Religious freedom is something that every human being deserves, as is underscored by the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was drafted in 1948. And while freedom is a theme very frequently used in the world of cinema, freedom of religion is not explored quite so often. But in light of our topic this month, I have selected two films which touch upon the notion of religious freedom in different ways. The first is a sweeping Hollywood sci-fi drama that focuses on the freedom to believe in something beyond oneself. The second is a small, local independent film that illustrates the freedom to follow one’s own religious traditions while respecting and loving those of others. Two different films – one common thread.
Read, watch, and enjoy!
Contact (1997)
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Starring Jodie Foster, Matthew McConaughey
Rated PG (For some intense action, mild language and a scene of sensuality)
Running time: 149 Minutes
Ellie Arroway’s work with SETI, which pursues signs of intelligent extraterrestrial life, is not without its skepticism and opposition. But when her team picks up a radio message from deep space, the possibility of their years of faithful work being fulfilled becomes more and more tangible. As the message becomes increasingly clear and complex, the implications of the message include great risk. In the midst of Ellie’s entanglement with destiny is her relationship with Rev. Palmer Joss, a noted humanitarian and religious advisor. On the verge of a new era of understanding, where and how – if at all - do science and religion fit?
This film is a beautiful representation of mankind’s persistent search for something that can satiate our long-unanswered questions. That search has generally led to two roads: religion and science. Contact, in its juxtaposition of the two, takes on an issue that has been debated for thousands of years. But in addressing this issue, the filmmakers create what is perhaps the most beautiful aspect of this film – and, interestingly enough, the part which is most in keeping with this month’s theme – in that they thrust neither religious nor scientific dogma down the throats of viewers. Rather, every viewer is free to decide whatever they wish about this world, be it the existence of other intelligent life, or of the presence of God.
There are many powerful and reflective scenes in this film that are worth taking the time to watch carefully. Note the words young Ellie chooses to say as she listens for radio transmissions. Listen to her discussions with Palmer on religion, science and proof. And most importantly, pay close attention to the scene in Congress as Ellie, the lifelong religious skeptic, finds herself asking the world to believe in her unbelievable experience. All of these scenes point to an important truth, regardless of one’s stance on science and religion: we all need to have faith in something. It is that need for stability in truth which drives humanity towards science and religion, and both are key components to fulfilling that universal human need.
Discussion Questions
1. Is there anything in your life that you know to be true, but can’t really prove?
2. In spite of the “mini-sermons” Palmer sometimes gives Ellie, do his words truly change her? Or is something else the source of her internal change?
3. Why does Ellie not believe in God?
4. In the film, science confronts religion, and religion confronts science. Can you find examples of both? Would these things still happen if religion and science were used together?
5. What is your stance on the relationship between religion and science? Is one more important than the other? Are they truly different, or do they have any common ground?
Arranged (2007)
Directed by Stefan Schaefer and Diane Crespo
Starring Zoe Lister Jones and Francis Behamou
Not Rated (I would rate as PG, for one use of cursing and a brief adult party scene)
Running time: 90 Minutes
When Rochel (Lister-Jones) and Nasira (Benhamou), an Orthodox Jew and a Muslim, meet as new teachers at an inner city public school, co-workers and students expect friction. But the women discover that they have the shared tradition of entering into arranged marriages. As they experience tension between their traditional cultures and life in contemporary America, Rochel and Nasira form a special bond. But will this bond also unite them with their faith traditions, or will theirs be a bond that goes against heritage?
Some readers may recognize this title from one of my previous reviews on FamilyFed.org. Due to the positive response I received from others who had watched the film, I felt that I must introduce all our UNews readers to the film as well – especially given its relevance to our theme.
Arranged is a joy to watch for many reasons. Many will love this film for its awkwardness, especially during the montage of dates that Rochel goes on. This awkwardness transcends culture and faith tradition in its hilarity, and will charm viewers with its innocence and purity. Many will also find the film a fascinatingly intimate juxtaposition of Orthodox Jewish life, Muslim life, and “secular” life - which is never overtly defined as non-religious, but is shown to appear more liberal and post-Modernistic.
But where does freedom of religion fit into the picture? This can be seen in Rochel's and Nasira's individual paths of faith. Although the film mainly focuses on Rochel's struggles, both women have a bumpy course, as they begin to doubt if their systems of marriage actually work in today’s society. Such doubts are understandable, as arranged marriage and other faith traditions have the stigma of eliminating one's freedom of choice, and the secular world is all too happy to remind them of that stigma. Amidst all of the struggle and contrasting viewpoints, the film takes care to show that both women have a choice in their religious practice - even when some characters don’t share that sentiment. Ultimately, both girls take ownership of their freedom, and make choices that support their initial faith commitments... but to say any more would deprive you from the joy of discovering the story yourself!
Discussion Questions
1. Could you relate with any of Rochel and Nasira's experiences regarding faith and freedom?
2. Although Rochel and Nasira lead very different lives, they do have many important similarities. Can you find some examples? In discussing these similarities, do you feel that different religions have more similarities with each other, or more differences?
3. Consider the notion of freedom as seen in the film. Which characters promote freedom of choice? Which characters just want people to follow their way? (Think carefully; the answers may not be as cut and dry as you expect…)
In conclusion, Contact and Arranged approach freedom of religion from two different angles, but they are united by the fact that they don’t impose religion. In fact, these films function a lot like natural witnessing. When filmmakers let their characters be themselves, with genuine wants, fears and doubts, viewers can feel an emotional connection to the characters. And when the story is allowed to run its course, letting the characters make their own discoveries without being preached at, viewers can draw their own conclusion. In essence, they are being given their own religious freedom, while being exposed to the quiet goodness that different faith traditions have to offer. And though we may not agree on some traditions or principles, we all can unite on the common ground we all share. We all want love, happiness and truth. And in standing upon common ground, we can begin moving together as one united family, towards fulfilling our deep-rooted dreams of peace.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Familyfed.org review - October 2009
This month, I would like to focus on the subjects of commitment and choice. We all have commitments in some form or another - to our work, our marriages, our families, our faith traditions and responsibilities. Commitment is by no means easy, and often becomes a challenge to our integrity; I myself had difficulty sticking to my commitment to write this review. And commitment can not be discussed without the notion of choice, for we choose to make our commitments, and we can choose to walk away from them. But in the end, something strong and deep within us prevails, guiding us to the right choice. And that something is one of those precious gems that link us with the divine.
The following films have many dissimilarities. One is very old, and is considered the “Citizen Kane of the American silent film era"; the other is a modern but little known independent film. Nevertheless, these two films find common ground in that they showcase commitment, its inevitable challenges and choices, and its ultimate victory.
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)
Directed by F.W. Murnau
Starring George O'Brien and Janet Gaynor
Not Rated (I would give this a PG rating, for some violence and mild sexual innuendo)
Running time: 95 Minutes
This emotional odyssey follows a Man and Wife, whose marriage is threatened when the Man falls prey to a Woman from the City. The Woman, a cosmopolitan temptress, persuades him to murder his neglected Wife, make it look like an accident, and run away with the Woman to the city. He comes very close to fulfilling this determination, but he cannot bring himself to do it. The Wife flees to the city, and the Man, desperate to make things right, follows her. What follows is a much needed day of redemption that drastically affects their marriage. But will it lead their marriage to a place of true solidity?
This lyrical silent film is captivating in both style and substance. As many people seem to have agreed with this statement, Sunrise ended up winning Academy Awards for Best Actress (Gaynor), Best Cinematography,and Best Unique and Artistic Picture But what can this silent film, ancient by film history's standards, teach viewers in 2009?
The Silent film is a curious creature, as it tells tales of human development with almost no use of a basic human activity, speech. Visuals must lead the story forward. Murnau was one of the leading film directors of the silent era, and particularly of the German Expressionist movement, which was characterized by unusual visual contortions. Viewers can find such contortions in the first half of the film, such as the shot of the host family at the dinner table when the Woman from the City comes into the room; everything is too large and on an angle. Such contortions could be taken to illustrate how this City Woman has contorted the peace of the village with her presence. This is visual storytelling.
One may feel that the characters, like the visuals, are exaggerated. The Man has some alarmingly murderous tendencies, for example, and the Wife is so quick to forgive and trust him in spite of those tendencies. This could concern some, who wonder if these characters are worth taking seriously as examples of good choices and strong commitment. But exaggeration makes an excellent teacher. While most of us won't plot to murder our wives, we all have our moments of frustration. We might experience that moment where we wonder, “What if I walked away from all this?”. That choice is always there.
We might spend a long and lonely time questioning our path. But then, something will come along that will show us why we ever committed in the first place. In Sunrise, this comes in the form of a wedding the Man and Wife. As they watch a couple make their vows for the first time, they both renew those vows within themselves, and in forgiveness, re-commitment and move forward. In sum, Sunrise is a simple yet beautifully complex story that will remind you why we commit to loving others. For that reason, I humbly hope that you give this worthy film a chance.
Discussion Questions
1. Have you ever found yourself involved in two conflicting obligations? What choices can you make in that kind of situation?
2. Sunrise uses a film technique called separation, which uses acting, direction and editing to show how two people who are physically distant are actually indelibly bonded. Can you spot the use of separation? (hint: it's within the first 15 minutes) Do you ever feel that way with certain people or things in your life? Is it in a good way, or a bad way?
3. Though the Man is reborn in his Wife's forgiveness, he is not completely absolved of his shortcomings. Is he totally changed by the end of the film?
Arranged (2007)
Directed by Stefan Schaefer and Diane Crespo
Starring Zoe Lister Jones and Francis Behamou
Not Rated (I would rate as PG, for one use of cursing and a brief adult party scene)
Running time: 90 Minutes
When Rochel (Lister-Jones) and Nasira (Benhamou), an Orthodox Jew and a Muslim, meet as new teachers at an inner city public school, co-workers and students expect friction. But the women discover that they have the shared tradition of entering into arranged marriages. As they experience tension between their traditional cultures and life in contemporary America, Rochel and Nasira form a special bond. But will this bond also unite them with their faith traditions, or will theirs be a bond that goes against heritage?
Arranged is a joy to watch for many reasons. Many will love this film for its awkwardness, especially during the montage of dates that Rochel goes on. This awkwardness transcends culture and faith tradition in its hilarity, and will charm viewers with its innocence and purity. Many will also find the film a fascinatingly intimate juxtaposition of Orthodox Jewish life, Muslim life, and “secular” life - which is never overtly defined as non-religious, but is shown to appear more liberal and post-Modernistic.
But where do choice and commitment fit into the picture? The answer can be found in multiple forms. The first form, unsurprisingly, is seen in Rochel's and Nasira's individual paths of faith. Although the film mainly focuses on Rochel's struggles, both women have a bumpy course, as they begin to doubt if their systems of marriage actually work. Such doubts are understandable, as arranged marriage has the stigma of eliminating one's freedom of choice, and the secular world is all too happy to remind them of that stigma. Ultimately, both girls make choices that support their initial faith commitments... but to say any more would deprive you from the joy of discovering the story yourself.
One additional point worth mentioning is that of the women's commitment to their friendship. In spite of the various opposition they receive from their home and school environments, Rochel and Nasira become steadfast friends, and in doing so, show that a commitment to friendship can surpass cultural boundaries. This notion is well received by their students, as can be seen during the “unity circle” scene. This transcendent friendship is a reminder that nothing can stop us from staying true to ourselves and to those we love.
Discussion Questions
1. Could you relate with any of Rochel and Nasira's experiences? Are either of these girls really that different from you?
2. Rochel discusses our identities, or “our words on our chests” during the unity circle project. The things we identify with could actually be considered commitments in themselves. What sort of identities have you committed to?
In conclusion, though these two films have a whopping 80 years between them, they share a common understanding of how difficult it is to maintain commitments, and of how essential those commitments are to our lives. Both show characters who choose to deviate: the Man in his infidelity and idea to murder his wife, and Rochel in her visit to her distant cousin. But like the Prodigal Son, both end up returning home. It's also important to note that neither of these characters could have done what they did without a character of salvation – the Wife for the Man, and Nasira for Rochel. These characters' choice to be there for the other in times of struggle is a beautiful example of commitment. These stories can remind us in our own times of difficulty that we always have a choice – and the best choice is to stay true to your promises.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Submission to UNews,September 2009
Unification News Movie Reviews - September 2009
September is a fascinating month, in that it brings with it a sense of change and progression. From schools beginning another academic year, to the drop in temperature, to the bursts of autumnal color on the trees, everything about September feels like change. So it is only fitting that we discuss the idea of change, of making progress and moving forward.
This is a fairly broad topic in the cinema world, for all stories involve progress and change - otherwise there would be no story. Certainly all of the films I have recommended to you previously have involved profound internal or external progress. What I aim to do with the following reviews is provide you with clear yet interesting examples of change and progress, from opposite ends of the scale of activity and reactivity.
To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
Directed by Robert Mulligan
Starring Gregory Peck
Not Rated
Running time: 2 hours, 10 minutes
Based on Harper Lee's acclaimed novel, To Kill a Mockingbird centers upon the Finch family - 10 year old Jem, his 6 year old tomboy sister Jean-Louise “Scout”, and their father Atticus, a lawyer. They live in a racially divided Alabama town in the 1930's. Life is uncomplicated for the children, until they witness various forms of intense bigotry and stigma, especially as Atticus is assigned to defend a black man accused of raping a white woman. Will the Finch family be able to alter the town's hateful opinions?
To Kill a Mockingbird is ranked at number two in the American Film Institute's list of the 100 Most Inspiring Movies of All Time. But why? What is it about this simple movie in a dusty southern town during the Great Depression that makes it second only to It's a Wonderful Life in inspirational value? To answer this, I would like to refer to a quote from one of Rev. Moon's speeches entitled For the Future: “the people who live for the future are prepared to sacrifice everything if they see it is adverse to mankind's best interests. They are better than those who cling to their old ways but have no vision.”
Though told primarily through the eyes of Scout, this film is actually a character analysis of Atticus Finch, who perfectly fits the description in the above quote as a man who shapes the future in everything he does. For example, he is a model father, as can be seen in the conversations he has with his children about differing perspectives, and his desire to protect them from the world's evils. He is a model citizen, as his neighbor points out, saying of Atticus “some men in this world are born to do our unpleasant jobs for us.” Atticus is also a model advocate for peace and justice, as shown in his impassioned closing statement of the trial. Like in True Father's quote, Atticus sacrifices his good favor from the rest of the town as he agrees to sincerely defend Tom Robinson.
But to go back to our original theme, what does Atticus have to do with change? He himself changes little throughout the course of the film. What Atticus represents is how, in remaining true to one's ideals and integrity, such ideals can permeate to others and cause change. And even more profound, he begins this progress within his family; it is his children who perpetuate the ripple effect through the community. It is a quiet change, and Atticus is a quiet hero. But the change, and the hero, absolutely exist.
Discussion Questions
After the trial, the black Pastor says to Scout, "Jean-Louise, stand up... your father is passing." What does this signify? What does Atticus mean to the black community of Maycomb?
Think back to the scene outside of the jail house. Note Scout's monologue to Mr. Cunningham. How has she changed from the beginning of the film to this point? Would you consider Scout another example of the change caused by Atticus?
From a historical standpoint, why did such an unfair case even come to trial, let alone a trial by jury? Try looking up similar cases (such as the Emmett Till case) for more information on trials of this era.
The Visitor (2008)
Directed by Tom McCarthy
Starring Richard Jenkins, Haaz Sleiman, Danai Jekesai Gurira & Hiam Abass
Rated PG-13 for some strong language
Running time: 104 minutes
Walter Vale is leads a comfortable but lonely life. He is an Economics professor at Connecticut College and a widower. He leads a life that essentially guarantees comfort and security, but he has nothing to live for. In comes the disordering event – a request to present a colleague's paper at a conference in New York City. He grudgingly accepts. When he arrived, he stumbles upon two unexpected house guests - Tarik, a Syrian djembe drummer, and Zainab, a Senegalese jewelry maker. - illegal immigrants living in his New York apartment. He hesitantly makes the choice to let them stay – a choice which will leave a definitive mark on his life.
This is a brilliant film, with an excellent screenplay, beautiful cinematography and very strong, deliberate acting, likely due to outstanding direction from Tom McCarthy. Perhaps the most fascinating scenes are the short scenes scattered around the film (such as Walter's neighbor and “Sprinkles”, the woman buying jewelry, etc). These small moments deliver some of the biggest emotional blows of the film; this is a sign of a fully realized screenplay.
But for the purposes of this review, let us discuss the development of the characters, especially that of Walter. Clearly, he is the biggest recipient of internal transformation; he goes from being a lifeless curmudgeon to someone who lives beyond himself. Walter's growing friendship with Tarik and Zainab transports him to a new world, and a new life – one with meaning. It's as if Tarik's drumbeat somehow infuses Walter's sleepwalk of a life with an actual beat and pulse, a newfound heartbeat.
Discussion Questions
Walter confesses that he pretends to be busy, when he really just has no desire to give of himself. Have you ever experienced this in your life?
The cinematography of The Visitor tells a story of its own. Take note of the various patriotic imagery throughout the film (American flags, the Statue of Liberty, various phrases, etc.) What do these images say to you?
Bonus Question – Find the part in the movie where Mouna says “Feels like Syria.” What is she referring to? Why does she draw the comparison? Is there truly a difference between the one place, and the other?
The Visitor differs from To Kill a Mockingbird in that, while the latter focuses on how one man (the “changer”) alters the world around him, the former concentrates on the recipient of an internal renaissance (the “changed”). While Atticus Finch remains steadfast in his character and thus revolutionizes his community, Walter Vale experiences a dramatic change brought upon him by others. By watching these two films, we see illustrations of both ends of the spectrum – the give and take action, if you will. And in doing so, we can see the value and necessity to both change and be changed. We must remember the importance of standing by our values for the sake of positively affecting others; on the other hand, we must be open to the ways others can positively change us. If we learn to strike the correct balance between the two, we can look forward to a life of many beautiful changes.
Submission to FamilyFed, August 2009
FamilyFed.org Movie Reviews – August 2009
It's that time again – the warm weather is becoming old news, the pool has been conquered, and the back-to-school commercials have started their run on TV. Yup, it's the end of summer. And as I can almost hear the collective groan of students the world over, I offer some advice. Yes, school can be a drag, and maybe even a struggle. But often, these struggles are essential for our personal growth, and can yield amazing experiences... should we choose to let them. For instance, take the protagonists of our two movies this month. Both, being placed in unusual circumstances, are forced to struggle. And in their struggle, both grow into men of substance. Sound promising? Well, read on!
Groundhog Day (1993)
Directed By Harold Ramis
Starring Bill Murray
Rated PG (for some thematic elements)
Running Time: 101 Minutes
What would you do if every morning, you woke up to the exact same day? This is the challenge facing Phil Connors (Murray), an egocentric weatherman from Pittsburgh, PA. Asked by his network to cover the Groundhog Day festivities in Punxutawney, PA with his producer Rita and cameraman Larry, Phil grudgingly complies. But when a blizzard comes through, forcing the crew to stay overnight in Punxutawney, Phil becomes ensnared in a time loop. And as luck would have it, Phil is the only person who knows that this is happening. After trying out some of the various options – despair, revolt, hedonism and self-destruction – he realizes that he can use the situation to grow and change.
Groundhog Day is a prime example of using a struggle to grow, as Phil is forced to trudge through the situation of repeating the same day, without knowing if he will ever witness tomorrow. He yearns to figure out the situation, and at first, he fails as he gives in to selfish behavior (such as breaking the law and eating tons of unhealthy food). But when Rita's presence comes more into the foreground of Phil's consciousness, he is challenged with learning to love her genuinely, and to give of himself to make her happy. At first his efforts are contrived and self-centered, but over time (the director supposes Phil is stuck in Groundhog Day for about 10 years), he learns to do it sincerely. Furthermore, he learns that sometimes the best love is the love you give unconditionally (see the progression of his relationship with the homeless man for an example).
The beauty of Phil's situation is that it presents a unique opportunity for him to learn from his mistakes. This can be seen in the succession of scenes where Phil, making an error, uses the knowledge gained to repeat the same situation without error. While we the viewers do not have such luxuries as “do overs” for our pivotal moments, we do have the everyday luxury of applying our resultant knowledge in situations similar to that in which we erred. Throughout the film, we see that Phil truly needed this experience in the time loop to push beyond himself and grow outward. Likewise, Groundhog Day is an excellent reminder for us to do the same.
Some discussion questions viewers may want to discuss are:
1.Observe how much Phil has changed from the beginning of the movie to the end. Where exactly was his turning point?
2.Go back to the scene where Phil laments about his situation to his fellow patrons at the bar. Note their response. Do you ever feel like them? Why? What can we do to break the cycle of repetition?
Dan in Real Life (2007)
Directed By Peter Hedges
Starring Steve Carell & Juliette Binoche
Rated PG-13 (for some innuendo)
Running Time: 98 Minutes
Dan Burns carries many responsibilities – widowed father of three spirited daughters, member of the large but close-knit Burns clan, and newspaper advice columnist being considered for syndication. Each role is both a blessing and a burden, and it is clear that Dan is worn out. Then, as if on cue, Dan meets a woman that rejuvenates his heart and soul. Too bad she's his brother's girlfriend. What happens when the two interact during the Burns family reunion? You might be surprised...
Dan in Real Life is a beautifully constructed film. It marries comedy and sadness in a wonderfully endearing way. Steve Carell in particular carries his role off marvelously. In other, less capable hands, this role could have come off as a whiny mess. But Carell manages to convey a truly likable and relatable character. However, such a character could not be successful alone; his character shines thanks to the Burns family. Pay attention to them. Both collectively and as individuals, the family's casting and execution radiates the true warmth and spontaneity of the family dynamic. None of the family members seem contrived (except perhaps for Dan's second daughter, who is a bit over the top... but what 15 year old isn't?). And none of the characters has to be overtly explained; they are just who they are. This is a mark of good character development.
But gosh, poor Dan. He just keeps fumbling and fumbling. Much like Phil Connors in Groundhog Day, Dan Burns responds to his circumstance in various ways - disbelief and frustration, loneliness (e.g. “this corn is like an angel”), selfishness - and ultimately from a place of genuine love. He takes quite a few wrong turns before heading in the right direction, but guided by the GPS of a loving family, he does indeed find his path to love and happiness. Take note of the many times in which a member of the Burns family offers Dan advice. This dynamic between the family members illustrates an important component of struggle – we do not have to struggle alone. Our family, teachers and friends have much to offer from their own life experiences. What's more, these are people who want to help those they love. In an age where most movies and sitcoms focus on family dysfunction, it is refreshing to see a family who, though not perfect, are there for each other.
Some discussion questions:
1.Is Dan the only character to grow during the movie? If not, who, and how?
2.Go back to the lighthouse scene. Who in this movie is a Lighthouse? Does Dan have a lighthouse to guide him? Does being a lighthouse imply that you have all the answers?
For a flower to bloom, it has to push through quite a bit of dirt to find the sun. Likewise, for us as people to grow and reach our fullest potential, we must be willing to push on, even through the murkiest depths of uncertainty and emptiness. We also must be willing to learn - to survey the situations around us with serenity and openness. And what's more, we should take advantage of the brilliant resources that can be found on the life experiences of loved ones. If we choose to do these things, today's frustrations can become a foothold for tomorrow's advancement towards our ultimate potential.
It's that time again – the warm weather is becoming old news, the pool has been conquered, and the back-to-school commercials have started their run on TV. Yup, it's the end of summer. And as I can almost hear the collective groan of students the world over, I offer some advice. Yes, school can be a drag, and maybe even a struggle. But often, these struggles are essential for our personal growth, and can yield amazing experiences... should we choose to let them. For instance, take the protagonists of our two movies this month. Both, being placed in unusual circumstances, are forced to struggle. And in their struggle, both grow into men of substance. Sound promising? Well, read on!
Groundhog Day (1993)
Directed By Harold Ramis
Starring Bill Murray
Rated PG (for some thematic elements)
Running Time: 101 Minutes
What would you do if every morning, you woke up to the exact same day? This is the challenge facing Phil Connors (Murray), an egocentric weatherman from Pittsburgh, PA. Asked by his network to cover the Groundhog Day festivities in Punxutawney, PA with his producer Rita and cameraman Larry, Phil grudgingly complies. But when a blizzard comes through, forcing the crew to stay overnight in Punxutawney, Phil becomes ensnared in a time loop. And as luck would have it, Phil is the only person who knows that this is happening. After trying out some of the various options – despair, revolt, hedonism and self-destruction – he realizes that he can use the situation to grow and change.
Groundhog Day is a prime example of using a struggle to grow, as Phil is forced to trudge through the situation of repeating the same day, without knowing if he will ever witness tomorrow. He yearns to figure out the situation, and at first, he fails as he gives in to selfish behavior (such as breaking the law and eating tons of unhealthy food). But when Rita's presence comes more into the foreground of Phil's consciousness, he is challenged with learning to love her genuinely, and to give of himself to make her happy. At first his efforts are contrived and self-centered, but over time (the director supposes Phil is stuck in Groundhog Day for about 10 years), he learns to do it sincerely. Furthermore, he learns that sometimes the best love is the love you give unconditionally (see the progression of his relationship with the homeless man for an example).
The beauty of Phil's situation is that it presents a unique opportunity for him to learn from his mistakes. This can be seen in the succession of scenes where Phil, making an error, uses the knowledge gained to repeat the same situation without error. While we the viewers do not have such luxuries as “do overs” for our pivotal moments, we do have the everyday luxury of applying our resultant knowledge in situations similar to that in which we erred. Throughout the film, we see that Phil truly needed this experience in the time loop to push beyond himself and grow outward. Likewise, Groundhog Day is an excellent reminder for us to do the same.
Some discussion questions viewers may want to discuss are:
1.Observe how much Phil has changed from the beginning of the movie to the end. Where exactly was his turning point?
2.Go back to the scene where Phil laments about his situation to his fellow patrons at the bar. Note their response. Do you ever feel like them? Why? What can we do to break the cycle of repetition?
Dan in Real Life (2007)
Directed By Peter Hedges
Starring Steve Carell & Juliette Binoche
Rated PG-13 (for some innuendo)
Running Time: 98 Minutes
Dan Burns carries many responsibilities – widowed father of three spirited daughters, member of the large but close-knit Burns clan, and newspaper advice columnist being considered for syndication. Each role is both a blessing and a burden, and it is clear that Dan is worn out. Then, as if on cue, Dan meets a woman that rejuvenates his heart and soul. Too bad she's his brother's girlfriend. What happens when the two interact during the Burns family reunion? You might be surprised...
Dan in Real Life is a beautifully constructed film. It marries comedy and sadness in a wonderfully endearing way. Steve Carell in particular carries his role off marvelously. In other, less capable hands, this role could have come off as a whiny mess. But Carell manages to convey a truly likable and relatable character. However, such a character could not be successful alone; his character shines thanks to the Burns family. Pay attention to them. Both collectively and as individuals, the family's casting and execution radiates the true warmth and spontaneity of the family dynamic. None of the family members seem contrived (except perhaps for Dan's second daughter, who is a bit over the top... but what 15 year old isn't?). And none of the characters has to be overtly explained; they are just who they are. This is a mark of good character development.
But gosh, poor Dan. He just keeps fumbling and fumbling. Much like Phil Connors in Groundhog Day, Dan Burns responds to his circumstance in various ways - disbelief and frustration, loneliness (e.g. “this corn is like an angel”), selfishness - and ultimately from a place of genuine love. He takes quite a few wrong turns before heading in the right direction, but guided by the GPS of a loving family, he does indeed find his path to love and happiness. Take note of the many times in which a member of the Burns family offers Dan advice. This dynamic between the family members illustrates an important component of struggle – we do not have to struggle alone. Our family, teachers and friends have much to offer from their own life experiences. What's more, these are people who want to help those they love. In an age where most movies and sitcoms focus on family dysfunction, it is refreshing to see a family who, though not perfect, are there for each other.
Some discussion questions:
1.Is Dan the only character to grow during the movie? If not, who, and how?
2.Go back to the lighthouse scene. Who in this movie is a Lighthouse? Does Dan have a lighthouse to guide him? Does being a lighthouse imply that you have all the answers?
For a flower to bloom, it has to push through quite a bit of dirt to find the sun. Likewise, for us as people to grow and reach our fullest potential, we must be willing to push on, even through the murkiest depths of uncertainty and emptiness. We also must be willing to learn - to survey the situations around us with serenity and openness. And what's more, we should take advantage of the brilliant resources that can be found on the life experiences of loved ones. If we choose to do these things, today's frustrations can become a foothold for tomorrow's advancement towards our ultimate potential.
Submission to UNews, August 2009
Unification News Movie Reviews – August 2009
This month, we will be looking at two rather similar movies. Both are mild in terms of offensive content, so either would make for a good family movie. And in terms of thematic content, both follow men who, as Shakespeare put it, have greatness thrust upon them. Neither starts out in circumstances befitting a hero, but at each film's end, our protagonists have attained something deeper and more far-reaching than they ever could have expected.
Patch Adams (1998)
Directed By Tom Shadyac
Starring Robin Williams
Rated PG-13 (for some strong language and crude humor)
Running Time: 116 Minutes
Patch Adams follows the title character on his roller coaster of a life, including his plummet into suicidal thoughts and subsequent self-admittance to a mental ward, his realization that humor can positively affect the quality of life for patients, his subsequent decision to become a doctor, and his bumpy but determined advancement through medical school. He and his unconventional methods face many challenges along the way, from officials and friends alike. Will Hunter “Patch” Adams succeed?
This film, based upon the life of the real Patch Adams, is a welcome dose of witty whimsy in what can often feel like an uncaring world. Patch seeks to know each patient as a person – their fantasies as well as their fears – and relate with that person compassionately. He reminds us that there is much to be gained from a good laugh – not only due to the increase of endorphins, but also because laughter implies that there is joy in existence. For years, the staff of our own much-loved Camp Shehaqua have enthusiastically declared that “the purpose of life is JOY!” Indeed, Patch Adams embraces this kind of philosophy, boldly seeking to spread joy where joy is often missing – at the bedside of the sick. Patch declares that treating a disease of the body is a win-or-lose situation, but treating a person's spirit guarantees a win regardless of the outcome, even when the outcome is death. Patch reminds us that people are composed of both body and spirit, and that certain things simply can not be quantified.
However, the film is not perfect. It puts Patch's patient-friendly practices against the establishment's traditional practices in an overly black and white manner; not all doctors treat their patients with the distance and indifference displayed in the film. But although the opposition is depicted a bit more villainously than deserved, it is not bothersome enough to keep viewers from standing behind Patch's philosophy, and recognizing its validity in our world. As the real Adams once said, “We all know how important love is, yet how often is it really emoted or exhibited? What so many sick people in this world suffer from--loneliness, boredom and fear--can’t be cured with a pill.”
Discussion Questions:
Take note of the “how many fingers concept” stated by Arthur Mendelson in the mental ward. Then, see how Patch applies it when he is with Dean Walcott. How many Deans does Patch see? What does that represent to you?
Is anyone in this movie weird? How is “weird” defined in the film? Are there different kinds of weird? Is weird truly a distinction, or are we all weird in a way?
Pay attention to Patch's conversation with God. Why motivates Patch to say what he says? Do you agree? Does God reply to Patch?
Patch (fictionally and in real life) is fighting against the void between doctor and patient. Can you think of any other fields where a similar sort of void is present? What can we as individuals do about it?
The Majestic (2001)
Directed by Frank Darabont
Starring Jim Carrey
Rated PG (for language and mild thematic elements)
Running Time: 116 Minutes
Set in Southern California at the height of the Red Scare, The Majestic follows Hollywood screenwriter Peter Appleton (Carrey), who is on the verge of being blacklisted. Depressed and drunk, he gets into a car accident. Now stricken with amnesia, Peter wanders into the small California town of Lawson, where he is mistaken for Luke Trimble, a local boy who had been fighting in the war and was reported M.I.A. nearly a decade ago. A family reunion and the reopening of the town's movie theater revitalize the community - just in time for "Luke" to remember his true identity. Will the experience change him for better? Or for worse?
The Majestic is a rather slow moving picture; it does not have the zip and vigor of Patch Adams. But much like the theater after which the film is named, the continual revelation of information allows for the film to grow into something truly worthy of such an adjective.
The film focuses on the concept of identity. Initially, Peter Appleton loses his identity via amnesia. Then, through the opinions and actions of others, he is given a new identity - Luke Trimble. Being Luke Trimble was perhaps the best thing that ever happened to Peter, because being Luke gave him the chance to be a better man. It was also one of the best things to ever happen to the town of Lawson because, in being Luke, Appleton unintentionally brings a big gift back to the town – joy. His presence as Luke, temporary as it was, gave the Lawson citizens a surge of new hope, and the solace of knowing that their husbands and sons did not die in vain. But alas, Peter is not Luke. However, when he remembers his original identity, Peter realizes that he has changed, and can no longer live his old life. In short, as stated by the San Francisco Chronicle, Appleton “loses his memory but finds his soul”.
Upon analysis, one can argue that Luke Trimble is really a metaphor. In manifesting Luke Trimble, Peter Appleton manifests the American ideal. This ideal is composed of many things – conviction in what is right, having the courage to defend one's convictions at all costs, dreaming big, and wearing one's heart on his sleeve. Having these ideals personified in “Luke” encouraged all those who encountered him to also manifest those ideals in themselves. We Peter doing this through his impassioned speech before the House Committee on Un-American Activities; as a result of his speech, we see Luke's ideals spread even further. In sharing this story with the masses, this feature film in turn challenges viewers to reconnect with the American ideal, to be all that we can be.
Discussion Questions:
This film portrays an entire town in heartbreak. Their hearts are broken again when they discover Peter is not Luke. In the end, does the town of Lawson forgive Appleton? If so, why?
Think back to the opening scene, with the producers evaluating Appleton's screenplay. Why does he go along with their ideas? Why doesn't he go along with them in the similar scene towards the end? In other words, how has he changed?
Appleton comments towards the end of the film that he wonders what Luke Trimble would say, if he were in Appleton's position. Now that you know Luke, ask yourself the same question. What do you think he would he say and do if he could see the world that we live in?
These two movies differ as a Jive differs from a Viennese Waltz; one is fast-paced and lively, the other is slow and nuanced. But the common rhythm can be found in the protagonists. Patch Adams and Peter Appleton are both uncommon heroes, ordinary men who, either by choice or circumstance, find themselves becoming extraordinary. While Patch decides early on that he wants to be different, and Peter does not tap into his greatness until the end of the film, both end up making a profound impact on those around them, because of their convictions. And though we may have no intentions to develop amnesia or redefine the healthcare system, we can apply these heroes' convictions into our own situations. We can seek out the joy and humor of each day, and share it with others. We can let go of apathy, and manifest the glorious essence of our nation. And above all, we can recognize our capacity for greatness. Cliché as it may sound, Mariah Carey was right; a hero lies inside us all. It is our choice whether or not those heroes remain a figment of our imagination.
Submission to FamilyFed, July 2009
Familyfed.org Movie Reviews – July 2009
Welcome to the FamilyFed.org Movie Reviews! I look forward to diligently pursuing the best that the movie industry has to offer you. My reviews will emphasize good storytelling and character development, and will attempt to offer show how these films can generate a positive impact on your life, as well as that of your family and community. If you have any comments, questions, or film recommendations, please don't hesitate to email us!
This month, we have two films that could be considered polar opposites. One is a sweet, quintessential chick flick, while the other is a raw and violent prison film. Yet these two films are ultimately two sides of the same coin. How, you ask? Well, read on!
Ever After: A Cinderella Story (1998)
Starring Drew Barrymore, Anjelica Huston, Dougray Scott
Rated PG-13
Running Time: 121 minutes
Ever After is a historical-fictional response to the age-old Cinderella story. The film's protagonist is Danielle de Barbarac, a sweet yet strong-willed young woman, educated by her widowed father to a degree that was unusual for women at the time. But when her father dies suddenly, Danielle becomes imprisoned in her own home as she cares for her step-family, who treat her as a diminished servant rather than the family member she is. They refuse to treat her with dignity or familial love, and threaten to destroy any remaining shards of her parents' legacy. Her solace is found in her relationships with the other servants, in her friend Leonardo Da Vinci, and in the crown prince Henry, with whom several chance meetings spark mutual feelings of love. But can the heart triumph against the obstacles created by her step-family, and by class separation at large?
This film, with its lush cinematography and sweeping score, seems to inevitably draw viewers into the main plot development of romance between Danielle and Henry. But for the purposes of this review, I'd like to encourage viewers to focus less on this plot line, and more on the characters as individuals; this realm of the story is actually much more compelling than the trite surface plot. Despite Danielle's deplorable circumstances, something inside of her never falters throughout the entire course of the film. She maintains a certain kind of self-respect - a determined, resilient understanding of her identity as the child of good, loving parents. Watch, and you will see that Danielle's finest moments in the film occur either when she is representing her father's intellectual inheritance, such as when she discusses Thomas More's Utopia, or when she is defending her parents' honor, such as the scenes involving her mother's dress. Even her disguise pays homage to her late mother's heritage. Indeed, Danielle never loses sight of who she is, and though she is not always a beacon of optimism, her integrity always sets her straight.
Some discussion questions for families include:
1.For most of the movie, Danielle lives two different lives РDanielle the servant, and Comtesse Nicole De Lencr̩ the courtier. But does her personality change, or stay the same? How can this relate to our own lives? (Parents, consider your own double life of work/public life vs. family/personal life.)
2.Both Danielle and Henry are prisoners in their own life. Why? How do they deal with it?
3.Pay attention to the scene when Monsieur De Barbarac dies. Who does he say his last words to? How does Danielle react? How does the Baroness (the Stepmother) act? What might the screenwriter be trying to say by showing these two different reactions?
4.How does the Baroness's behavior at her husband's death relate to her behavior throughout the rest of the film, and how she treats Danielle? Or how she treats her own daughters?
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Starring Tim Robbins, Morgan Freeman
Rated R (due to scenes with cursing, violence, suicide and sexual referencing)
Running Time: 2 hours, 22 minutes
The Shawshank Redemption tells the story of Andy Dufresne, a young banker thrown into prison for two life sentences, for a crime he did not commit. The film chronicles the decades Dufresne spent within the walls of the Shawshank Penitentiary, including his developing relationships with the prison staff and other prisoners, and shows how his decency and hopeful spirit ultimately sets him - and others - free.
Shawshank is regarded by many to be one of the greatest films ever made, and while the film does feature superb acting, supported by a beautiful audio/visual atmosphere, none of it could function without an effective, compelling story. And certainly we can agree that a man triumphing over the grimmest of circumstances makes for a compelling story. So, what is it that keeps Andy going, in spite of being condemned to such harsh and sadistic confinement, virtually devoid of solace? Over the course of the movie, one will find that it is a combination of several things, such as Dufresne's integrity, his identity as a truly innocent man, and his hopes and dreams of his life outside of Shawshank. Andy's mind is never confined to the stone walls of Shawshank; he is always able to see beyond the daily hardships. With these things rooted inside him, he earns the respect of the other prisoners, perseveres to bring about goodness, and takes slow but deliberate steps to vanquish the injustice of the prison staff.
Andy expresses that there are some things that no one can take away from you, and he takes great effort to revive those things in the other prisoners, such as building a library and coaching prisoners to get their GED. One of many examples of this can be seen as Andy plays music over the prison intercom; as the camera pans over the crowd of prisoners at a standstill, faces skyward, we see the prisoners taste a moment of internal freedom. It is in these moments where the film soars as high as the music, and reaches deep into our souls, imploring us to soar above our prisons too.
Some Discussion Questions:
1.As Andy remarks that everything boils down to a choice to either “get busy living, or get busy dying”, what does that mean for him personally? How can we apply that statement to our own lives?
2.Being that the film is called “The Shawshank Redemption”, what are some scenes in which redemption takes place?
3.Andy discusses with his friends about how music, for him, is something nobody can take away from him. What are some things that you personally feel are irremovable?
4.What does Zihuatanejo represent to Andy? To Red?
5.Once concept explored in the film is institutionalization. Who falls victim to it? Who fights it? Are we all institutionalized in some ways?
These two films can be thought of as two different performances of the same song – one is a fairly simple arrangement picked out on the keyboard; the other is a played by a string quartet. But what is that common melody? What do a fairy tale and a murder mystery have in common? It is the idea of imprisonment, and what one does when they are given such a fate. A wise young woman I know once said that “We create our prisons... With the right mindset, a prison can become a palace.” The protagonists in both of these films seemed to have understood that. Both, though placed in grim circumstances outside of their control, maintain a sense of dignity, a positive perspective and integrity, which allows their prisons to ultimately crumble.
Though none of us will likely ever own glass slippers or be framed for murder, we can still identify with these characters. That's the beauty of movies – though many of the stories we watch are fictional (and perhaps even bordering on the preposterous), the emotions felt and the reasons behind the action are very real. Some of our greatest teachers are stories, because we ARE the stories – the motion picture is just a useful sort of carnival mirror, giving us a new and interesting way to understand our world. So though we may not be physically trapped like these characters, we can still learn from them that if we maintain our true identity and integrity, no prison will ever contain us.
Welcome to the FamilyFed.org Movie Reviews! I look forward to diligently pursuing the best that the movie industry has to offer you. My reviews will emphasize good storytelling and character development, and will attempt to offer show how these films can generate a positive impact on your life, as well as that of your family and community. If you have any comments, questions, or film recommendations, please don't hesitate to email us!
This month, we have two films that could be considered polar opposites. One is a sweet, quintessential chick flick, while the other is a raw and violent prison film. Yet these two films are ultimately two sides of the same coin. How, you ask? Well, read on!
Ever After: A Cinderella Story (1998)
Starring Drew Barrymore, Anjelica Huston, Dougray Scott
Rated PG-13
Running Time: 121 minutes
Ever After is a historical-fictional response to the age-old Cinderella story. The film's protagonist is Danielle de Barbarac, a sweet yet strong-willed young woman, educated by her widowed father to a degree that was unusual for women at the time. But when her father dies suddenly, Danielle becomes imprisoned in her own home as she cares for her step-family, who treat her as a diminished servant rather than the family member she is. They refuse to treat her with dignity or familial love, and threaten to destroy any remaining shards of her parents' legacy. Her solace is found in her relationships with the other servants, in her friend Leonardo Da Vinci, and in the crown prince Henry, with whom several chance meetings spark mutual feelings of love. But can the heart triumph against the obstacles created by her step-family, and by class separation at large?
This film, with its lush cinematography and sweeping score, seems to inevitably draw viewers into the main plot development of romance between Danielle and Henry. But for the purposes of this review, I'd like to encourage viewers to focus less on this plot line, and more on the characters as individuals; this realm of the story is actually much more compelling than the trite surface plot. Despite Danielle's deplorable circumstances, something inside of her never falters throughout the entire course of the film. She maintains a certain kind of self-respect - a determined, resilient understanding of her identity as the child of good, loving parents. Watch, and you will see that Danielle's finest moments in the film occur either when she is representing her father's intellectual inheritance, such as when she discusses Thomas More's Utopia, or when she is defending her parents' honor, such as the scenes involving her mother's dress. Even her disguise pays homage to her late mother's heritage. Indeed, Danielle never loses sight of who she is, and though she is not always a beacon of optimism, her integrity always sets her straight.
Some discussion questions for families include:
1.For most of the movie, Danielle lives two different lives РDanielle the servant, and Comtesse Nicole De Lencr̩ the courtier. But does her personality change, or stay the same? How can this relate to our own lives? (Parents, consider your own double life of work/public life vs. family/personal life.)
2.Both Danielle and Henry are prisoners in their own life. Why? How do they deal with it?
3.Pay attention to the scene when Monsieur De Barbarac dies. Who does he say his last words to? How does Danielle react? How does the Baroness (the Stepmother) act? What might the screenwriter be trying to say by showing these two different reactions?
4.How does the Baroness's behavior at her husband's death relate to her behavior throughout the rest of the film, and how she treats Danielle? Or how she treats her own daughters?
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Starring Tim Robbins, Morgan Freeman
Rated R (due to scenes with cursing, violence, suicide and sexual referencing)
Running Time: 2 hours, 22 minutes
The Shawshank Redemption tells the story of Andy Dufresne, a young banker thrown into prison for two life sentences, for a crime he did not commit. The film chronicles the decades Dufresne spent within the walls of the Shawshank Penitentiary, including his developing relationships with the prison staff and other prisoners, and shows how his decency and hopeful spirit ultimately sets him - and others - free.
Shawshank is regarded by many to be one of the greatest films ever made, and while the film does feature superb acting, supported by a beautiful audio/visual atmosphere, none of it could function without an effective, compelling story. And certainly we can agree that a man triumphing over the grimmest of circumstances makes for a compelling story. So, what is it that keeps Andy going, in spite of being condemned to such harsh and sadistic confinement, virtually devoid of solace? Over the course of the movie, one will find that it is a combination of several things, such as Dufresne's integrity, his identity as a truly innocent man, and his hopes and dreams of his life outside of Shawshank. Andy's mind is never confined to the stone walls of Shawshank; he is always able to see beyond the daily hardships. With these things rooted inside him, he earns the respect of the other prisoners, perseveres to bring about goodness, and takes slow but deliberate steps to vanquish the injustice of the prison staff.
Andy expresses that there are some things that no one can take away from you, and he takes great effort to revive those things in the other prisoners, such as building a library and coaching prisoners to get their GED. One of many examples of this can be seen as Andy plays music over the prison intercom; as the camera pans over the crowd of prisoners at a standstill, faces skyward, we see the prisoners taste a moment of internal freedom. It is in these moments where the film soars as high as the music, and reaches deep into our souls, imploring us to soar above our prisons too.
Some Discussion Questions:
1.As Andy remarks that everything boils down to a choice to either “get busy living, or get busy dying”, what does that mean for him personally? How can we apply that statement to our own lives?
2.Being that the film is called “The Shawshank Redemption”, what are some scenes in which redemption takes place?
3.Andy discusses with his friends about how music, for him, is something nobody can take away from him. What are some things that you personally feel are irremovable?
4.What does Zihuatanejo represent to Andy? To Red?
5.Once concept explored in the film is institutionalization. Who falls victim to it? Who fights it? Are we all institutionalized in some ways?
These two films can be thought of as two different performances of the same song – one is a fairly simple arrangement picked out on the keyboard; the other is a played by a string quartet. But what is that common melody? What do a fairy tale and a murder mystery have in common? It is the idea of imprisonment, and what one does when they are given such a fate. A wise young woman I know once said that “We create our prisons... With the right mindset, a prison can become a palace.” The protagonists in both of these films seemed to have understood that. Both, though placed in grim circumstances outside of their control, maintain a sense of dignity, a positive perspective and integrity, which allows their prisons to ultimately crumble.
Though none of us will likely ever own glass slippers or be framed for murder, we can still identify with these characters. That's the beauty of movies – though many of the stories we watch are fictional (and perhaps even bordering on the preposterous), the emotions felt and the reasons behind the action are very real. Some of our greatest teachers are stories, because we ARE the stories – the motion picture is just a useful sort of carnival mirror, giving us a new and interesting way to understand our world. So though we may not be physically trapped like these characters, we can still learn from them that if we maintain our true identity and integrity, no prison will ever contain us.
Submission to UNews, July 2009
Unification News Movie Reviews – July 2009
Welcome to the Unification News Movie Reviews! I look forward to leaving no stones unturned in searching for the best that the movie industry has to offer you. I will be placing an emphasis on plot and character development, and how these films can generate a positive impact on your life, as well as that of your family and community. If you have any comments, questions, or film recommendations, please don't hesitate to email us!
This month we have a double feature – one film for the entire family, and one geared more towards older teens and adults. Enjoy!
Wall-E
(2008)
Directed by Andrew Stanton
Written by Mr. Stanton and Jim Reardon
Disney/Pixar
Running Time: 1 hr, 37 min
The fate of humanity rests in the hands of two small lumps of steel with hearts of gold, in Disney and Pixar's award-winning 2008 feature film, Wall-E. This family-friendly, eco-conscious comedy follows the intergalactic adventures of a humble robot, programmed to process the trash left behind by a consumer-driven society. In fact, Wall-E is the only machine still in operation (perhaps someone forgot to switch him off?). But one fateful day, Wall-E discovers the key to restoring human life on Earth. Enter Eve – a sleek new retriever robot sent by the Axiom, the cruise liner-esque spaceship housing the remaining human population. Though initially drawn into Wall-E's life by her programmed directive, their relationship grows, and is tested as they face the challenge of bringing the human race back home.
Wall-E is a wonderful work of cinematic art. Sight, sound and story are fused together to create a captivating, beautiful world - but it is not a world we hope to become. Yet, in spite of the film's bleak post-apocalyptic circumstances, it retains a fascinating warmth, endearment and hope. So, from where does this positivity arise? From a storytelling perspective, we can suppose that the bearer of hope is Wall-E, the film's protagonist. Somehow, Wall-E is able to maintain something which the remaining humans are quickly losing – humanity. It is the humanity nestled deep within this little machine which allows the entire story to move forward.
But, what exactly is the quality of humanity? Though it can be defined in many ways, most definitions of humanity revolve around compassion and morality towards others. From a principled point of view, the quality of humanity could be defined as living for something beyond oneself. Wall-E provides an excellent illustration of such principles, as his actions, driven by his love for Eve, compel him towards goodness. And when these actions begin to interweave with the actions of the other characters (see Wall-E's interaction with the humans aboard the Axiom as an example), this sense of humanity begins to ripple outwards. Ultimately, the humans' return to their innate understanding of humanity parallels their external return to Earth, their homeland. This beautiful tale serves as a reminder that it is in re-awakening our original minds that we return home.
Some questions that families may want to discuss after watching the movie are:
Why do we care about Wall-E? Why do we like him, and want him to succeed?
How does Eve change Wall-E's life?
Even though this film is a work of fiction, are there any aspects which remind you of our current culture? Are they good reminders? What steps can we take to prevent Wall-E's world from becoming our future?
The Apartment
(1960)
Directed by Billy Wilder
Written by Mr. Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond
Starring Jack Lemmon, Shirley MacLaine, Fred MacMurray
Running Time: 2hrs, 5 min
The 1960 Oscar Winning dramedy “The Apartment” chronicles the life of a young bachelor entering the business world, who is forced to choose between maintaining his morals or getting ahead. Unfortunately, C.C. Baxter chooses the latter, lending out his humble brownstone apartment to his superiors for their extra-marital affairs in exchange for corporate advancement. But when his own romantic feelings elevate the dealings to a new realm of confusion, Baxter re-encounters his crossroads. Will he change? Or will he perpetuate the cycle of lies and greed?
Now, you might be thinking “Am I reading the right newspaper, or did this review get lost in the mail room and end up here by accident? What on earth has compelled this writer to give a favorable review of a film involving infidelity?” Rest assured, what you are reading is very much on purpose. My reasoning can be summed up in a quote from Jack Lemmon, the actor who plays Baxter, who once said that in making The Apartment, “Wilder grew a rose in a garbage pail”. Much like in Wall-E, though Baxter's initial choices create an atmosphere that seems rather hopeless, it is when Baxter loves and cares for something beyond himself that he is challenged to push beyond his shortcomings.
So how does Baxter make this remarkable transformation? While I certainly don't want to spoil the ending, let me say this: like any real life change, each of the characters' transformations are subtle and nuanced. Pay attention to the wonderful details the writers and actors give in every scene; pay particular attention to the scenes involving Dr. and Mrs. Dreyfuss, Baxter's Jewish neighbors. Wilder and Diamond utilize these characters to breathe life into a necessary plea for virtue, allowing morality to exist within the film without any outright sermonizing. And as Baxter comes to understand Dr. Dreyfuss' plea for him to become a mensch – a human being – he begins to command his life in a way that will compel you to stand up and cheer.
Some questions that you may want to keep in mind are:
Why does Baxter lie to his neighbors? What excuses might he give for living
Why does the director choose to introduce us to Ms. Kubelik the way he does, only to show her in a different light later on?
Listen to Ms. Kubelik's remarks about her broken mirror. What is she alluding to?
What doe Baxter see in Kubelik?
Though these two films are set in very different circumstances, both explore what it is that makes us truly human. And while most of us have no intentions of living the lives portrayed in either of these films, we can still see a glimmer of ourselves, in the times when we were not living at our truest. In this way, these stories serve as eloquent reminders of what can happen when we transcend those moments and allow our true nature to exist unhindered. Our original mind – our humanity – implores us to let go of what is untrue in and around us. And often, as can be seen in both films, our choosing to do so inspires others to do the same. Thus, I heartily recommend these films to you, as they prove that something beautiful can still grow from a garbage pail (or a dying planet), when we embrace the original essence of our being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)