globe and Critics Choice Awards, I don’t believe there’s enough substance to her character to surpass her more serious counterpart.
Who Should Win: Emanuelle Riva. By far, too. This is easily the most demanding role of the five lead actresses, and Riva certainly rises to the occasion, despite the fine performances of her fellow nominees.
Possible Dark Horses: Since a win by Jennifer Lawrence would not come as a totally unexpected surprise, it’s probably not accurate to characterize her as a dark horse in this category. That role would more likely go to either Emmanuelle Riva or Quvenzhané Wallis, but, since neither of their films was widely screened, their nominations should probably be considered their awards. The timely release of “Amour” right before the start of voting could work to Riva’s favor, though foreign language films rarely produce winners in the acting categories.
Also-Ran: Regrettably, the fine performance of Naomi Watts is the one most likely to become lost in the ether, given the popular portrayals turned in by Chastain and Lawrence and the novelty of the nominations given to Riva and Wallis (as the oldest and youngest actress nominees, respectively, ever named by the Academy). One might also argue that Watts’ nomination this year in part is intended to make up for the egregious snub of her positively stellar work in “Fair Game” (2010), a feeble attempt at making amends for a performance that easily could have won her an Oscar.
Who Else Should Have Been Considered: The biggest oversight in this category was the exclusion of Marion Cotillard for the edgy French romance, “Rust and Bone.” Some also would have liked to see Helen Mirren receive a nod for her performance in “Hitchcock,” though I can’t say I’d agree with that recommendation, despite being a big fan of her work.
Best Supporting Actor
The Field: Alan Arkin, “Argo”; Robert De Niro, “Silver Linings Playbook”; Philip Seymour Hoffman, “The Master”; Tommy Lee Jones, “Lincoln”; Christoph Waltz, “Django Unchained”
Who Will Likely Win: The early money in this category was on Philip Seymour Hoffman, and I’d say he still probably has the edge, especially in light of his win at the Critics Choice Awards. However, Christoph Waltz’s win at the recent Golden Globe Awards may represent a shift in the momentum. I’d still give the advantage to Hoffman, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Waltz overtakes him in a photo finish. Whoever wins at the upcoming Screen Actors Guild Awards will probably determine definitively who takes home the Oscar.
Who Should Win: Picking a worthy victor in this category is indeed difficult, since most of the nominees are truly deserving. If pushed to pick a winner, I’d also probably go with Hoffman, though I’d certainly be very pleased with victories by Alan Arkin or Tommy Lee Jones as well.
Possible Dark Horse: Despite a win not that long ago, Alan Arkin could slip in as a dark horse, especially if “Argo” continues to gain momentum in the overall awards race. I don’t think that outcome is likely at this point, but it’s not outside the range of possibility, either.
Also-Rans: It almost seems sacrilegious to think of Robert De Niro and Tommy Lee Jones as also-rans, but, despite their commendable performances, I believe their portrayals are overshadowed by their competition here. Arkin may end up falling victim to the same fate, though I believe the strength of his performance may keep him more in the running than either De Niro or Jones.
Who Else Should Have Been Considered: Limiting the list of nominees here indeed had to be challenging since there were so many worthy contenders this year. Some of the others who merited consideration include Sacha Baron Cohen for “Les Misérables,” Javier Bardem for “Skyfall,” Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson for “Django Unchained,” Michael Caine for “The Dark Knight Rises” and Josh Brolin for his superb (and very underrated) performance in “Men in Black III.”
Best Supporting Actress
The Field: Amy Adams, “The Master”; Sally Field, “Lincoln”; Anne Hathaway, “Les Misérables”; Helen Hunt, “The Sessions”; Jacki Weaver, “Silver Linings Playbook”
Who Will Likely Win: Anne Hathaway. As the tragic heroine Fantine, Hathaway gives a powerful performance that outstrips all of her competitors, and, with wins at both the Golden Globe and Critics Choice Awards, she’s just about cemented her lock on this category.
Who Should Win: Anne Hathaway. Without a doubt, she sets the standard for this category in this year’s competition, despite fine performances by her fellow nominees.
Possible Dark Horses: If for some odd reason Hathaway should fall out of favor between now and the time of the Oscars telecast, Sally Field, Helen Hunt and Amy Adams (in that order) could all step up to take her place. All three turned in excellent performances, and in any other year (without the formidable competition from Hathaway) any of them would have easily been capable of taking home the top prize in this category.
Also-Ran: The tide that swept Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence and Robert De Niro into their nominations for “Silver Linings Playbook” was likely strong enough to sweep Jacki Weaver into contention for her performance. However, despite an excellent career track record and a capable effort in this offering, her portrayal is easily the weakest in this year’s category, and her exclusion from it would have opened the door for several other more deserving nominees, as noted below.
Who Else Should Have Been Considered: As with the supporting actor category, it had to have been challenging to limit the list of nominees for supporting actress. A number of other performers would have made worthy nominees, including Helena Bonham Carter and Samantha Barks for “Les Misérables,” Ann Dowd for “Compliance,” Judi Dench for “Skyfall” (or “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and Maggie Smith for “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” (or “Quartet”).
Best Director
The Field: Michael Haneke, “Amour”; Benh Zeitlin, “Beasts of the Southern Wild”; Ang Lee, “Life of Pi”; David O. Russell, “Silver Linings Playbook”; Steven Spielberg, “Lincoln”
Who Will Likely Win: At the moment, the director’s award field is fairly wide open since the winner in this category in this year’s prior competitions, Ben Affleck for “Argo,” wasn’t even nominated for an Oscar. The exclusion of such other heavy hitters as Kathryn Bigelow for “Zero Dark Thirty” and Tom Hooper for “Les Misérables” makes the front runner among the actual nominees a lot less obvious. In light of that, then, I’d have to say that there’s no clear-cut leader at this point, though I’d probably give a very tenuous edge to Steven Spielberg, given that his heavily nominated film is the most popular and most acclaimed among those created by this year’s director nominees (though I believe that advantage is anemic at best).
Who Should Win: I’m not overly enthused about any of the nominees in this category, though, if I had to choose someone from among the choices, I would probably go with Michael Haneke, though with some reservations. If, however, I had to pick a winner regardless of nomination status, I would opt for Tom Hooper for the same reasons that I would choose his film as best picture.
Possible Dark Horses: Essentially, everyone on the list (except Spielberg) would qualify here, though, I’d probably pick David O. Russell as the leading contender among the pack of dark horses. Giving Russell the award may be a way of rewarding the film with at least one statuette in this year’s competition, since it’s very possible that it may lose in the other categories in which it’s nominated.
Also-Rans: Essentially, everyone on the list (except Spielberg and possibly Russell) would, strangely enough, qualify here, too. Michael Haneke and Benh Zeitlin in particular should consider their nominations as their awards.
Who Else Should Have Been Considered: For the reasons noted above, I believe Tom Hooper for “Les Misérables” clearly should have been named a nominee. Strong cases could also be made for popular contenders like Kathryn Bigelow for “Zero Dark Thirty,” Quentin Tarantino for “Django Unchained” and Ben Affleck for “Argo.” However, it would have been nice to see the Academy think outside the box a bit, too, by including such other choices as Tom Tykwer and the Wachowski siblings for “Cloud Atlas,” Christopher Nolan for “The Dark Knight Rises” and Ben Lewin for “The Sessions.”
The Oscars will be presented on February 24, live on ABC-TV. Check back with this page after the ceremony to see how I did. In the meantime, be sure to check out more about some of the nominated films, as well as some that didn’t make the cut, including their web sites and trailers and my reviews, at the following links:
“Amour”: web site, trailer, review
“Argo”: web site, trailer, review
“Flight”: web site, trailer, review
“The Impossible”: web site, trailer, review
“Les Misérables”: web site, trailer, review
“Life of Pi”: web site, trailer, review
“Lincoln”: web site, trailer, review
“The Master”: web site, trailer, review
“The Sessions”: web site, trailer, review
“Silver Linings Playbook”: web site, trailer, review
“The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”: web site, trailer, review
“Cloud Atlas”: web site, trailer, review
“Compliance”: web site, trailer, review
“The Dark Knight Rises”: web site, trailer, review
“Hitchcock”: web site, trailer, review
“Hope Springs”: web site, trailer, review
“Men in Black III”: web site, trailer, review
“Quartet”: web site, trailer, review
“Robot & Frank”: web site, trailer, review
“Rust and Bone”: web site, trailer, review
Copyright © 2013, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Friday, January 11, 2013
‘State of Illusion’ reveals the reality of reality
“People v. The State of Illusion” (2012). Cast, Fictional Segment: J.B. Tuttle, Michael McCormick, Kevin McDonald, Melanie Lindahl, Tad Jones, Amy Baklini; Expert Commentators: Austin Vickers (narrator), Thomas Moore, Candace Pert, Debbie Ford, Joe Dispenza, Robert Jahn, Brenda Dunne, Peter Senge, Michael Vandermark. Director: Scott Cervine. Screenplay: Austin Vickers. Web site. Trailer.
We all know how reality works, right? Or do we? Many of us like to think of our existence as an easily definable, quantifiable experience governed by readily identified laws that apply across the board. But is it really that simple, or is there something more subjective at work, especially when discrepancies make their presence felt? Those are just some of the considerations addressed in the enlightening documentary “People v. The State of Illusion,” now available on DVD.
Aaron Rogers (no relation to the Green Bay Packers quarterback) (J.B. Tuttle) is having a difficult time in life. Separated from his wife and potentially facing a layoff from his job, he struggles to get by. But that’s all before things go downhill.
One evening, after attending a school play featuring his daughter, Hope (Melanie Lindahl), Aaron runs a red light while driving her home, causing a tragic car accident in which the driver of the other vehicle, a mother of two young children, is killed. But, if that weren’t bad enough, he’s also found to be legally drunk. Having attended happy hour before meeting Hope, he had enough alcohol in his system at the time of the accident to be charged with DUI – as well as manslaughter.
Not long thereafter, Aaron is tried, found guilty and sentenced to six years in prison. With his life falling apart, he sees no future for himself. He views his existence as a living hell, one that was bad on the outside before the accident but that has now been made that much worse on the inside. Little did he know, however, that this self-assessment of his life would provide him with a fitting metaphor for capturing the essence of his existence – one that would also be the key in helping him to turn things around.
While in jail, Aaron crosses paths with two people who will play significant roles in helping him sort out his life, a prison guard (Kevin McDonald) and a janitor (Michael McCormick). Through his conversations with them, Aaron comes to realize that his circumstances, both before and after incarceration, are clearly the product of his own creation, the physical manifestation of his prevailing beliefs and worldview. And, as a result of that newfound awareness, he subsequently comes to recognize that changing his fate going forward is also just as much a product of his beliefs and worldview – provided that he allows change to occur.
The story line of this fictional narrative thus takes viewers through the process of awakening and self-discovery that Aaron experiences. Each of the realizations that he experiences as part of that process are defined and commented upon by a panel of experts in the fields of medicine, physiology, psychology and metaphysics, explaining the intrinsic connections between these various disciplines (and how those connections apply to each of us) and illustrating how Aaron’s circumstances are, in fact, the result of his own making, how such connections lead to the thoughts that become the things that make up his life.
In reaching these conclusions, the experts essentially take the notion of conscious creation (or law of attraction) as a given, a fundamental starting point for understanding how reality works. They then walk viewers through the steps of how one’s tangible existence arises from one’s intangible beliefs. However, the experts hasten to add that the beliefs we draw upon to create the reality we experience represent only an infinitesimal part of the total range of belief options available to us. We could just as easily choose a different set of beliefs from the ones we adhere to, but, until we do, the reality we manifest will persist in materializing an existence in line with whatever beliefs prevail.
In that sense, then, the reality we experience is essentially an “illusion,” one of many possibilities that we’re each capable of experiencing but that simultaneously does not serve as an intrinsically objective universal truth applicable to everyone. Whatever we experience comes down to whatever we choose to focus our attention on, a concept repeatedly reinforced in the writings of author and conscious creation advocate Jane Roberts and her noncorporeal channeled entity, Seth. If what we focus on suits us, that’s great; if that’s not the case, however, then it’s time for a change and taking the steps to make that possible.
Learning how to liberate ourselves from our own self-imposed imprisonment – a fitting notion given Aaron’s example – is the key to creating a life of greater fulfillment. Of course, becoming aware of the fact that we have that option at our disposal in the first place is crucial if we ever hope to escape the confinement that we tend to view as fixed and unalterable. In doing so, we must also be willing to accept responsibility for what we manifest, because failure in this regard amounts to nothing more than a fundamental abrogation of our role in the process of creating the reality we experience. However, by witnessing Aaron’s odyssey, combined with the insights of the expert commentators, we’re provided with clues as to how we can do the same for ourselves as the protagonist does for himself in his life.
Those familiar with the enormously popular documentaries “What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?” (2004) (commonly known as “What the Bleep”) and “The Secret” (2006) will undoubtedly recognize the parallels between those films and this production in terms of approach, format and content. However, as commendable as both of those films are, I believe that “People v. The State of Illusion” represents a significant step up from those pictures, providing viewers with clearly defined, highly practical and easily understood information on the reality of reality. Its concise, no-nonsense approach makes its arguments impeccably clear and to the point, and even those who are new to these ideas are likely to come away from this film with an indisputable understanding of the concepts it covers.
The presentation of the picture’s central themes in the context of a “trial” is an inspired approach, one that undoubtedly came naturally to screenwriter and narrator Austin Vickers, himself a former trial lawyer. While the narrative doesn’t follow a trial format per se, the protagonist’s actions are clearly on trial in the view of the “people” (i.e., the audience), his contentions countered by the prosecutorial arguments of the narrator and the expert witnesses. And, in the end, after hearing the cases made by each side, we’re left to render a verdict on the process outlined in the film, not only as it applies to Aaron but also to ourselves.
Birthing an existence that suits us can be an exciting yet tricky process, especially if we intentionally don blinders that keep us from seeing all of the possibilities open to us. But, if we’re willing to consider the range of options available and pursue the desired outcomes, we can reap tremendous rewards for ourselves. And that’s no illusion.
Photo courtesy of Exalt Films.
Copyright © 2013, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
We all know how reality works, right? Or do we? Many of us like to think of our existence as an easily definable, quantifiable experience governed by readily identified laws that apply across the board. But is it really that simple, or is there something more subjective at work, especially when discrepancies make their presence felt? Those are just some of the considerations addressed in the enlightening documentary “People v. The State of Illusion,” now available on DVD.
Aaron Rogers (no relation to the Green Bay Packers quarterback) (J.B. Tuttle) is having a difficult time in life. Separated from his wife and potentially facing a layoff from his job, he struggles to get by. But that’s all before things go downhill.
One evening, after attending a school play featuring his daughter, Hope (Melanie Lindahl), Aaron runs a red light while driving her home, causing a tragic car accident in which the driver of the other vehicle, a mother of two young children, is killed. But, if that weren’t bad enough, he’s also found to be legally drunk. Having attended happy hour before meeting Hope, he had enough alcohol in his system at the time of the accident to be charged with DUI – as well as manslaughter.
Not long thereafter, Aaron is tried, found guilty and sentenced to six years in prison. With his life falling apart, he sees no future for himself. He views his existence as a living hell, one that was bad on the outside before the accident but that has now been made that much worse on the inside. Little did he know, however, that this self-assessment of his life would provide him with a fitting metaphor for capturing the essence of his existence – one that would also be the key in helping him to turn things around.
While in jail, Aaron crosses paths with two people who will play significant roles in helping him sort out his life, a prison guard (Kevin McDonald) and a janitor (Michael McCormick). Through his conversations with them, Aaron comes to realize that his circumstances, both before and after incarceration, are clearly the product of his own creation, the physical manifestation of his prevailing beliefs and worldview. And, as a result of that newfound awareness, he subsequently comes to recognize that changing his fate going forward is also just as much a product of his beliefs and worldview – provided that he allows change to occur.
The story line of this fictional narrative thus takes viewers through the process of awakening and self-discovery that Aaron experiences. Each of the realizations that he experiences as part of that process are defined and commented upon by a panel of experts in the fields of medicine, physiology, psychology and metaphysics, explaining the intrinsic connections between these various disciplines (and how those connections apply to each of us) and illustrating how Aaron’s circumstances are, in fact, the result of his own making, how such connections lead to the thoughts that become the things that make up his life.
In reaching these conclusions, the experts essentially take the notion of conscious creation (or law of attraction) as a given, a fundamental starting point for understanding how reality works. They then walk viewers through the steps of how one’s tangible existence arises from one’s intangible beliefs. However, the experts hasten to add that the beliefs we draw upon to create the reality we experience represent only an infinitesimal part of the total range of belief options available to us. We could just as easily choose a different set of beliefs from the ones we adhere to, but, until we do, the reality we manifest will persist in materializing an existence in line with whatever beliefs prevail.
In that sense, then, the reality we experience is essentially an “illusion,” one of many possibilities that we’re each capable of experiencing but that simultaneously does not serve as an intrinsically objective universal truth applicable to everyone. Whatever we experience comes down to whatever we choose to focus our attention on, a concept repeatedly reinforced in the writings of author and conscious creation advocate Jane Roberts and her noncorporeal channeled entity, Seth. If what we focus on suits us, that’s great; if that’s not the case, however, then it’s time for a change and taking the steps to make that possible.
Learning how to liberate ourselves from our own self-imposed imprisonment – a fitting notion given Aaron’s example – is the key to creating a life of greater fulfillment. Of course, becoming aware of the fact that we have that option at our disposal in the first place is crucial if we ever hope to escape the confinement that we tend to view as fixed and unalterable. In doing so, we must also be willing to accept responsibility for what we manifest, because failure in this regard amounts to nothing more than a fundamental abrogation of our role in the process of creating the reality we experience. However, by witnessing Aaron’s odyssey, combined with the insights of the expert commentators, we’re provided with clues as to how we can do the same for ourselves as the protagonist does for himself in his life.
Those familiar with the enormously popular documentaries “What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?” (2004) (commonly known as “What the Bleep”) and “The Secret” (2006) will undoubtedly recognize the parallels between those films and this production in terms of approach, format and content. However, as commendable as both of those films are, I believe that “People v. The State of Illusion” represents a significant step up from those pictures, providing viewers with clearly defined, highly practical and easily understood information on the reality of reality. Its concise, no-nonsense approach makes its arguments impeccably clear and to the point, and even those who are new to these ideas are likely to come away from this film with an indisputable understanding of the concepts it covers.
The presentation of the picture’s central themes in the context of a “trial” is an inspired approach, one that undoubtedly came naturally to screenwriter and narrator Austin Vickers, himself a former trial lawyer. While the narrative doesn’t follow a trial format per se, the protagonist’s actions are clearly on trial in the view of the “people” (i.e., the audience), his contentions countered by the prosecutorial arguments of the narrator and the expert witnesses. And, in the end, after hearing the cases made by each side, we’re left to render a verdict on the process outlined in the film, not only as it applies to Aaron but also to ourselves.
Birthing an existence that suits us can be an exciting yet tricky process, especially if we intentionally don blinders that keep us from seeing all of the possibilities open to us. But, if we’re willing to consider the range of options available and pursue the desired outcomes, we can reap tremendous rewards for ourselves. And that’s no illusion.
Photo courtesy of Exalt Films.
Copyright © 2013, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
‘The Impossible’ reveals how beliefs beat the odds
"The Impossible" (2012). Cast: Naomi Watts, Ewan McGregor, Tom Holland, Samuel Joslin, Oaklee Pendergast, Marta Etura, Sönke Möhring, Geraldine Chaplin, Ploy Jindachote, Johan Sundberg, Jan Roland Sundberg, La-Orng Thongruang, Tor Klathaley, Douglas Johansson, Emilio Riccardi, Nicola Harrison. Director: Juan Antonio Bayona. Screenplay: Sergio G. Sánchez. Story: Maria Belon. Web site. Trailer.
Under trying conditions, reconciling oneself to seemingly obvious inevitabilities might look like the only option available. But is it really? What if another choice were possible? And what would it take to materialize it? Those of just some of the questions addressed in the affecting new drama, "The Impossible."
It’s December 2004, and the Bennett family is anxiously looking forward to a Christmas vacation in Thailand. Parents Henry (Ewan McGregor) and Maria (Naomi Watts) and their three children, Lucas (Tom Holland), Thomas (Samuel Joslin) and Simon (Oaklee Pendergast), are excited about their upcoming stay at a luxurious beach resort in Khao Lak. They arrive on Christmas Eve and enjoy a festive time together, a suitable prelude to a merry yuletide celebration the next morning. But, on December 26, things change drastically, in ways no one ever could have predicted.
While swimming and sunning at the resort’s pool, the Bennetts begin hearing, and then feeling, a deafening rumble, one that causes them and all of the other foreign tourists to stop dead in their tracks. Moments later, the source of that thunderous roar becomes apparent – an enormous and horrific tsunami crashing over the nearby shoreline, inundating the resort and washing away everything – and everyone – in its path.
In the wake of the huge wave, Maria and Lucas get swept away but miraculously manage to find one another. They take shelter in the branches of a tall tree along with Daniel (Johan Sundberg), a terrified young boy separated from his family. With debris swirling about beneath them, they await help in the relative safety of the sturdy boughs. And help truly is needed given Maria’s condition; as a physician, she’s well aware of the severity of her injuries and the consequences of what will happen to her without treatment.
While Maria and Lucas struggle to save themselves, Henry, Thomas and Simon somehow manage to survive the inundation by taking refuge at what’s left of the resort. They fretfully await word of what might have happened to their loved ones, but, with such widespread devastation and virtually nonexistent communication, they’re essentially helpless to do anything but wait. The trio later becomes separated intentionally when Henry sends his sons to an evacuation camp, opting to stay behind and search for his wife and son, a painful decision for the young father, compounding the flood of anguish that’s already washed over him.
Meanwhile, Maria’s and Lucas’s prayers for a rescue are answered when two local residents (La-Orng Thongruang, Tor Klathaley) shepherd them to the safety of a nearby hospital. Maria’s condition is grave, but she insists that Lucas go help others while she awaits treatment. He leaves her bedside reluctantly, but he’s rewarded for his Samaritan efforts by helping to reunite a Swedish tourist (Douglas Johansson) and his injured son (Emilio Riccardi). Upon returning to his mother’s hospital bed, however, he finds her gone with no word of her whereabouts or condition. Yet another separation for the family thus makes an already trying time even more arduous.
Will the Bennetts reunite? Or will they be forever separated? And what of Maria’s condition? Will she survive? These are the seemingly insurmountable challenges posed to an unsuspecting family that started out on its trip merely hoping for a pleasant holiday vacation. Some might even say that the odds of such a reunion are "impossible." But then, who’s to say the odds are always right?
As conscious creators are well aware, we each draw to ourselves a reality that’s in line with our beliefs and intents. But why, one might ask, would anyone draw to himself events as horrendous as this?
In conscious creation terms, incidents that occur on such a grand scale as this are called "mass events," happenings that are co-created en masse. While the event may be viewed as a single occurrence, it’s actually made up of countless individual events that all unfold under the same umbrella. The beliefs underlying such individual events generally have to do with whatever particular lessons their creators need to learn, and, in the case of this film’s protagonists, there are numerous teachings that each of them is able to experience as a result of this tragedy.
For instance, while on the plane on their way to Thailand, virtually all of the Bennett family members express trepidation about various fears that each of them is dealing with. In all of these instances, however, the fears they’re wrestling with pale in comparison to those they will come to face during the course of their respective upcoming ordeals. The wave, as unquestionably devastating as it was physically and emotionally, nevertheless provides an opportunity for addressing lessons related to fear. One would hope that resorting to means as drastic as this wouldn’t be necessary for learning such lessons, but sometimes we must attract such extreme circumstances to us in order to do so, especially if the issues in question have gone unaddressed for an unduly long time.
Likewise, the individual tragedies that transpire in the course of this mass event also provide prime learning opportunities with respect to compassion, a lesson of particular importance for Lucas. While Lucas may be the least fearful of the family members, it’s due largely to his strong survival instinct, a quality that doesn’t always make allowances for helping others. The tsunami changes that, however. For instance, in the midst of the turmoil of trying to help his injured mother survive the wave, Maria tells Lucas that they must try to help Daniel, even if it’s the last thing they do. Lucas is initially reluctant, but Maria’s insistence compels him to aid the lost young boy, helping Lucas to rewrite his beliefs regarding altruism and ultimately providing a rewarding experience for all involved.
The act of rewriting one’s beliefs can pay benefits in "unexpected" ways, too. For example, by saving Daniel, Lucas and Maria are themselves then saved by the local residents who rescue them from the tree. They get back what they put out, the outside world thus mirroring back to them tangibly what they intangibly believe on the inside. Their intentions are also thus rewarded by their divine conscious creation collaborator, their efforts recognized in a way not unlike that depicted in the heartwarming film "Pay It Forward" (2000). Payback, it seems, can indeed be a blessing.
Coming to understand that this is how the Universe operates helps to deepen our awareness of several other significant conscious creation concepts. First, it strengthens our belief in the notion that everything is inherently connected. It’s truly amazing to see how one mass event can include all of the links integral to the manifestation of so many diverse individual scenarios. Even seemingly "unrelated" influences carry intrinsic connections. If you doubt that, consider where the earthquake occurred that caused the tsunami; who would have thought that an event transpiring hundreds of miles away could wreak havoc in such a distant locale? But the connectedness of the Universe binds all things, no matter how seemingly remote or disparate, which is why we should be cognizant of this notion in the beliefs we form and the existence we seek to create. The Bennetts come to see this for themselves, too, and in more ways than they ever could have imagined.
But, perhaps even more significantly, this film makes the case for having faith. No matter how utterly improbable things may seem, truly "miraculous" events can occur, even in the face of the unlikeliest of odds, provided that one believes they’re possible. Even when things are at their darkest, the Bennetts never lose hope in finding one another. By holding on to that belief and paying attention to the synchronicities that steer them in the right direction, a family separated by tragedy has an opportunity to come together once again, emerging from the ordeal even stronger than ever.
Given the nature of a picture like this, it’s not too difficult to predict the outcome, even from the very beginning. Thus the trick in making a story like this compelling is the means by which the filmmaker gets the audience to the conclusion. But, because of the movie’s inspiring narrative, as well as its comparably uplifting trailer, I must admit to having had my reservations going in. I was concerned that it might easily be sappy and overly sentimental, riddled with clichés and manipulative plot devices. I couldn’t have been more wrong.
"The Impossible" is a truly heartfelt drama that earns the emotional reactions it evokes. In large part that’s due to the fact that the filmmakers have not sugarcoated their depiction of the tsunami. While the picture never descends to the level of being gratuitous, it nevertheless does not hesitate to show the tragedy and its effects in a frank, candid manner. When viewers see what the characters are up against, the responses induced are indeed genuine. This is due in part to the incredible re-creation of events, as well as the stellar performances of McGregor and Watts, who deservedly has earned best actress nominations in the annual Golden Globe, Screen Actors Guild and Critics Choice award competitions, as well as newcomer Holland, who received a Critics Choice Award nomination as best young actor.
Adversity can be a great teacher in many ways, as this film clearly shows. However, perhaps the greatest lesson it can teach us is that all need not be lost, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable circumstances. Indeed, "the impossible" need only be so if we allow it to be, and, when faced with such an outcome, the alternative might well seem preferable – as long as we believe it so.
Photo by Jose Haro, courtesy of Summit Entertainment,LLC.
Copyright © 2012-13, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Under trying conditions, reconciling oneself to seemingly obvious inevitabilities might look like the only option available. But is it really? What if another choice were possible? And what would it take to materialize it? Those of just some of the questions addressed in the affecting new drama, "The Impossible."
It’s December 2004, and the Bennett family is anxiously looking forward to a Christmas vacation in Thailand. Parents Henry (Ewan McGregor) and Maria (Naomi Watts) and their three children, Lucas (Tom Holland), Thomas (Samuel Joslin) and Simon (Oaklee Pendergast), are excited about their upcoming stay at a luxurious beach resort in Khao Lak. They arrive on Christmas Eve and enjoy a festive time together, a suitable prelude to a merry yuletide celebration the next morning. But, on December 26, things change drastically, in ways no one ever could have predicted.
While swimming and sunning at the resort’s pool, the Bennetts begin hearing, and then feeling, a deafening rumble, one that causes them and all of the other foreign tourists to stop dead in their tracks. Moments later, the source of that thunderous roar becomes apparent – an enormous and horrific tsunami crashing over the nearby shoreline, inundating the resort and washing away everything – and everyone – in its path.
In the wake of the huge wave, Maria and Lucas get swept away but miraculously manage to find one another. They take shelter in the branches of a tall tree along with Daniel (Johan Sundberg), a terrified young boy separated from his family. With debris swirling about beneath them, they await help in the relative safety of the sturdy boughs. And help truly is needed given Maria’s condition; as a physician, she’s well aware of the severity of her injuries and the consequences of what will happen to her without treatment.
While Maria and Lucas struggle to save themselves, Henry, Thomas and Simon somehow manage to survive the inundation by taking refuge at what’s left of the resort. They fretfully await word of what might have happened to their loved ones, but, with such widespread devastation and virtually nonexistent communication, they’re essentially helpless to do anything but wait. The trio later becomes separated intentionally when Henry sends his sons to an evacuation camp, opting to stay behind and search for his wife and son, a painful decision for the young father, compounding the flood of anguish that’s already washed over him.
Meanwhile, Maria’s and Lucas’s prayers for a rescue are answered when two local residents (La-Orng Thongruang, Tor Klathaley) shepherd them to the safety of a nearby hospital. Maria’s condition is grave, but she insists that Lucas go help others while she awaits treatment. He leaves her bedside reluctantly, but he’s rewarded for his Samaritan efforts by helping to reunite a Swedish tourist (Douglas Johansson) and his injured son (Emilio Riccardi). Upon returning to his mother’s hospital bed, however, he finds her gone with no word of her whereabouts or condition. Yet another separation for the family thus makes an already trying time even more arduous.
Will the Bennetts reunite? Or will they be forever separated? And what of Maria’s condition? Will she survive? These are the seemingly insurmountable challenges posed to an unsuspecting family that started out on its trip merely hoping for a pleasant holiday vacation. Some might even say that the odds of such a reunion are "impossible." But then, who’s to say the odds are always right?
As conscious creators are well aware, we each draw to ourselves a reality that’s in line with our beliefs and intents. But why, one might ask, would anyone draw to himself events as horrendous as this?
In conscious creation terms, incidents that occur on such a grand scale as this are called "mass events," happenings that are co-created en masse. While the event may be viewed as a single occurrence, it’s actually made up of countless individual events that all unfold under the same umbrella. The beliefs underlying such individual events generally have to do with whatever particular lessons their creators need to learn, and, in the case of this film’s protagonists, there are numerous teachings that each of them is able to experience as a result of this tragedy.
For instance, while on the plane on their way to Thailand, virtually all of the Bennett family members express trepidation about various fears that each of them is dealing with. In all of these instances, however, the fears they’re wrestling with pale in comparison to those they will come to face during the course of their respective upcoming ordeals. The wave, as unquestionably devastating as it was physically and emotionally, nevertheless provides an opportunity for addressing lessons related to fear. One would hope that resorting to means as drastic as this wouldn’t be necessary for learning such lessons, but sometimes we must attract such extreme circumstances to us in order to do so, especially if the issues in question have gone unaddressed for an unduly long time.
Likewise, the individual tragedies that transpire in the course of this mass event also provide prime learning opportunities with respect to compassion, a lesson of particular importance for Lucas. While Lucas may be the least fearful of the family members, it’s due largely to his strong survival instinct, a quality that doesn’t always make allowances for helping others. The tsunami changes that, however. For instance, in the midst of the turmoil of trying to help his injured mother survive the wave, Maria tells Lucas that they must try to help Daniel, even if it’s the last thing they do. Lucas is initially reluctant, but Maria’s insistence compels him to aid the lost young boy, helping Lucas to rewrite his beliefs regarding altruism and ultimately providing a rewarding experience for all involved.
The act of rewriting one’s beliefs can pay benefits in "unexpected" ways, too. For example, by saving Daniel, Lucas and Maria are themselves then saved by the local residents who rescue them from the tree. They get back what they put out, the outside world thus mirroring back to them tangibly what they intangibly believe on the inside. Their intentions are also thus rewarded by their divine conscious creation collaborator, their efforts recognized in a way not unlike that depicted in the heartwarming film "Pay It Forward" (2000). Payback, it seems, can indeed be a blessing.
Coming to understand that this is how the Universe operates helps to deepen our awareness of several other significant conscious creation concepts. First, it strengthens our belief in the notion that everything is inherently connected. It’s truly amazing to see how one mass event can include all of the links integral to the manifestation of so many diverse individual scenarios. Even seemingly "unrelated" influences carry intrinsic connections. If you doubt that, consider where the earthquake occurred that caused the tsunami; who would have thought that an event transpiring hundreds of miles away could wreak havoc in such a distant locale? But the connectedness of the Universe binds all things, no matter how seemingly remote or disparate, which is why we should be cognizant of this notion in the beliefs we form and the existence we seek to create. The Bennetts come to see this for themselves, too, and in more ways than they ever could have imagined.
But, perhaps even more significantly, this film makes the case for having faith. No matter how utterly improbable things may seem, truly "miraculous" events can occur, even in the face of the unlikeliest of odds, provided that one believes they’re possible. Even when things are at their darkest, the Bennetts never lose hope in finding one another. By holding on to that belief and paying attention to the synchronicities that steer them in the right direction, a family separated by tragedy has an opportunity to come together once again, emerging from the ordeal even stronger than ever.
Given the nature of a picture like this, it’s not too difficult to predict the outcome, even from the very beginning. Thus the trick in making a story like this compelling is the means by which the filmmaker gets the audience to the conclusion. But, because of the movie’s inspiring narrative, as well as its comparably uplifting trailer, I must admit to having had my reservations going in. I was concerned that it might easily be sappy and overly sentimental, riddled with clichés and manipulative plot devices. I couldn’t have been more wrong.
"The Impossible" is a truly heartfelt drama that earns the emotional reactions it evokes. In large part that’s due to the fact that the filmmakers have not sugarcoated their depiction of the tsunami. While the picture never descends to the level of being gratuitous, it nevertheless does not hesitate to show the tragedy and its effects in a frank, candid manner. When viewers see what the characters are up against, the responses induced are indeed genuine. This is due in part to the incredible re-creation of events, as well as the stellar performances of McGregor and Watts, who deservedly has earned best actress nominations in the annual Golden Globe, Screen Actors Guild and Critics Choice award competitions, as well as newcomer Holland, who received a Critics Choice Award nomination as best young actor.
Adversity can be a great teacher in many ways, as this film clearly shows. However, perhaps the greatest lesson it can teach us is that all need not be lost, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable circumstances. Indeed, "the impossible" need only be so if we allow it to be, and, when faced with such an outcome, the alternative might well seem preferable – as long as we believe it so.
Photo by Jose Haro, courtesy of Summit Entertainment,LLC.
Copyright © 2012-13, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
‘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.
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.
Friday, December 21, 2012
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
Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures
Monday, December 17, 2012
‘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.
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.
Friday, December 7, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)