‘Shadow Dancer’ exposes the perils of deceit

“Shadow Dancer” (2012 production, 2013 release). Cast: Andrea Riseborough, Clive Owen, Gillian Anderson, Aidan Gillen, Domhnall Gleeson, David Wilmot, Brid Brennan, Cathal Maguire, Martin McCann, Barry Barnes, Maria Laird, Ben Smyth. Director: James Marsh. Screenplay: Tom Bradby. Book: Tom Bradby, Shadow Dancer. Web site. Trailer.

When we seek to deceive others, we often end up deceiving ourselves, with our intents reflecting back upon us in startling (though not entirely unexpected) ways. The consequences of such actions can be devastating, too, both for us and for those affected by our schemes, results that become all too painfully apparent in the gripping new thriller, “Shadow Dancer.”

Belfast, Northern Ireland was an explosive place in 1973. The long-simmering conflict between the militant Irish Republican Army and British troops deployed to maintain order flared up routinely at the time. Street clashes frequently erupted, often claiming innocent victims caught in the cross-fire. Such was the case for a young boy (Ben Smyth) who was shot and killed while running an errand, one that was supposed to be handled by his older sister, Collette (Maria Laird). Outraged by the tragedy, in ensuing years, the young girl and her two surviving brothers vowed to exact revenge against the British authorities they believed were responsible for their sibling’s death – by becoming IRA operatives.

Flash forward 20 years to 1993, a time when the IRA and British authorities were earnestly seeking to make peace. It represented a major step forward in relations between the two combatants, but not everyone in the IRA’s ranks was satisfied with the peace talks. Fearing that the IRA leadership was conceding too much, some of the organization’s more radical elements were convinced that they should continue their guerilla tactics, carrying out targeted assassinations and terrorist attacks in retribution for what they perceived as ongoing British oppression.

These sentiments are depicted in the film when Collette, now an adult (Andrea Riseborough), is charged with placing an explosive device in a London subway station. But the plot is foiled by the British intelligence agency MI5 before she can carry it out. Once Collette is in custody, one of MI5’s field agents, Mac (Clive Owen), offers his captive a deal – that she act as an informant to spy on the activities of her brothers and fellow IRA operatives, Gerry (Aidan Gillen) and Connor (Domhnall Gleeson), in exchange for staying out of prison. As a single mother of a young son (Cathal Maguire) who faces the prospect of not seeing her child once incarcerated, she reluctantly agrees to Mac’s offer. It’s a move that quickly puts her life in jeopardy from those in close quarters who now have suspicions about her, questioning where her true loyalties lie. And, despite Mac’s reassurances, she fears for her safety, not only from the possible reprisals of her “peers” but also because maintaining her cover requires her to continue engaging in the kinds of dangerous activities her spying was intended to prevent.

But Collette isn’t the only one who experiences challenges in carrying out her undercover mission. Before long, Mac discovers that there are others who appear to be working against him, too. He consults his superior, Kate Fletcher (Gillian Anderson), for guidance, an inquiry that only leads to even more puzzling questions. And so, as events play out, both the spy and the spy master are thrown into a web of intrigue where they’re left to fend for themselves. The question is, though, will they be able to find out enough in time to keep themselves alive?

When we employ conscious creation to manifest the reality around us, we serve ourselves best when we do so from the standpoint of personal integrity and truthfulness. Failing to do so can easily lead to conscious creation gone awry, with “unintended” outcomes and unwanted results bring thrust upon us and, potentially, others who get caught in the cross-fire (not unlike what happened to Collette’s brother at the film’s outset).

But, as obvious as such advice might seem, why don’t we religiously follow it? How do we allow our intents to become twisted or corrupted? Shouldn’t we be able to keep such untoward influences from impacting what we’re seeking to materialize?

Unexpected outcomes can result in several ways. In most cases, we wind up with unwanted results by failing to be clear with ourselves about what we’re seeking to create. Either we’re foggy about the beliefs we employ to manifest our reality, or we allow competing beliefs to conflict with one another during the manifestation process, or we underutilize our intellect or intuition in forming the beliefs we use for materialization purposes. In all of these instances, the results we realize invariably conform to these “faulty” intentions, accurately reflecting what we put into them, even if they’re not what we thought we were trying to achieve.

In other cases, the outcomes we experience can be the result of mass co-creations in which we contribute to what arises, even though we’re only part of the overall equation. We may successfully participate in creating our respective portions of the outcomes, but the overall results stem from the input of numerous contributors, some of whose intents may not align with – or may even blatantly contradict – our own. We might experience some satisfaction with the results in such situations, but we’re just as likely to find fault with at least some of what appears, too.

Collette and Mac both experience such circumstances as their respective stories unfold. To materialize what each of them truly wants, they must scrutinize their creations to discover what beliefs – both those of an individual and of a collective nature – have contributed to producing what they experience. This can be challenging, given that each of them dances in the shadows of the murky worlds of espionage and subterfuge, routinely engaging in actions that are intentionally deceitful. Under such circumstances, then, is it any wonder that things don’t always turn out as hoped for? Collette’s and Mac’s experiences thus offer us clear, concise cautionary tales about the pitfalls we should all seek to avoid if we hope to steer clear of the kinds of difficulties they and their peers ultimately encounter. Indeed, intentional deception can become a trap, both for those who create it and those who are impacted by it.

“Shadow Dancer” is a well-crafted thriller that slowly sizzles to a powerful climax. Its taut, well-written screenplay is subtle (sometimes even a bit too subtle) but effective in telling its compelling story (you have to watch this one very closely to get the full gist of what’s going on). The film features a great collection of performances, especially by Riseborough, who turns in some of her best on-screen work to date. The pacing is a bit slow in the first 30 minutes, and the sound quality (considering the characters’ thick Irish brogues) leaves something to be desired at times, but these shortcomings don’t detract significantly from what is otherwise a riveting time at the movies. The picture is primarily playing at theatres specializing in independent and foreign cinema, but it’s worth searching for, even if it’s not showing at the neighborhood multiplex.

The perils of deception can wreak havoc in our lives and the lives of others. But, if we strive to create an existence based on genuine intents, we stand a much greater chance of avoiding difficulties that can carry significant consequences. “Shadow Dancer” illustrates these principles effectively, bringing to light the importance of employing honesty in all that we seek to create – and the price we’ll pay if we don’t.

Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

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

‘Man of Steel’ shows us how to soar

“Man of Steel” (2013). Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Russell Crowe, Ayelet Zurer, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Antje Traue, Harry Lennix, Richard Schiff, Christopher Meloni, Dylan Sprayberry, Cooper Timberline, Michael Kelly, Rebecca Buller, Christina Wren, Jack Foley, Joseph Cranford, MacKenzie Gray. Director: Zack Snyder. Screenplay: David S. Goyer. Story: David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan. Characters Created By: Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. Web site. Trailer.

Aspiring to become more than what we perceive ourselves to be is a goal that many of us hold dearly. Following through on that undertaking can be a challenging process, though, particularly when we realize everything that’s involved. Nevertheless, those of us who are undeterred won’t allow potential obstacles to hold us back in this pursuit, especially when we avail ourselves of guidance and inspiration on how to proceed, concepts that are superbly showcased in the new summertime action adventure, “Man of Steel.”

The planet Krypton is a dying world. Having served as home to a technologically advanced species for eons, it’s now on the brink of its demise, an outcome attributable to its inhabitants’ mismanagement of the planet’s natural resources. Sadly, the end of Krypton also means the end of its people unless something can be done quickly to evacuate at least some of the population. Leading the argument for evacuation are Jor-El (Russell Crowe), Krypton’s chief science advisor, and General Zod (Michael Shannon), the planet’s military leader. However, with time running short, no meaningful evacuation plans in place and incessant bickering about how to proceed, the prospects of saving anyone or anything of Krypton look increasingly bleak.

Given these circumstances, Jor-El and his wife, Lara (Ayelet Zurer), decide to take drastic measures. They plan to evacuate their infant son, Kal-El, by sending him to a new celestial home, his destination being a distant planet known as Earth. But, not long before Kal’s departure, General Zod learns of Jor-El’s plans and the allegedly illegal, morally offensive acts he perpetrated to make his son’s escape possible. With planetary Armageddon looming, one might wonder why someone like Zod would still be preoccupied with matters such as this, but, as the planet’s chief law enforcement officer, he feels compelled to execute his duties right up to the end. Just as Kal’s ship departs, Zod and Jor-El do battle with one another, a conflict that ends in Jor-El’s death and earns Zod a prolonged sentence in interdimensional confinement.

With Kal-El safely on his way to Earth, at least something of his home world’s existence is preserved. His escape was fortuitously timed, too, for, not long after his departure, Krypton’s end at last comes. The planet’s explosion, however, has an additional, and unintended, outcome – it liberates the once-confined general, who’s hell-bent on tracking down the object of Jor-El’s “transgressions,” no matter what it takes or where it takes him.

Kal-El, meanwhile, arrives on Earth. His ship crash-lands in a field near Smallville, Kansas, where he’s taken in by a childless farming couple, Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner, Diane Lane), who raise the alien youngster as their own, naming him Clark. But, as Clark grows up, he quickly learns he’s very different from the other children, possessing exceptional strength and remarkable powers that no one else has. Clark’s extraordinary abilities are due to his exposure to the sun, a younger star than the one that illuminated his native Krypton and whose more intense solar radiation amplifies his physical capabilities. Needless to say, those astonishing talents sometimes scare Clark’s peers (as well as Clark himself). But, with the loving guidance of the Kents, as Clark enters adolescence and adulthood (Henry Cavill), he learns to adapt to his differences and to manage how and when to make use of them.

Even with that awareness, though, Clark is still left with the challenge of discovering and understanding his true nature, an odyssey that takes him to many parts of the globe in search of himself. It’s a journey that exposes him to a wide range of experiences and introduces him to a diverse array of people, such as intrepid newspaper reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams). It also eventually leads him to discover the truth about his off-world origins.

With the gaps in his background at last filled in, Clark finally feels ready to take up the challenge of finding his own place in the world. And that couldn’t happen soon enough, both for himself and his fellow earthlings, with the arrival of an unexpected visitor – General Zod. This “Super Man,” this “Man of Steel” is thus about to have his potential put to the test at the hands of an old family nemesis – someone who’s obsessively convinced he has a major score to settle with someone he’s never met.

Embracing one’s personal power might seem like something everyone would naturally want, but such is not the case. In fact, we’re often frightfully intimidated at the prospect. As author Marianne Williamson wrote in her book A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles (HarperCollins, 1992), “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.” So it is with Kal/Clark, who struggles to come to grips with what he’s capable of. On more than one occasion he has witnessed “lesser beings” misusing what power they possess, so the prospect of uncontrollably unleashing his considerably superior capabilities frequently stops Clark in his tracks, giving him pause to evaluate what he should do.

This principle parallels what conscious creators often go through as they grow into their own power. Learning how to employ the practice judiciously, tempered by restraint and wisdom, is arguably one of the most important lessons of our conscious creation education. It teaches us how to use our abilities responsibly. It also encourages us to employ these skills in furthering such causes as justice (rather than vengeance), compassion (rather than callousness) and selflessness (rather than selfishness). And, through it all, it also impels us to overcome our fears (in this case, a potentially big one, the fear of success) so that we may move forward in our lives courageously, even heroically.

Possessing as many powers as Kal/Clark does can easily be overwhelming, something else he needs to learn how to handle. This is best illustrated in a flashback to our hero’s childhood, when a 9-year-old Clark (Cooper Timberline) first begins to become aware of his x-ray vision capabilities. He initially freaks out at the prospect of being able to see inside others, a revelation that causes him to flee in fright. He even secludes himself in a closet in a futile attempt to turn off the capability. However, thanks to Martha’s comforting words of reassurance, he comes to appreciate the ability as something “natural” where he’s concerned. By developing focus and tuning out unnecessary distractions, Clark is further able to refine his special skills, enabling him to master those abilities and allowing him to make use of them with proficiency and without hesitation.

As Clark grows as a sentient being, his character evolves (in his case as someone who represents – and embodies – the best of two worlds). He comes to recognize, as practiced conscious creators do, that evolution is a natural state of affairs, that we’re all in a constant state of becoming, and the more freely we embrace that notion, the more we’re able to relish the joys of creation and existence that it affords.

This is in stark contrast to what happens to those who are unwilling to accept this idea, such as General Zod. Life can be frustrating and difficult for such individuals. By failing to recognize that certain lines of probability are meant to come to an end once they’ve run their course, they set themselves up for heartache and agony by trying to hold on to what should be let go. The fallout from such lost causes can become exacerbated, too, when diehard adherents engage in desperate attempts to sustain what’s clearly meant to fall away. And, in the end, no matter what they might do to forestall the inevitable, the inevitable will always win out, a realization that can be a particularly painful lesson for those who let stubborn hubris get in the way.

By recognizing, embracing and practicing all of the foregoing principles, we each have the potential to become our own “super men” and “super women,” at least metaphorically speaking. Kal’s story thus serves as a fable to symbolize our own personal growth and development, a call to rise above our current status and become more of what we’re truly capable of being. Through such experiences, we even have the potential to live out our value fulfillment, the conscious creation principle having to do with realizing our destiny for the betterment of ourselves and those around us. Kal certainly understands what it means to live his life in this way, providing us with an exceptional example we’d all be wise to emulate, no matter what context we apply it to.

“Man of Steel” is a flat-out winner in virtually every respect, thoroughly entertaining and extremely thoughtful from start to finish. It features great performances across the board (particularly Shannon), thanks to the picture’s spot-on casting. The numerous action sequences are punctuated by terrific special effects and a wonderful musical score, but they’re only part of the story here. It’s indeed refreshing to see a film of this genre that doesn’t rely exclusively on explosions and fight scenes to carry the narrative, for this movie is as much a showcase for its characters as it is for its mind-blowing high-tech wizardry.

That said, perhaps the film’s greatest asset is its knock-out screenplay, which relates the Superman saga in a compelling new way. Viewers are given a much more thorough treatment of the character’s back story, and, through a series of well-placed flashbacks, the film shows in considerably greater detail how and why Clark Kent and his superhero alter-ego became who they are. The material is also presented with a more mature tone than in previous iterations of the Man of Steel mythology, elevating the story line to a more meaningful and sophisticated level. But, then, that shouldn’t come as any surprise, given that the story and script were developed by Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, the driving forces behind the most recent series of “Batman” movies, all of which feature comparable subject matter treatment. Give credit also to director Zack Snyder, who has taken a major step up in his craft with this offering, easily the best work he’s done to date.

Whether we’re aware of it or not, a Superman resides within each of us, but we’ll never realize that unless we allow this archetype’s emergence. Kal’s story thus serves as an eloquent allegory for how we can give life to our own latent superheroes. In an age with as many challenges as we face, we’d be wise to birth that powerful part of ourselves in hopes that doing so can better our planet and all who dwell on it. If we doubt that, we need only look to the fate of Krypton, a catastrophe not unlike one we might face ourselves someday, but one that we also just might be able to avoid if we permit our men and women of steel to step forward to prevent it. To that end, then, may we all have the courage, wisdom and insight to take the necessary measures to save our world – before it’s too late.

Photo by Clay Enos, courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.

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

‘Now You See Me’ works magic on screen

“Now You See Me” (2013). Cast: Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Mark Ruffalo, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco, Mélanie Laurent, Common, Michael J. Kelly, David Warshoksky, José Garcia, Caitriona Balfe, Jessica Lindsey. Director: Louis Leterrier. Screenplay: Ed Solomon, Boaz Yakin and Edward Ricourt. Story: Boaz Yakin and Edward Ricourt. Web site. Trailer.

We’re all familiar with such magic tricks as pulling a rabbit out of a hat or sawing someone in half. These fun little ruses have entertained us for ages, often prompting enthralled onlookers to wonder how such supernatural feats are accomplished. But such simple stunts are nothing in comparison to the grand creative exploits successfully executed by a team of illusionists in the magically enjoyable new release, “Now You See Me.”

There’s magic in the air across the country. In Chicago, card trick master J. Daniel Atlas (Jesse Eisenberg) amazes crowds gathered on street corners with feats of creative trickery. Meanwhile, in New Orleans, mentalist Merritt McKinney (Woody Harrelson) captivates and surprises tourists with his hypnosis and mind-reading skills. Out west, in Los Angeles, escape artist Henley Reeves (Isla Fisher) wows audiences with breathtaking stunts. And, in New York, sleight of hand maestro Jack Wilder (Dave Franco) stuns unsuspecting spectators with lightning-fast moves that leave heads spinning. So what do these four practitioners of playfully deceitful legerdemain have in common? They each receive a Tarot card with an invitation directing them to a rundown apartment in lower Manhattan for a meeting with a mystery – one that’s about to change their lives in incredible ways.

A year later, the magicians find themselves on a glitzy Las Vegas stage performing under the name the Four Horsemen. Under the sponsorship of wealthy impresario Arthur Tressler (Michael Caine), they work their magic before a packed house, performing feat after amazing feat. But, as mesmerizing as those tricks are, they pale in comparison to their closing routine, one in which they rob a bank – in Paris. With the aid of an audience member (José Garcia), the Horsemen magically teleport their unsuspecting colleague from Nevada to France, where he helps his stateside accomplices steal a stash of 3.2 million Euros. Moments later, the money miraculously appears in the Vegas theater, where it showers down upon ebullient spectators eager to scoop up some of the cash. Talk about finales!

When the Parisian bank officials open their vault and find it empty, they immediately call in authorities in Europe and the U.S. The American side of the investigation is headed up by FBI agent Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) with the aid of French Interpol agent Alma Dray (Mélanie Laurent). They arrest the Horsemen, who put up no resistance, but, thanks to their deft trickery and unquestionable confidence, they quickly proceed to make the investigators look like fools (and fools who are unable to charge them with any crimes at that). The magicians walk out of jail, accompanied by their grinning benefactor, and head off to their next show in New Orleans, which they promise will include a feat even more spectacular than the one they just pulled off.

Frustrated at the blatant arrogance of the slick thieves, Rhodes and Dray look for whatever assistance they can find to help them nail the slippery crooks. And, remarkably, that help comes to them unsolicited in the guise of Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman), a former magician-turned-debunker, who has built a successful career making videos exposing how magicians pull off their tricks. Bradley attempts to strike a deal with the authorities, who reject his offer out of hand, partly because of what it amounts to and partly because of the public relations nightmare that would result if word were to leak out about the FBI’s involvement with someone like him in an official investigation. Before leaving, though, Bradley warns Rhodes and company that they’re fools for failing to appreciate how professional magicians operate – and what they’re really capable of.

Meanwhile, the second act is about to play out in the Big Easy. With the authorities and Bradley in tow, the Horsemen prepare for their next show, which they boast is the setup for their final, and biggest, trick of all, a spectacle of monumental proportions to be carried out subsequently in New York. But, before they descend upon the Big Apple for that ultimate score, the Horsemen have a performance to give in New Orleans, one that’s sure to be full of twists, turns and huge surprises for those still trying to figure them out, as well as those who think they know them best. And what a show it is!

So why would a group of magicians go to all the trouble of robbing a bank only to turn over the fruits of their heist to the audience? In part it has to do with one interpretation of the true purposes behind the origin of magic.

In conducting background research for her investigation, Dray learns that sleight of hand techniques were said to have been developed in ancient Egypt, where high-ranking servants of the pharaohs who were appalled at the slavish treatment of their junior peers discovered how to steal food for them without the royals’ awareness. Dray quietly speculates that the spirit of this practice may be the motivation driving the magicians’ true agenda. After all, the institution they rob appears to be one of those uncaring mega-banks, an organization whose compassion level is about on par with that of the ancient Egyptian rulers. In light of that, then, bringing down such an all-powerful institution in a dramatically impactful way would seem an aptly fitting goal for this eager band of illusionist “activists”; their Biblically inspired apocalyptic name – the Four Horsemen – suits them perfectly as zealous, undeterred vanquishers of a supposedly unassailable giant. Indeed, as seasoned magicians would agree, there really is more than meets the eye going on here.

Regardless of their motivation, though, the magicians ultimately accomplish something even more significant through their actions – they expertly demonstrate what really matters in making the conscious creation process work. In essence, their unshakable faith in their ability to successfully carry out their feats is what makes them happen, no matter how seemingly improbable or miraculous they might appear. Now, some debunkers and naysayers might argue that the performers simply employ clandestine (but explainable) techniques and gadgetry in executing their tricks, thereby negating whatever ‘magic’ might allegedly be involved. However, does it really matter what “mechanics” they draw upon to achieve their goal? No matter what tools they use, they’re utterly convinced they can pull off their implausible stunts and entertain their spectators, all the while making things look effortless and mystical. In the end, it’s their beliefs that ultimately make such results possible; the mechanics of their tricks, while in fact tangible (but discrete), are merely the means of pulling them off.

The example they set through their magic is something we’d all be wise to follow when seeking to achieve cherished goals. If we look to accomplish a particular objective, we should focus on the outcome more than on the methods for getting there, just as the magicians do in carrying off their tricks. All too often, though, we place too much emphasis on how we attain our goals and not enough on the goals themselves. By shifting our attention to the result, however, we significantly increase the likelihood of its fulfillment; the specific means for achieving the outcome will reveal themselves, and, as long as we’re paying attention, we’ll recognize the solutions when we see them.

An admonition often used by magicians in describing their craft – “Don’t look too close or you’ll miss too much” – seems appropriate in this context. Looking too closely is analogous to putting too much attention on the means and not enough on the ends; if we do so, we just might miss the solution we seek, just as spectators often overlook the actual sleight of hand technique at work as a trick is carried out. We ignore this advice at our peril, too. In fact, that’s how magicians (and politicians!) get their audiences (and constituencies) to buy into (i.e., “believe”) the artfully enacted deceit; by getting onlookers to focus their attention on the mechanics of what trick is unfolding, rather than the outcome of what that stunt might be, the illusionist perpetrators are able to create (i.e., get away with) their carefully crafted deceptions. (Now that’s a lesson we should all heed.)

For better or worse, though, working magic is essentially what we do as conscious creators. In fact, the ways in which we employ our intellect and intuition to form the beliefs we use in the manifestation process is sometimes referred to as “the magical approach” to conscious creation. But, regardless of what one calls it, conscious creation is truly the practice of everyday miracles made real. What the Horsemen do is, for all practical purposes, the same thing we do every day, only on a grander scale – but one that serves as a tremendous source of inspiration, both for those in their fictitious audiences and those of us watching the action unfolding on screen.

“Now You See Me” is a raucously fun thrill ride, a wonderful piece of summertime escapist fluff, yet its deceptively subtle, metaphysically rich narrative is surprisingly deeper than the cinematic clothes it wears. I’ll admit that I wasn’t terribly impressed by the trailer, but I was very pleasantly surprised at the outcome (proving my point that even I was guilty of initially looking too closely at the means and not enough at the ends). Watch this movie for its sheer enjoyment, and you won’t be disappointed (the film’s terrific special effects alone are well worth it). But pay attention to the themes underlying its pretext, and you’ll be richly rewarded.

The movie features decent performances across the board, except for Ruffalo, whose over-the-top portrayal is a bit much (even in scenes where it’s called for). The picture also does a great job of explaining how some of the tricks work, but it doesn’t reveal so much that it spoils the fun that magic really is. Nevertheless, don’t spend a lot of time looking for the wires or mirrors that make the tricks work; you’ll only be cheating yourself out of a good time if you do.

Magic is something we often think of as being reserved for a select talented few. But, as this picture reveals, it’s something we can all practice, on scales great and small, as long as we believe in ourselves, employ genuine intents and know where to place our focus. By doing so, the results just may astonish everyone – including ourselves.


Photo by Barry Wetcher, courtesy of Summit Entertainment, LLC.

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

‘Frances Ha’ applauds the virtues of responsibility

“Frances Ha” (2012 production, 2013 release). Cast: Greta Gerwig, Mickey Sumner, Adam Driver, Michael Zegen, Charlotte d’Amboise, Grace Gummer, Patrick Heusinger, Michael Esper, Christine Gerwig, Gordon Gerwig, Maya Kazan. Director: Noah Baumbach. Screenplay: Noah Baumbach and Greta Gerwig. Web site. Trailer.

At some time or another, most of us have probably rhetorically observed that we’d like to fulfill a particular objective “someday.” That indeterminate future is something that we all comfortably assume will always be there for us to access. But, as many of us have also probably noted, time can pass us by rather quickly, and the days can get behind us faster than we thought possible. So, in light of that, when, in fact, are we going to start making the effort to realize that nebulous goal? At some point or another, we must take responsibility to concertedly move toward achieving that aim, an idea explored in the quirky new indie comedy, “Frances Ha.”

Frances Halloway (Greta Gerwig) is looking to find herself through her art. The twenty-something would-be modern dancer lives in Brooklyn with her best friend from college, Sophie (Mickey Sumner), who seeks to scale the heights of the book publishing world. But, despite such lofty aspirations, Frances and Sophie seem most at home when playing at life. They run around New York attending parties, drinking too much and generally having a good time, and, when the mood strikes them, they put in some time on their respective crafts. They’re also halfheartedly committed to their sometimes-boyfriends (Frances to Dan (Michael Esper) and Sophie to Patch (Patrick Heusinger)), though, like most things in their lives, they could just as soon leave them as take them. (And they wonder why they struggle to feel fulfilled, loved and financially stable.)

In fact, about the only thing to which each of them is committed is their friendship, but, when that sours, they’re each suddenly more adrift than ever. Frances moves in with Lev (Adam Driver), a sculptor’s assistant, and Benji (Michael Zegen), an aspiring movie and TV writer, both of whom seem to be able to make their dreams happen (or at least to convincingly convey the impression that they do). Before long, though, Frances finds herself directionless once again. When Colleen (Charlotte d’Amboise), Frances’s dance company director, releases her from her apprenticeship, she looks for something – anything – to latch onto. She floats from tangent to tangent, taking time to visit her parents (Christine Gerwig, Gordon Gerwig) in her hometown of Sacramento, spending time with fellow dancer Rachel (Grace Gummer), embarking on an impromptu weekend trip to Paris, and returning to her college to work as a residential advisor and reception server. But none of these adventures provides her with the answers she seeks.

The looming question for Frances thus becomes, “Will she ever find her way?” Or is she forever doomed to wander the creative wastelands? Indeed, can she find the focus she needs to succeed, or will she wind up being yet another failed artist who never lives up to her potential? In the end, it all comes down to what she does to make it, or not make it, happen.

It’s easy to see what Frances needs to do to turn things around – very simply, she needs to settle down and grow up. If she ever wants to get to where she wants to be, she needs to take responsibility for her creations. But that involves more than just “acting responsibly”; it requires her to get in touch with the beliefs she employs in manifesting the reality she experiences. This may be a little easier said than done, but it’s certainly not impossible if she sets her mind to it.

For instance, Frances truly needs to clear out the clutter clogging up her consciousness. She needs to rid herself of superfluous beliefs and focus on the core, essential notions that she draws upon for shaping the existence she materializes. In particular, she needs to wipe away the beliefs related to the many distractions she ends up manifesting, for they take away her focus and detract from the primary aims she hopes to achieve. It’s certainly nice to have good times in one’s life, but, when their pursuit overtakes our primary reason for being, they derail us in our efforts to fulfill our main purpose in life.

Frances even recognizes this to a certain degree. While at a dinner party one evening, one of the guests asks her what she does for a living, to which she replies that it’s rather difficult to explain. When the guest follows up by asking if what she does is complicated, Frances responds by saying “No, [it’s hard to explain] because I don’t really do it.” And that about sums up things in a nutshell where Frances is concerned.

The deeper question here, then, is “Why does Frances create all of the distractions that keep her from accomplishing her goals and living her dreams?” Is it that she simply doesn’t know how to go about this and just creates diversions to fill up her days in the meantime? Or is it that she’s on the wrong path and needs to find a new one? Or perhaps she’s wrestling with a fear of success issue? No matter what the case, though, if she ever wants to move forward with her life, she’ll need to sort out her beliefs about what she’s doing (or isn’t doing) and why.

Distractions, when left unchecked, often can become crutches or excuses for our behavior, both in terms of our daily activities and our conscious creation efforts. Indeed, it can become rather easy to fall back on trumped-up rationalizations for not doing what we could or should be doing, when, in fact, such actions frequently amount to little more than feeble justifications for avoiding more significant issues in our lives.

For instance, when Dan asks Frances to move in with him, she declines, citing the existing lease on her apartment with Sophie. But, when Dan notes that the lease is nearly up, Frances replies that she already had her mind set on renewing their lease and would feel guilty abandoning Sophie if she moved in with him (even though she and Sophie had never discussed the renewal option). While it’s true that Frances is a devoted friend to Sophie, creating the excuse to stay with her out of loyalty is more of an aversion to dealing with her troubled romance with Dan than it is to being faithful companion. (One can imagine where Frances’s relationship with Dan goes from there.)

Frances lives much of life spontaneously, and that can be quite beneficial. Spontaneity is often proof that we’re following our intuitive impulses, those strong, powerful messages that frequently provide sage guidance for helping us achieve our conscious creation objectives. And acting upon them is even more important, for they help to transform those intangible thought forms into corporeal manifestations. This is truly a sign that the creative juices are flowing. However, when we only follow the spontaneity associated with the creation of our distractions, we tend to get further afield from our hoped-for expectations, and, sadly, those are the impulses that Frances most often acts upon. Learning how to temper our spontaneity with wisdom and focus is thus crucial if we ever hope to get the most benefit out of it.

By continuing to pursue such a course of conduct, the inevitable outcome is most likely going to be hitting rock bottom. At that point, it becomes imperative to clear away the clutter and distractions, because our very survival often depends on it. Such severe circumstances force us into “getting real,” setting aside the excuses, the immature behavior and the time wasting. If we don’t, the results could be disastrous and demoralizing. It’s a realization that Frances had better come to terms with before it’s too late.

While the message of “Frances Ha” could benefit anyone in need of getting his or her act together, I believe it’s no accident that the protagonist is a young, upcoming professional in need of imposing some metaphysical and daily living discipline in her life. Contemporaries of the lead character might thus benefit the most from viewing this picture, in large part because they’re the ones most likely to identify with Frances’s circumstances and challenges. To that end, then, I’d heartily recommend this film to the twenty-somethings out there who are looking to find their way and get their lives off the launching pad. Watch and learn from Frances, and don’t be afraid to make some the same mistakes she does (it’s part of one’s learning curve after all); just don’t make a habit of it.

“Frances Ha” is a moderately funny and quirky picture reminiscent of some of Woody Allen’s films, such as “Manhattan” (1979), where the characters create needless distractions while attempting to create their true selves. Like other offerings from director Noah Baumbach, this picture is quite effective in its portrayal of characters in search of themselves in the wake of life-changing events. As in “The Squid and the Whale” (2005), where family members struggle to cope with the effects of divorce, and “Greenberg” (2010), where the protagonist attempts to manage his affairs after a mental breakdown, “Frances Ha” depicts the efforts of a character seeking to keep her dreams from slipping away while things slowly but relentlessly fall apart in her life. And, like the characters in the director’s other releases, the protagonist in this film is also the only one who can save herself, provided she’s willing to make the effort to do so.

While the picture is generally well written, its laughs are a little more sparse than I’d like. What’s more, the movie is a little too conscious of its own eccentricity at times, taking its hipster chic attitude, either unintentionally or in an act of intentional self-parody, to an annoying level on more than one occasion. That aside, however, the picture is beautifully filmed in black and white, features a great lead performance by Gerwig, and includes a terrific soundtrack with the likes of David Bowie, Paul McCartney, T. Rex, Harry Nilsson and Hot Chocolate.

Taking responsibility for our actions, both in our beliefs and what arises from them, might not always be the most fun thing to do, but, if we ever hope to fulfill our dreams, it’s essential, especially when launching new and meaningful undertakings. “Frances Ha” provides us with some examples of what to do, and what not to do, as we progress along the path of realizing our dreams. The virtues of such actions are sure to bring ample rewards, especially once we follow through on them to fruition.

Now that’s an effort that’s well worth pursuing.


Photo courtesy of IFC Films.

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

‘Here’ maps the human heart

“Here” (2011 production, 2012 release). Cast: Ben Foster, Lubna Azabal, Narek Nersisyan, Yuri Kostanyan, Sophik Sarkisyan, Christina Hovaguimyan, Hovak Gaolyan, Hmayak Hakopyan, Narik Beglaryan, Peter Coyote (narrator). Director: Braden King. Screenplay: Braden King and Dani Valent. Web site. Trailer.

So much of the time, we spend our lives trying to figure out where we’re at. But, in the process, we often focus on the trivial and overlook what’s truly important. Learning how to overcome that tendency can be challenging, but the rewards are certainly worth it, as two unlikely lovers find out for themselves in the absorbing romance, “Here,” now available on DVD.

When satellite mapping technician Will Shepard (Ben Foster) takes a contract to work in Armenia, he’s very much on his own. The American-born cartographer doesn’t speak the language, and he spends most of his time by himself in the field. But, then, given his loner nature, that arrangement suits him well. He can carry out his highly technical work in solitude, unburdened by the distractions of daily life.

That all changes, however, when Will meets Gadarine (Lubna Azabal), a free-spirited art photographer, who has returned to her Armenian homeland after a stint in Paris. She’s back to work on a new project that involves shooting photos in the same region where Will’s work will be taking him. The usually reserved technician quietly takes a liking to his new acquaintance, and Gadarine clearly enjoys his company, so she decides to accompany him on his trip. And, even though the journey may involve a trek into a familiar landscape, the improbable traveling companions are clearly headed into uncharted territory together.

The chemistry between Will and Gadarine is palpable, and their connection grows ever stronger the longer the two of them are together. But Gadarine proves to be more than a source of companionship; she helps Will to change his perspective about his work by acquainting him with the character of the land that he had previously treated merely as the subject matter of his vocation. In the process, she introduces Will to old friends (Christina Hovaguimyan, Hovak Gaolyan) and helps him out of difficult situations with a shady mechanic (Narik Beglaryan) and a punctilious border official (Hmayak Hakopyan) in the disputed Karabakh region. The once-independent cartographer gradually finds himself more attached to and dependent upon someone else for perhaps the first time in his life. It’s territory with which he’s mostly unfamiliar – and decidedly uncomfortable.

However, through his involvement with Gadarine, over time, Will comes to engage not only in the mapping of Armenia but also in that of his own heart. The experience shows him things about himself that he never knew before. He also learns that there’s more to life than work, an ironic realization given that it arose through, of all things, his job. It changes his personal landscape forever and in ways he once never could have envisioned.

“Here” is a deceptively profound film, thanks to the subtle, nuanced approach to its narrative. This is accomplished in a number of ways, such as the inclusion of a storyteller (Peter Coyote), whose voiceover narrations deftly lend philosophical definition to the subject matter. So what may seem like just a love story on the surface is, in fact, much more than that. It’s also a meditation on self-discovery, on finding one’s place in the Universe, a process that ultimately proves to be far more subjective than its objectively minded protagonist once believed it to be. Indeed, as the storyteller relates, the mapmaker learns through his experience that “truth is conjecture.”

The picture is also a metaphysical exploration into the workings of the conscious creation process. As anyone familiar with this practice knows, conscious creation is the process by which we create the reality we experience through the application of our beliefs to the act of manifestation. The beliefs we employ in the materialization process arise from the input we supply them from our intellect and our intuition, a harmonious fusion sometimes known as “the magical approach.” In carrying out its mission, our intellect draws upon qualities like logic, reason and the perceptions of our five outer senses. Our intuition, in turn, makes use of such traits as emotions, gut feelings, impulses and inner knowing. The interaction of the input from these two sources yields the beliefs we form and then turn into the corporeal world we experience around us.

Will and Gadarine symbolically depict how this process plays out. The logical, analytical Will represents the intellect, while the impulsive, creative Gadarine symbolizes the intuition. Like many of us who were brought up to believe that rational approaches to life are everything, Will, by his work, words and deeds, believes that science and technology can be used to answer all questions, to solve all problems and to make the world a better place. Gadarine, by contrast, believes we should trust our hunches and live an intuitive approach to life, for that’s where its genuine richness resides. While each outlook has its merits, however, neither can operate alone. They need each other, just as Will and Gadarine need each other to make their journey work. Their interaction results in the real magic that the magical approach makes possible.

Coming to this realization about how life works is indeed quite revelatory in many different ways. In one sense, it can be devastating, for it shatters all of our preconceived notions about how we think the world works, as Will discovers when he realizes that his rational, mechanistic, scientific approach to life isn’t enough to make it fulfilling or to adequately define it. Becoming aware of the fact that reality is more subjective than objective can be quite disillusioning, especially for those, like Will, who put their faith in the notion that all of life can be characterized in such explicitly definitive terms.

At the same time, this realization can also be rewarding beyond expectations. When Will discovers the “irrational” but heartfelt beauty that life has to offer, the power of such subjectivity transcends whatever certainty an objective outlook on reality can provide. This can be a hard lesson, but it can also be one that’s fulfilling beyond measure. The question that this raises, then, is “Does one have the courage to walk away from old attitudes and embrace such a new, nuanced view of life?” That’s the issue Will must face, and he has Gadarine to thank for helping to make him aware of this possibility – and the choice he has in either addressing it or ignoring it. We can only hope he makes the right choice.

“Here” is a thoughtfully written exploration of the foregoing, as examined through the milieu of romance. While any subject could have conceivably been used for such an exercise, romance is especially fitting, considering the exceptionally intimate, highly personalized nature of the material. The pacing is, admittedly, a tad slow in spots, but that’s deliberate, given that self-discovery is often an unhurried process, an approach that’s essential to the exploration of one’s own psyche and the mapping of one’s own heart. The pace is also slowed somewhat through the inclusion of a number of long, lingering shots of the Armenian landscape (itself one of the stars of the show) that are clearly present for their own sheer visual delight. In fact, the picture’s gorgeous cinematography was rewarded with a 2012 Independent Spirit Award nomination for its achievements in this area.

In an age characterized by extreme technological specificity, we’re often tempted to quantify and qualify everything in our lives to an almost absurdly explicit degree, one where all of the meaning and feeling – the true measures of life's significance – is bled out of them. By doing so, we may gain access to the hard and fast tangible qualities of what we experience, but we lose so much by not taking stock of the intrinsic subjective attributes of our reality. And that’s a shame, for, if we’re to gain a genuine appreciation of our lives, we’d be far better off passing up readouts on the numerical coordinates of our present existence and, instead, focusing more on the “here” of where we are. Will and Gadarine come to learn the value of this through their journey in “Here,” and we can all benefit from their example.

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

‘Star Trek’ boldly goes ‘Into Darkness’

“Star Trek Into Darkness” (2013). Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoë Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Bruce Greenwood, Benedict Cumberbatch, Alice Eve, Peter Weller, Noel Clarke, Beau Billingslea. Director: J.J. Abrams. Screenplay: Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof. Source Material: Star Trek TV series, by Gene Roddenberry. Web site. Trailer.

Those seeking an enlightened path for themselves often gravitate exclusively to “the light,” casually ignoring or even actively eschewing “the shadow” side of things. But is this a wise course? Are there things that “the dark side” can teach us? The answer might come as quite a surprise, but that’s what the crew of an intrepid space vessel is about to find out in the action-packed sci-fi adventure, “Star Trek Into Darkness,” the twelfth and latest movie installment in this long-running entertainment franchise.

Some days throw us some mighty big curves. Just as Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), the brash, young, sometimes-reckless commander of the Starship Enterprise, believes he’s about to be awarded a plum mission assignment, he instead gets a hard lesson in “no good deed goes unpunished.” In the wake of a perilous first contact mission to the planet Nibiru during which he went to extraordinary lengths to save the lives of that world’s primitive inhabitants and of his best friend, First Officer Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto), Kirk is unceremoniously demoted in rank and stripped of his command. He’s punished for actions that brazenly violated the Prime Directive of the expedition’s authorizing body, the United Federation of Planets, which strictly prohibits interference by UFP representatives in the natural course of a world’s evolution.

But, if that news weren’t bad enough, Kirk becomes even more upset when he learns that the report detailing the Nibiru incident (and prompting his demotion) was written by his First Officer. As a Vulcan, a race of beings whose culture is based on logic and total honesty, Spock is fundamentally incapable of lying, either by intention or omission. And so, despite the consequences, the ever-diligent Starship officer and scrupulously earnest Vulcan feels compelled to tell the truth, even if it places his friendship with Kirk in jeopardy.

However, despite his transgressions, Kirk is not without his allies, such as Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood). As the young swashbuckler’s superior officer, Pike is charged with delivering the bad news. But, as Kirk’s former captain, he’s also well aware of his protégé’s command abilities and sincerely seeks to minimize the impact of his demotion. So, in reassuming command of the Enterprise, Pike informs Kirk that he’s appointing his prodigy as his First Officer, with Spock being transferred to a different Starship. Kirk has mixed feelings about this new arrangement, but, if it gets him back aboard the Enterprise, he’s willing to go along with it.

By being named First Officer of the Enterprise, Kirk is allowed to remain in the upper echelon of Starfleet Command, the military and peacekeeping arm of the Federation, a move that proves to be a wise decision. When one of Starfleet’s high-ranking agents, John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), unexpectedly goes rogue and masterminds a horrific terrorist incident, the inner circle of officers holds an emergency meeting to investigate the event. Kirk’s keen insights cut through the clutter and get his peers’ attention, most notably that of Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller), head of the investigation team. By quickly identifying how and where the fugitive insurgent fled, Kirk is given the go-ahead to devise a plan for apprehending the renegade operative. But launching that endeavor comes at a high price and involves tremendous risk, including the threat of interplanetary war, all of which make Kirk’s adept command skills more valuable than ever.

To say what happens next would divulge far too much about the film’s intricate, engaging plot, but suffice it to say that Kirk and company are indeed propelled “into darkness,” as the picture’s title indicates. In so doing, the Enterprise sets off on a mission filled with intrigue, deception, false pretenses, danger and more than enough thrills to satisfy even the most ardent action-adventure junkie. But the story line also presents a thoughtful narrative characterized by explorations into personal empowerment, growth and development, as well as the rise of maturity, the sharpening of intuition and the expansion of individual capabilities. It’s quite a jam-packed saga, to say the least.

Considering the supremely hopeful view of the future that Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry envisioned, one can’t help but wonder why this latest installment in this immensely popular entertainment franchise has embarked on such a “dark” journey. Idealistic fans of this body of work might even see this as a betrayal of the originator’s optimistic vision. But I believe there are several sound reasons behind this move that have solid metaphysical underpinnings, notions that effectively complement and expand upon Roddenberry’s original concept.

Whenever we’re on the brink of a major spurt in our personal growth and development, we’re invariably faced with some kind of test, one that usually involves fear and movement into uncharted territory. Such ventures are frequently scary, and we often feel besieged by the circumstances with which we’re presented (or, more precisely, that we inevitably draw to us, be it consciously or unconsciously). We might well be tempted to flee in terror, but, if we genuinely hope to get past such daunting situations, we must face up to them. And this, as anyone who has successfully made it through trials like this can attest, is tantamount to living out the dark night of the soul.

For many of us, the term “dark night of the soul” evokes unsettling, perhaps even hellish images, and the prospect of going through it may seem overwhelming. However, those of us who have successfully maneuvered our way through such experiences know that we emerge from them stronger, wiser and better able to respond to the circumstances that cross our paths. They force us into becoming more creative, more resourceful and more imaginative, pushing us to broaden our horizons and become more effective conscious creators. And the benefits of such developments serve us well as we move forward in life, making us better able to respond to whatever challenges – and opportunities – come our way.

All of the principals in this film go through such personal transformations. Kirk and Spock experience these changes to the greatest degree, growing immeasurably in stature and maturity as effective Starfleet officers and as forthright, courageous leaders of their minions. But other members of the Enterprise crew grow as individuals and professionals, too, including Communications Officer Nyota Uhura (Zoë Saldana), Helmsman Hikaru Sulu (John Cho), Engineer Montgomery Scott (Simon Pegg), Navigator Pavel Chekhov (Anton Yelchin), Medical Officer Leonard “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban) and Science Officer Carol Wallace (Alice Eve). Even Harrison, despite his heinous deeds, grows in unexpected ways, some of them even laudable. But the true measure of success at this ultimately depends on the degree to which we learn how to effectively employ and manage our conscious creation proficiency and the power that accompanies it.

This is where the “darkness” allusion comes into play once again. Those who understand the conscious creation process are well aware that the reality we experience arises from the beliefs and intents we maintain. Our externalized world springs forth from the internal world of our thoughts, an infinite, formless realm in which all possible probabilities reside, one that’s sometimes called “a great shining darkness.” Whenever we tap into it, we plumb the depths of that well of potential manifestation, and the deeper we go, the darker it may seem, especially when we seek solutions for addressing new and thorny challenges. By allowing ourselves to become immersed in such conditions, we enable new ideas to percolate into our consciousness, ideas that we can convert into beliefs for materializing the existence we subsequently experience.

Such expansions of consciousness invariably reveal our innate capacity for flexibility and adaptability, providing us with glimpses of our true multidimensional selves. These qualities promote open-mindedness, as well as a willingness to try out new ideas and to view situations from a variety of perspectives. And this, in turn, enables us to see ourselves for the greater beings we really are. One would hope that the enlightenment afforded by such increased awareness would allow us to see the “preferable” choices open to us, including traits like fairness, justice, mercy and, above all, compassion.

Opportunities to examine such options are presented repeatedly to the Enterprise crew throughout the film. For their sake, we can only hope that they have the wisdom, intuitive insight and courage to recognize and follow through on them when they arise. But, as in any conscious creation scenario, they (and we) must always be cognizant that they (and we) always have choice to draw upon in deciding which beliefs to embrace. While the choices of supremely virtuous characters like Spock should be patently obvious, they may not be as clear-cut for others, like Harrison and even some of the supposedly honorable Starfleet brass. And that’s when matters can get tricky, especially when the darkness factor is once again considered.

The intrinsic nature of the aforementioned great shining darkness represents a tremendous source of power, one that we can draw upon to create virtually anything we wish to experience. And, when that power joins forces with the element of choice, the mix can become quite volatile. Understanding how to properly balance these two potent forces is essential, for they carry tremendous potential – and consequences – depending upon how they’re handled.

Descending deeply into the great shining darkness and tapping the raw power available there can yield impressive results, as well as disastrous outcomes if not tempered by wisdom and insight. Again, in this picture we see characters who pursue both courses, as well as various gradations in between. What they choose and how they manage their power provide us with a wide range of examples of how we can find our own way through the great shining darkness.

Venturing into “the darkness” need not automatically be assumed to be a descent into evil or an ill-fated voyage of the damned. Rather, it can provide a valuable lesson in seeing the true expanse of the choices and power we have available to us – and learning in earnest how to draw upon both of them wisely. In boldly going where we’ve never gone before, it helps to have a lantern to light our way through the darkness, and this film provides us with just such a shining metaphorical torch.

As with the film that preceded this picture, director J.J. Abrams has once again knocked it out of the park – and even better this time. Before the release of “Star Trek” in 2009, longtime fans of the franchise were justifiably skeptical about whether the filmmakers could successfully reboot it. But the cast and crew of that initial outing came through, and they have impressively built upon that success in this latest offering, paving the way for what should be a brilliant cinematic future.

This picture’s mind-blowing action sequences and 3D special effects, coupled with a thoughtful script in the tradition of the time-honored franchise, combine to create a thoroughly enlightening and entertaining movie experience. Its impeccably assembled cast comes through once again, delivering fresh yet reverent portrayals of younger versions of characters that viewers have come to know so well through the original TV series and six theatrical films.

I’m especially pleased that the film continues to build on one of its predecessor’s greatest strengths – its audacious exploration of a new line of probability. At the risk of playing spoiler about this picture’s forerunner, when the filmmakers embarked on rebooting the franchise, they made a very shrewd decision that opened them up to a plethora of new possibilities by making use of a simple but highly effective plot device – they changed the time line of the original franchise, wiping the slate clean of its existing mythology and making it possible to do whatever they want along the new narrative path. In a very literal sense, then, the current keepers of the Star Trek franchise truly are free to boldly go where no one has gone before.

With that said, however, the filmmakers have also wisely chosen not to abandon familiar elements, like character traits, locales and institutions. Fans of the franchise will no doubt recognize references to material from a wide range of Star Trek properties, including the original TV series (1966-1969), “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” (1982) and the spinoff TV series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993-1999). But, as familiar as these elements are, they have been tweaked in intriguing ways, giving us delicious new spins on the tried and true. Likewise, references to well-documented events from the original time line have been retained, and some have even been re-created here, but their components have been rearranged in captivating ways, a move that lends considerable credence to a notion that conscious creation (and, to a certain degree, quantum physics) holds dear – that an infinite number of simultaneous, parallel lines of probability exist, all of which are distinct yet accessible to us, depending on where our beliefs and powers of manifestation ultimately take us.

The movie’s reference to Nibiru is an interesting new development, one that draws on material from outside the Star Trek franchise. Those familiar with the writings of investigational mythologist Zecharia Sitchin will undoubtedly recognize the name Nibiru as the mythical planet the author cites in his alternative history of how the Earth came to be populated by humans. While Nibiru’s depiction here differs markedly from Sitchin’s description, it’s intriguing to see the film include a world with such a readily recognizable name. How Nibiru will figure into the unfolding of the franchise’s current line of probability, if at all, remains unclear, but its introduction here – and the salient role it plays in the events of this picture – open up fascinating possibilities for future films.

As conscious creators well know, “everything is in a constant state of becoming,” and so it is with the Star Trek material. While some purists may balk at the direction the franchise is taking, I heartily applaud the new focus. It epitomizes Gene Roddenberry’s iconic motto, and it demonstrably embodies principles that straddle the worlds of both metaphysics and new science.

Indeed, who would have thought that “the darkness” could shed so much light?


Photo by Zade Rosenthal, courtesy of Paramount Pictures and Skydance Productions.

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

‘Reluctant Fundamentalist’ implores us to see ‘the whole picture’

“The Reluctant Fundamentalist” (2012 production, 2013 release). Cast: Riz Ahmed, Kate Hudson, Liev Schreiber, Kiefer Sutherland, Om Puri, Shabana Azmi, Martin Donovan, Nelsan Ellis, Gary Richardson, Meesha Shafi, Imaad Shah, Chris Smith, Sarah Quinn. Director: Mira Nair. Screenplay: William Wheeler. Screen Story: Ami Boghani and Mohsin Hamid. Book: Mohsin Hamid. Web site. Trailer.

In this age of sound bytes and film clips, it’s easy to grow accustomed to seeing our existence in neat, little, compartmentalized snippets. Unfortunately, such conditions also encourage us to increasingly narrow our focus, prompting us to scrutinize individuals and situations as part of ever-shrinking components and, in turn, causing us to lose sight of the bigger picture. But, if we’re to truly understand the world around us, at some point we need to counter this trend and take a broader view of things, an argument eloquently put forth in the gripping new drama, “The Reluctant Fundamentalist.”

When American university professor Anse Rainier (Gary Richardson) is kidnapped in Lahore, Pakistan, U.S. intelligence officials and local police are all over the case. They even resort to employing such unconventional measures as calling upon reporter Bobby Lincoln (Liev Schreiber) to interview a popular Pakistani professor, Changez Khan (Riz Ahmed), to see if he can shed light on his American colleague’s whereabouts. Changez is targeted because he often addresses provocative topics in his lectures and is thus assumed to be someone who can help authorities find the extremists who are believed to be recruiting students to carry out insurgent acts (like Rainier’s kidnapping) on their behalf. Changez agrees to meet with the reporter on one condition – that he be allowed to tell him his entire story; if not, the deal is off. And so, to get “the story” (i.e., the field intelligence), Lincoln agrees to hear him out.

Changez tells Bobby that, to fully appreciate his current circumstances, one must understand where he came from. The professor grew up in Pakistan, the son of a poet (Om Puri), one whose words and deeds embodied a fairly traditional view of life, an outlook that this “modern” young man respected but found a little behind the times. Changez did not see himself following in the footsteps of his father’s generation; rather, like many young Pakistanis at the time, he aspired to a more contemporary path, one in line with the seductive material trappings of the American dream. To that end, then, he enrolled at Princeton and, after graduation in 2000, landed a job as a Wall Street financial analyst.

Under the wing of his boss and mentor, Jim Cross (Kiefer Sutherland), Changez rose up through the ranks rapidly, his razor-sharp analytical skills proving quite useful in assessing high-level business deals. He also became intimately involved with a beautiful young artist, Erica (Kate Hudson), and developed a close circle of friends and colleagues (Nelsan Ellis, Chris Smith, Sarah Quinn). He truly seemed to be living a dream he could once only imagine.

And then came 9/11.

Despite his professional and personal successes, Changez saw his world change drastically in the wake of that event. Even with absolutely no connection to the September 11th tragedy, he suddenly became a perpetual suspect, routinely subjected to intense, often-degrading scrutiny by law enforcement officials, as well as the prejudicial attitudes of others (including one-time friends), simply for being a Muslim. But, if that weren’t enough, disillusionment set in, impacting both his relationship and his work life. The American dream was quickly turning into a nightmare.

The breaking point finally came when Changez was assigned to analyze a business deal where the cold, unfeeling numbers he was accustomed to working with suddenly took on a human face. The callous circumstances associated with that transaction tugged at his heart strings, evoking memories of his roots and speaking to him both as an individual and as a Muslim. He was thus saddled with a quandary in which his personal feelings came into direct conflict with his duties as a representative of his company. It was more than he could bear, and so he resigned.

With no job, Changez was forced to leave New York and return home, where he sought in earnest to reconnect with his culture and with himself. He took a position as a university professor, hoping to learn as much from his students as they could learn from him. In particular, he wanted to better understand the current state of “the Pakistani dream,” one with which he had seriously lost touch. It was also one that, as he quickly found out, involved numerous elements that were far different from what he had grown accustomed to. Changez’s efforts at continuing his own education brought him into contact with a variety of influences involved in shaping contemporary Pakistani society, including its radical fundamentalist factions. His association with such elements thus brought him to the attention of American intelligence officials – and now, a decade later, to his interview with the intrepid reporter.

So who is the real Changez now? Is he a legitimate university professor genuinely curious about reacquainting himself with all facets of his country’s culture? Or is he a jaded radical hell-bent on exacting retribution against those who disillusioned him by actively fostering relationships with jihadists? Or is he something else entirely? And what does all this mean for the fate of Professor Rainier? Answering these questions successfully depends on how closely Bobby and his colleagues look at Changez and how willing they are to attempt to fully understand his story. In doing so, however, they must be aware that things may not be all they seem to be at first glance, a circumstance that can only be made worse by failing to fully examine the whole picture.

Whenever we evaluate a situation that crosses our radar, we’d by wise to examine everything that comes before us, for doing less than that is fraught with perilous pitfalls and potentially disastrous consequences. This is particularly crucial from a conscious creation standpoint, because we draw heavily upon our powers of perception in forming the beliefs we use to manifest the reality we subsequently experience. If we scrutinize circumstances thoroughly, we’re likely to gain an insightful understanding of what’s truly going on and thereby create a reality that takes a broadly encompassing view in response to prevailing conditions. However, if we take only a cursory look at what’s before us, we’re prone to coming up short, formulating faulty, incomplete beliefs that are inadequate for comprehending and responding to existing circumstances.

This is the case that Changez pleads, not only for himself, but for everyone, both on- and off-screen. By taking a superficial view of others and their circumstances, we often end up arriving at skewed misconceptions, leading to misinterpretations of their actions, outlooks and motives. In turn, they’re likely to respond in kind, misinterpreting our actions, outlooks and motives, which subsequently leads to more of the same on both sides, escalating matters toward an out-of-control spiral from which it’s difficult to extricate ourselves. And it’s disheartening to think that it’s all so completely unnecessary, a situation that can be avoided by simply taking a close, thorough look at things from the outset. This is how prejudice is born, that menacing cancer on our society – and on our collective existence – that does little more than fan the flames of manufactured fear, mistrust and hatred.

As laudable as taking a broad view might sound, however, just how do we go about it? Generally speaking, the process is not as difficult as one might think, but there are certain essential qualities that we must employ to make it work. The most obvious of these are time and patience, commodities that, regrettably, are all too rare in today’s instant gratification-driven culture (especially in Western society). It also requires keen powers of discernment, the ability to cut through the noise, fog and camouflage that often shroud circumstances to see what’s really going on. And, in forming responsive beliefs and actions to these conditions, the process further calls upon our aptitude for understanding consequences, the outcomes that flow from our assessments. But, above all, the process demands responsibility and commitment from us, a willingness on our part to sincerely and fully analyze all aspects of the bigger picture.

Employing this process, admittedly, takes some practice, especially if we’ve been remiss about it. Even Changez, who is generally rather adept at it and passionately encourages others to make use of it, has his own blind spots. For instance, during his time as a financial analyst, he was quite skillful at seeing the big picture and cutting through the clutter to identify what needed to be done to make a deal work. However, he also regularly failed to see that individuals’ livelihoods were often tied to the cold, hard statistics he analyzed, losing sight of the fallout on the workers who would be laid off when his proposed mergers eliminated such “unnecessary expense redundancies.” Only when the impersonal numbers that fueled such “objective” decisions were supplanted by the inescapable human faces of those who were affected could Changez see the consequences of the reality he was contributing to creating. Indeed, as metaphysical guru Wayne Dyer is fond of saying, “When we change the way we look at things, the things we look at change.”

The aforementioned blind spots speak to a capacity for taking a narrow view of the matters at hand, and the more restricted one’s outlook, the narrower one’s focus becomes, perhaps even degenerating into tunnel vision. When that occurs, fundamentalism is born, a perspective characterized by an inherently limited, often-intolerant, frequently literal interpretation of prevailing circumstances. Such thinking is hindering and unimaginative at best, treacherous and oppressive at worst, regardless of which area of life it’s employed, be it business, religion, politics, relationships or other endeavors. Approaching the creation of our reality from such a constrained standpoint seriously inhibits our ability to function effectively, but it can be made that much worse if we ignorantly and selfishly attempt to impose it on others. For his part, Changez recognizes the intrinsic danger in this, and, having lived in both the East and the West, he’s able to see the potential damage that fundamentalism can inflict on cultures on both sides of the globe.

To help counteract the foregoing, we’d be wise to make the effort to recognize, understand and appreciate the multidimensional nature of our true selves. In suggesting this, I’m not referring to the development of an awareness of the parts of our greater being that extend beyond our localized selves (though such an expanded metaphysical outlook certainly couldn’t hurt); rather, this has more to do with appreciating all of the diverse qualities that make us up as individuals, the many dimensions that comprise our personal character. Developing such an appreciation allows us to see the bigger picture of who each of us is.

Changez, for example, is more than just a professor who discusses radical politics; to see him in such a limited light, as the intelligence officials in the film tend to do, is a gross oversimplification of who he is. Rather, he’s also an educator who talks about society, culture and economics, as well as an astute analyst, a sensitive soul, a devoted son and an open-minded thinker, among other traits. Indeed, he is all these things and more, so failing to see him as anything less than that sells him short, preventing us from viewing all that he is and all that he has to offer. Thus, to avoid the kinds of pitfalls discussed earlier, it would truly be in our best interests to look to one’s multidimensionality; by not doing so, we may only see part of the picture (and a very small portion of it at that).

The benefits of seeing the big picture ultimately outweigh taking a dim view of things. Openly embracing such a mindset may not always be easy, especially if we’ve allowed ourselves to succumb to the peer pressure and prevailing conditions that drive narrower viewpoints. But, if we ever hope to escape the confining chains of self-imposed limitation, we must have the courage to step up to the plate and be willing to adopt an outlook that celebrates open-mindedness and an expanded world view, just as Changez implores us to do. At some point, our future may well depend on it.

While watching “The Reluctant Fundamentalist,” I must admit that I initially found it a little slow-moving and meandering. But then, by film’s end, I realized this approach was essential to get viewers to appreciate the movie’s central message – that we need to take the time and have the patience to see someone’s story all the way through in order to grasp the bigger picture of who they are. When everything comes together at the end of this film, just as it does when we faithfully follow the account of anyone’s odyssey through to completion, we’re better able to appreciate the totality of their story – and their being. Indeed, as this picture steams toward its emotion-packed conclusion, it gets better and better as it goes along, stringing together the various threads that weave the tapestry of Changez’s life and philosophy.

On top of its thoughtful script and dynamite finish, “The Reluctant Fundamentalist” is well acted and beautifully filmed, with a great soundtrack to back it all up. The film is currently playing in limited release at theaters specializing in indie cinema, but it is also accessible through the Independent Film Channel’s IFC Films On-demand feature available from many cable television providers.

The advantages of an expanded view of reality should be patently obvious, but, to make effective use of it, we must follow through on our resolve to actively employ it in our conscious creation efforts. The rewards that come from doing so are almost too numerous to count, but the collective benefit they afford us is what really matters most, for it elevates us to a more enlightened level of existence. And anything that brings us a higher quality of life can only serve to make a better world for all of us who comprise our grand global mosaic.


Photo by Quantrell Colbert, courtesy of IFC Films.

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