Wednesday, December 24, 2014
A Family of Books
Need a last-minute holiday gift? Consider the offerings from the Brent Marchant family of books, Consciously Created Cinema: The Movie Lover's Guide to the Law of Attraction and the newly released updated edition of Get the Picture?!: Conscious Creation Goes to the Movies. Consciously Created Cinema is available in print and ebook formats from all major online retailers, such as Amazon.com, and Get the Picture?! is available in a print edition from Amazon.com (with ebook editions to come soon). Happy reading, and happy holidays!
Cover designs by Paul L. Clark, Inspirtainment (www.inspirtainment.com)
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
A Special Christmas Night
Looking for something fun to do on Christmas night? Then check out a rebroadcast of my interview on the VividLife Radio Show "It's All About Relationships," with host Edie Weinstein. Tune in Thursday at 8 PM Eastern by clicking here for some lively chat about conscious creation and the movies!
Monday, December 22, 2014
IT'S HERE!!!
IT'S HERE!!! The re-release of the book that started it all, the newly revised and updated edition of the book that launched my writing career, Get the Picture?!: Conscious Creation Goes the Movies, available in a new print edition from Amazon.com, available by clicking here. And coming soon in an ebook edition!
Cover design by Paul L. Clark, Inspirtainment (www.inspirtainment.com)
Saturday, December 20, 2014
A Hard Lesson
The first time I saw the trailer for the film "The Interview," I was appalled.
"WTF?" I thought. "What the hell are the producers thinking?" Not only did the preview have "turkey" written all over it, but I couldn't believe the creators were so naive as to think there wouldn't be some kind of negative fallout from this ill-conceived production. I never envisioned matters getting as out of hand as they have, but I knew for sure that there would be hell to pay for those who gave the green light to this bonehead project.
So why was I so outraged? The very premise of the film was in such incredibly bad taste that I had a hard time believing the production had gotten as far as it did. The idea of creating a movie (and a comedy at that) about assassinating Kim Jong-un, a known world leader, struck me as the height of irresponsibility. The situation might have been different if the film was premised on the idea of eliminating a fictional head of state, perhaps even one based on the figure here. But building a story like this around an actual, identifiable person was, in my opinion, unfathomably stupid. What if a North Korean filmmaker had proposed making a movie about one of his country's operatives being tapped to take out a known Western leader -- what kind of reaction would have that engendered? It's a pretty safe bet that it would have been one of righteous indignation, not cavalier dismissiveness.
In my view, the only smart decision Sony Pictures made during this debacle was to pull the plug on the film's release. This obviously had to have been a difficult choice in many ways, but, given the ominous threats that were being circulated regarding its distribution, I don't know that the studio and theater owners had any other realistically responsible choice. I realize this was a controversial decision, especially in light of all the criticism that has been heaped upon Sony and the movie house chains as a result. The arguments regarding freedom of speech and not caving in to intimidation indeed have merit. But what if the release had gone ahead and something happened? Where would those critics of Sony's decision be then? Under those circumstances, I'm fairly sure they would have called for the film to have been pulled, that a "courageous" decision to proceed with release despite the prevailing conditions would have been seen as short-sighted foolishness. (The hypocrisy in all this is simply too undeniable to ignore.)
Those who have said that the North Koreans are now dictating terms to the film industry are overstating the case. Their claims that no one can now make a movie critical of an unpopular foreign head of state like Kim Jong-un are grossly exaggerated. Films that satirize dictators have been an industry staple for years. Just look at Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" (1940) or, more recently, Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "Team America: World Police" (2004). Both were scathingly brutal in skewering their intended targets. But, in both of those cases, the filmmakers never went so far as to propose something so heinous as killing the figurehead in question. That's where "The Interview" crossed the line, and it's entirely understandable how Kim Jong-un and the North Koreans would have been justifiably upset at the film's premise, regardless of how any of us might feel about the renegade leader and his totalitarian regime. After all, if you were intentionally identified as a target for assassination, wouldn't you be outraged?
This incident no doubt has to have been a hard lesson for Sony and the creators of this film. But, quite frankly, I believe they had it coming, given the ill-considered thinking behind this project. I'm hoping that all parties concerned have learned their lesson from this episode, too, that they'll put more deliberate thought into the kinds of film projects they propose and approve going forward. It's bad enough that there are so many productions in the works that make use of the kind of adolescent humor employed here, but, when such puerile comedy is combined with the sort of blatant irresponsibility and lack of sound ethical standing on display in "The Interview," it's utterly embarrassing for an industry that's quite capable of so much better. We can only hope that the movie business comes away from this incident with a new, wiser outlook -- and a commitment not to make mistakes like this again.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
"WTF?" I thought. "What the hell are the producers thinking?" Not only did the preview have "turkey" written all over it, but I couldn't believe the creators were so naive as to think there wouldn't be some kind of negative fallout from this ill-conceived production. I never envisioned matters getting as out of hand as they have, but I knew for sure that there would be hell to pay for those who gave the green light to this bonehead project.
So why was I so outraged? The very premise of the film was in such incredibly bad taste that I had a hard time believing the production had gotten as far as it did. The idea of creating a movie (and a comedy at that) about assassinating Kim Jong-un, a known world leader, struck me as the height of irresponsibility. The situation might have been different if the film was premised on the idea of eliminating a fictional head of state, perhaps even one based on the figure here. But building a story like this around an actual, identifiable person was, in my opinion, unfathomably stupid. What if a North Korean filmmaker had proposed making a movie about one of his country's operatives being tapped to take out a known Western leader -- what kind of reaction would have that engendered? It's a pretty safe bet that it would have been one of righteous indignation, not cavalier dismissiveness.
In my view, the only smart decision Sony Pictures made during this debacle was to pull the plug on the film's release. This obviously had to have been a difficult choice in many ways, but, given the ominous threats that were being circulated regarding its distribution, I don't know that the studio and theater owners had any other realistically responsible choice. I realize this was a controversial decision, especially in light of all the criticism that has been heaped upon Sony and the movie house chains as a result. The arguments regarding freedom of speech and not caving in to intimidation indeed have merit. But what if the release had gone ahead and something happened? Where would those critics of Sony's decision be then? Under those circumstances, I'm fairly sure they would have called for the film to have been pulled, that a "courageous" decision to proceed with release despite the prevailing conditions would have been seen as short-sighted foolishness. (The hypocrisy in all this is simply too undeniable to ignore.)
Those who have said that the North Koreans are now dictating terms to the film industry are overstating the case. Their claims that no one can now make a movie critical of an unpopular foreign head of state like Kim Jong-un are grossly exaggerated. Films that satirize dictators have been an industry staple for years. Just look at Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" (1940) or, more recently, Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "Team America: World Police" (2004). Both were scathingly brutal in skewering their intended targets. But, in both of those cases, the filmmakers never went so far as to propose something so heinous as killing the figurehead in question. That's where "The Interview" crossed the line, and it's entirely understandable how Kim Jong-un and the North Koreans would have been justifiably upset at the film's premise, regardless of how any of us might feel about the renegade leader and his totalitarian regime. After all, if you were intentionally identified as a target for assassination, wouldn't you be outraged?
This incident no doubt has to have been a hard lesson for Sony and the creators of this film. But, quite frankly, I believe they had it coming, given the ill-considered thinking behind this project. I'm hoping that all parties concerned have learned their lesson from this episode, too, that they'll put more deliberate thought into the kinds of film projects they propose and approve going forward. It's bad enough that there are so many productions in the works that make use of the kind of adolescent humor employed here, but, when such puerile comedy is combined with the sort of blatant irresponsibility and lack of sound ethical standing on display in "The Interview," it's utterly embarrassing for an industry that's quite capable of so much better. We can only hope that the movie business comes away from this incident with a new, wiser outlook -- and a commitment not to make mistakes like this again.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Friday, December 19, 2014
‘Imitation Game’ illustrates how our lives follow our beliefs
“The Imitation Game” (2014). Cast: Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley, Matthew Goode, Rory Kinnear, Allen Leech, Matthew Beard, Charles Dance, Mark Strong, Alex Lawther, Jack Bannon, Tuppence Middleton. Director: Morten Tyldum. Screenplay: Graham Moore. Book: Andrew Hodges, Alan Turing: The Enigma. Web site. Trailer.
Much of the time, our lives seem puzzlingly inscrutable. But they need not be if we look closely to see how they follow very clearly prescribed paths that fall in line with what we think, believe and feel. Should we become proficient at that, there’s virtually nothing we can’t come to understand, a point driven home in the engaging new biopic, “The Imitation Game.”
In the early days of World War II, England and its Allies were suffering heavy losses at the hands of Hitler’s war machine. British military intelligence had considerable difficulty getting sufficient information about the Germans’ battle plans in time to prevent the carnage. Enemy forces fared so well thanks to their ability to successfully convey encrypted messages to their troops using a coding system known as Enigma, believed to be unbreakable. But, if the British were somehow able to decipher the code, the game would change entirely.
To reach this goal, the royal military began interviewing the country’s leading mathematicians, cryptologists and linguists for participation in a top-secret project aimed at cracking the code. Heading the project was naval Commander Alastair Denniston (Charles Denniston), a hard-nosed, results-oriented taskmaster, who was quietly and clandestinely aided by Stewart Menzies (Mark Strong), an officer of the supposedly nonexistent military intelligence ministry, MI6.
One of the more prominent candidates Denniston interviewed was mathematics scholar Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch). Despite Turing’s impressive résumé, the commander found this contender to be arrogant and aloof. However, given the need to get the job done, Denniston brought Turing on board his team – but with great reservation and with one eye always looking over Alan’s shoulder.
Unlike the team’s other members (Matthew Goode, Matthew Beard, Allen Leech), who approached breaking the code by more conventional deciphering methods, Turing proposed something radically different – a machine capable of simultaneously processing multiple calculations aimed at cracking Enigma’s unfathomable algorithm. Yet, despite Alan’s unshakable faith in his idea, others scoffed at him, offering virtually no support (especially since his condescending attitude often rubbed them the wrong way). Even Denniston was able to overlook his results-driven focus when it came to Turing’s outlandish proposal, especially since it verged on what he considered to be the height of fiscal irresponsibility (wartime budget considerations notwithstanding). So, if Alan were to realize his goal, he would have to seek the assistance of a higher power – which he did by writing to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, a move that earned him the support he needed, as well as the leadership of the code breaking team.
Turing thus began work on creating his calculating machine. He also found a staunch ally in the team’s newest member, Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley), who shared Alan’s love of numbers and understood him in a way that the other team members didn’t. But progress came slowly, and rumors of a Communist spy lurking in the team’s midst cast a pall over the code breakers’ work. Denniston’s suspicions about the trustworthiness of his team leader thus grew, a circumstance that made life increasingly difficult for him, especially since he was struggling to keep a secret of his own – his homosexuality, which, at the time in England, was still punishable as a crime.
It was under these extremely trying conditions that Alan toiled to carry out his task. Would his creation function as hoped for, or would it wind up a disappointing failure? Would he be able to continue hiding the truth about himself, or would he be exposed? But, perhaps most importantly, would he ultimately succeed at breaking Enigma? And, even if he did, then what? As the prospects of a breakthrough loomed, the answers once sought so earnestly suddenly didn’t seem quite so clear-cut. In fact, the hope that success once promised now seemed to have raised a whole host of new questions, considerations of a nature far more complicated than anything Turing had faced up to that point – and that would continue to dog him for years to come, even after the war ended.
Turing’s complex circumstances aptly illustrate how our lives and our realities truly are metaphorical in nature, reflective of the prevailing beliefs within our true being. Their expression in physical terms is thus a direct outcome of the manifesting intents we employ through the conscious creation process. For instance, as the film’s trailer observes, it takes one who keeps secrets to know how to reveal them, and that’s certainly true in Alan’s case. However, secrets can also ensnare, another circumstance that Mr. Turing comes to know all too well, especially in the years after the war, when he unwittingly runs afoul of an investigation headed up by Manchester Police Detective Robert Nock (Rory Kinnear).
The beliefs we employ to create our realities are often remarkably persistent, too, as seen in flashbacks to when a 15-year-old Alan (Alex Lawther) was a boarding school student. These intents are born, develop and flourish over time, manifesting in myriad permutations through the years. This becomes most apparent in Alan’s fascination with puzzles and codes, an interest he shares with his classmate, Christopher (Jack Bannon). He comes to recognize, for instance, how we often employ encryption methods in our daily lives without even being aware of doing so. The statements we make, he notes, often don’t say what we really mean, prompting him to speculate that the trick to understanding what others truly say depends on our ability to break through those codes, seeing past the surface attributes and examining the genuine qualities that lie beneath. Indeed, one could argue, what better mindset is there for developing the means for fathoming how to break codes?
The persistence of our beliefs can sometimes get us in trouble, though, too. For example, it’s truly sad that we can allow the beliefs driving our prejudices to hold on so stubbornly. England’s entrenched bigotry toward homosexuals, for instance, was so pervasive at the time that it kept many from being able to recognize the accomplishments of those holding to that sexual orientation. No matter what grand achievements someone might have been able to fulfill, those efforts were often summarily wiped out when subjected to the onslaught of an inflexible prejudice.
This is unfortunate, since those whose realities operate outside the mainstream frequently inspire some of our most enlightened creations and ideas. Alan’s conception of a calculating device led to the development of what would come to be called “Turing machines” – or what we better know today as computers. Where would we be now if such outlandish thinking had not taken root? It’s regrettable that Alan never received the recognition he deserved, either (and all because of an aspect of his life that was really no one else’s business but his).
So how do we extricate ourselves from such circumstances? As alluded to above, discernment is key, for it teaches us how to read between the lines to be able to truly see and hear what others do and say. This allows us to look past mere surface perceptions to fathom the underlying beliefs manifesting the prevailing circumstances, enabling us to adjust our beliefs and intents in response. This also enables us to better develop the power of our intuition, a key element in forming the beliefs we employ through the conscious creation process.
Integrity is also important, because it inspires us to follow our hearts, our true selves. Admittedly, that may be difficult, as evidenced by the attitudes (not to mention legal sanctions) inflicted upon homosexuals in England at the time. However, the more we can be true to our beliefs, the more confidence it inspires – and the greater our chances of being able to bring about solutions that ultimately suit our needs. It’s unfortunate that Mr. Turing was not able to enjoy the fruits of his efforts at the time, but the prevalence of what his conceptions have led to is a lasting tribute to his contributions to society, technology and the world at large.
“The Imitation Game” is a very complete picture, well executed on all fronts, with solid performances, great character development, excellent period piece production values and a skillful blending of story lines from multiple time periods. It can be a little formulaic at times, but that’s easily overlooked in light of its many other strengths.
The performances of Cumberbatch and Knightley are truly noteworthy, and they have been lavished with praise on many fronts. Both have received nominations as best lead actor and best supporting actress in the Critics Choice, Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild Award competitions. The film itself is also a strong contender for best picture, having been nominated as such in the Critics Choice and Golden Globe Award programs. In all, it has racked up 14 nods in the three contests, with more recognition almost sure to follow.
The mystery of life need not be so intractably enigmatic if we know how to look at it. We have the means to solve the riddles posed to us if we’re only willing to make the effort to do so. Unlocking the secrets of everyday life, or of even existence itself, can be rewarding beyond measure, and now we have cinematic guidance to help show us the way – and all thanks to the efforts of a previously unsung British war hero.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Much of the time, our lives seem puzzlingly inscrutable. But they need not be if we look closely to see how they follow very clearly prescribed paths that fall in line with what we think, believe and feel. Should we become proficient at that, there’s virtually nothing we can’t come to understand, a point driven home in the engaging new biopic, “The Imitation Game.”
In the early days of World War II, England and its Allies were suffering heavy losses at the hands of Hitler’s war machine. British military intelligence had considerable difficulty getting sufficient information about the Germans’ battle plans in time to prevent the carnage. Enemy forces fared so well thanks to their ability to successfully convey encrypted messages to their troops using a coding system known as Enigma, believed to be unbreakable. But, if the British were somehow able to decipher the code, the game would change entirely.
To reach this goal, the royal military began interviewing the country’s leading mathematicians, cryptologists and linguists for participation in a top-secret project aimed at cracking the code. Heading the project was naval Commander Alastair Denniston (Charles Denniston), a hard-nosed, results-oriented taskmaster, who was quietly and clandestinely aided by Stewart Menzies (Mark Strong), an officer of the supposedly nonexistent military intelligence ministry, MI6.
One of the more prominent candidates Denniston interviewed was mathematics scholar Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch). Despite Turing’s impressive résumé, the commander found this contender to be arrogant and aloof. However, given the need to get the job done, Denniston brought Turing on board his team – but with great reservation and with one eye always looking over Alan’s shoulder.
Unlike the team’s other members (Matthew Goode, Matthew Beard, Allen Leech), who approached breaking the code by more conventional deciphering methods, Turing proposed something radically different – a machine capable of simultaneously processing multiple calculations aimed at cracking Enigma’s unfathomable algorithm. Yet, despite Alan’s unshakable faith in his idea, others scoffed at him, offering virtually no support (especially since his condescending attitude often rubbed them the wrong way). Even Denniston was able to overlook his results-driven focus when it came to Turing’s outlandish proposal, especially since it verged on what he considered to be the height of fiscal irresponsibility (wartime budget considerations notwithstanding). So, if Alan were to realize his goal, he would have to seek the assistance of a higher power – which he did by writing to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, a move that earned him the support he needed, as well as the leadership of the code breaking team.
Turing thus began work on creating his calculating machine. He also found a staunch ally in the team’s newest member, Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley), who shared Alan’s love of numbers and understood him in a way that the other team members didn’t. But progress came slowly, and rumors of a Communist spy lurking in the team’s midst cast a pall over the code breakers’ work. Denniston’s suspicions about the trustworthiness of his team leader thus grew, a circumstance that made life increasingly difficult for him, especially since he was struggling to keep a secret of his own – his homosexuality, which, at the time in England, was still punishable as a crime.
It was under these extremely trying conditions that Alan toiled to carry out his task. Would his creation function as hoped for, or would it wind up a disappointing failure? Would he be able to continue hiding the truth about himself, or would he be exposed? But, perhaps most importantly, would he ultimately succeed at breaking Enigma? And, even if he did, then what? As the prospects of a breakthrough loomed, the answers once sought so earnestly suddenly didn’t seem quite so clear-cut. In fact, the hope that success once promised now seemed to have raised a whole host of new questions, considerations of a nature far more complicated than anything Turing had faced up to that point – and that would continue to dog him for years to come, even after the war ended.
Turing’s complex circumstances aptly illustrate how our lives and our realities truly are metaphorical in nature, reflective of the prevailing beliefs within our true being. Their expression in physical terms is thus a direct outcome of the manifesting intents we employ through the conscious creation process. For instance, as the film’s trailer observes, it takes one who keeps secrets to know how to reveal them, and that’s certainly true in Alan’s case. However, secrets can also ensnare, another circumstance that Mr. Turing comes to know all too well, especially in the years after the war, when he unwittingly runs afoul of an investigation headed up by Manchester Police Detective Robert Nock (Rory Kinnear).
The beliefs we employ to create our realities are often remarkably persistent, too, as seen in flashbacks to when a 15-year-old Alan (Alex Lawther) was a boarding school student. These intents are born, develop and flourish over time, manifesting in myriad permutations through the years. This becomes most apparent in Alan’s fascination with puzzles and codes, an interest he shares with his classmate, Christopher (Jack Bannon). He comes to recognize, for instance, how we often employ encryption methods in our daily lives without even being aware of doing so. The statements we make, he notes, often don’t say what we really mean, prompting him to speculate that the trick to understanding what others truly say depends on our ability to break through those codes, seeing past the surface attributes and examining the genuine qualities that lie beneath. Indeed, one could argue, what better mindset is there for developing the means for fathoming how to break codes?
The persistence of our beliefs can sometimes get us in trouble, though, too. For example, it’s truly sad that we can allow the beliefs driving our prejudices to hold on so stubbornly. England’s entrenched bigotry toward homosexuals, for instance, was so pervasive at the time that it kept many from being able to recognize the accomplishments of those holding to that sexual orientation. No matter what grand achievements someone might have been able to fulfill, those efforts were often summarily wiped out when subjected to the onslaught of an inflexible prejudice.
This is unfortunate, since those whose realities operate outside the mainstream frequently inspire some of our most enlightened creations and ideas. Alan’s conception of a calculating device led to the development of what would come to be called “Turing machines” – or what we better know today as computers. Where would we be now if such outlandish thinking had not taken root? It’s regrettable that Alan never received the recognition he deserved, either (and all because of an aspect of his life that was really no one else’s business but his).
So how do we extricate ourselves from such circumstances? As alluded to above, discernment is key, for it teaches us how to read between the lines to be able to truly see and hear what others do and say. This allows us to look past mere surface perceptions to fathom the underlying beliefs manifesting the prevailing circumstances, enabling us to adjust our beliefs and intents in response. This also enables us to better develop the power of our intuition, a key element in forming the beliefs we employ through the conscious creation process.
Integrity is also important, because it inspires us to follow our hearts, our true selves. Admittedly, that may be difficult, as evidenced by the attitudes (not to mention legal sanctions) inflicted upon homosexuals in England at the time. However, the more we can be true to our beliefs, the more confidence it inspires – and the greater our chances of being able to bring about solutions that ultimately suit our needs. It’s unfortunate that Mr. Turing was not able to enjoy the fruits of his efforts at the time, but the prevalence of what his conceptions have led to is a lasting tribute to his contributions to society, technology and the world at large.
“The Imitation Game” is a very complete picture, well executed on all fronts, with solid performances, great character development, excellent period piece production values and a skillful blending of story lines from multiple time periods. It can be a little formulaic at times, but that’s easily overlooked in light of its many other strengths.
The performances of Cumberbatch and Knightley are truly noteworthy, and they have been lavished with praise on many fronts. Both have received nominations as best lead actor and best supporting actress in the Critics Choice, Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild Award competitions. The film itself is also a strong contender for best picture, having been nominated as such in the Critics Choice and Golden Globe Award programs. In all, it has racked up 14 nods in the three contests, with more recognition almost sure to follow.
The mystery of life need not be so intractably enigmatic if we know how to look at it. We have the means to solve the riddles posed to us if we’re only willing to make the effort to do so. Unlocking the secrets of everyday life, or of even existence itself, can be rewarding beyond measure, and now we have cinematic guidance to help show us the way – and all thanks to the efforts of a previously unsung British war hero.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Friday, December 12, 2014
Follow Me on Pinterest, MeWe and Google+
Pinterest, MeWe and Google+ users can now keep up with the latest about the upcoming release of the new edition of my first book, Get the Picture?!: Conscious Creation Goes to the Movies, coming soon in print and ebook formats from all major online retailers. Check out the dedicated pages on those sites, as well as the existing page on Facebook, to find out more!
Cover design by Paul L. Clark, Inspirtainment (www.inspirtainment.com)
‘Wild’ encourages us to look within
“Wild” (2014). Cast: Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern, Thomas Sadoski, Keene McRae, Michiel Huisman, W. Earl Brown, Gaby Hoffmann, Kevin Rankin, Mo McRae, Randy Schulman, Cliff De Young, Jason Newell, Bobbi Strayed Lindstrom. Director: Jean-Marc Vallée. Screenplay: Nick Hornby. Book: Cheryl Strayed, Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail. Web site. Trailer.
How we became who we are sometimes baffles us. We go through life, not fully realizing who we are, what we do or why, a course that can be fraught with complications, misunderstandings and even obliviousness. Getting a handle on our intents and motivations can prove valuable for sorting out such matters, but how? Sometimes it may take something as simple as getting away from it all for a while, a tactic explored in the moving new fact-based drama, “Wild.”
Cheryl Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) is sorely in need of getting her life together. With the untimely death of her mother, Bobbi (Laura Dern), Cheryl’s life falls apart. Overcome by grief and unclear how to cope with the loss of the woman she considered her best friend, she turns to drugs (including heroin) and a string of extramarital affairs in an attempt to ease her pain. Unfortunately, none of these solutions provides the answers or relief she seeks; in fact, all they do is leave her broke, unemployed and divorced from her adoring husband, Paul (Thomas Sadoski). Even Cheryl’s longtime companions, like her childhood friend Aimee (Gaby Hoffmann), and her therapist (Randy Schulman) begin to lose faith in her ability to escape her cycle of self-destructive behavior, worried that she’s spiraling into an abyss from which she won’t emerge.
Somehow, though, Cheryl manages to find a way out – by deciding to hike the 1,100-mile Pacific Crest Trail, a destination that has always inexplicably captivated her. And so, despite a lack of hiking experience and not knowing what she’ll face, she sets off on her solo journey, beginning in southern California’s Mojave Desert and heading north up the coast.
To get her life together, hiker Cheryl Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) embarks on a solo journey of self-discovery along the Pacific Crest Trail, beginning in southern California’s Mojave Desert, in the moving new fact-based drama, “Wild.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
The trip turns out to be nothing like what she expected, but it provides her with just what she needs – an opportunity to look inward to discover her true self and to heal a host of old wounds, some of which have to do with life events other than the passing of her mother and the fallout that came in its wake. To say more would reveal too much of Cheryl’s experiences and the insights that arose from them. Suffice it to say, however, that Cheryl’s trek brings her exactly what she needs at exactly the time she needs it. In fact, the journey itself becomes a metaphor for her own personal odyssey, one reflective of her inner being – the realm of her beliefs – the means by which she manifests her reality through the conscious creation process. It thus gives her an opportunity to address a range of issues, all the while providing an undeniable mirror of her true self. The experience proves quite profound; indeed, to call it cathartic and revelatory would be an understatement to be sure.
Embarking on an extended journey of some kind is often an effective means for getting away from it all to take stock of our lives, especially when traveling alone. The various stops along the way provide excellent opportunities to chart our personal growth and the evolution of our character, personal qualities that are almost certain to change over the course of the trek. Assessing the alterations and adjustments that emerge makes it possible to examine the beliefs that gave rise to them, shedding light on how and why they arose and, one would hope, how they’ve made our lives better.
Bobbi (Laura Dern), the mother and best friend of a hiker seeking to find herself, somehow manages to keep an optimistic outlook about life, despite its adversities, in director Jean-Marc Vallée’s latest offering, “Wild.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
As noted above, such journeys also serve as metaphorical mirrors of our beliefs. In Cheryl’s case, for example, she begins her odyssey in the desert, a place of isolation, limited life-sustaining resources and myriad perils, conditions not unlike those that prevailed in her reality before she began her hike. From there she journeys to the snow-covered mountains of central and northern California, a cold, sometimes-unforgiving landscape that demands much of those who seek to ascend to their exalted heights, circumstances reflective of Cheryl’s quest to better herself and change her existence. And, as she rounds out her travels, Cheryl heads into the lush old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest, a beautiful, abundantly verdant environment that fills her with a sense of renewal and vitality. That’s quite a trek – and on multiple levels to boot.
Of course, getting to that metaphysical promised land frequently takes work. In conscious creation terms, this primarily involves determining which manifesting beliefs need to be disposed of or rewritten. Intents that no longer serve us unduly weigh us down and make forward progress difficult, a circumstance that becomes symbolically apparent by the oversized bulky backpack Cheryl carries at her journey’s outset. It’s filled with all kinds of items she doesn’t need, which only slows her down and makes hiking needlessly burdensome. So it’s indeed fortuitous when she encounters someone who shows her how to lighten her load.
At one of the campsites along the trail, Cheryl meets Ed (Cliff De Young), one of the outpost’s full-time residents, who spends his days catering to the needs of passing hikers. He sorts through the items in her backpack, showing her what she doesn’t need (and, in Cheryl’s case, that proves to be considerable). Offloading such flotsam significantly unburdens her, an exercise that benefits her not only physically but that also symbolically reflects a useful – and necessary – shift in the palette of beliefs she needs to create her reality. Suddenly, Cheryl’s journey has become much easier, both literally and metaphorically.
When embarking on an undertaking as daunting as Cheryl’s, one might think that the foregoing should be obvious. But, given our heroine’s inexperience at hiking, it’s clear she’s not entirely sure what she needs for the trip. That, of course, could be resolved by simply asking others for assistance, but therein lies one of her personal challenges – developing a willingness to seek help when needed. These circumstances thus reflect one of the primary life lessons that Cheryl has drawn to herself to learn through this journey.
To overcome this issue, she must formulate suitable beliefs to materialize appropriate conditions for making that outcome possible. But, to do that, she must first determine why she has hesitated to embrace such intents. Perhaps it has something to do with her childhood, when her younger self (Bobbi Strayed Lindstrom) had to contend with an abusive father (Jason Newell) who frequently created chaos in the household. These disruptive circumstances may have led her to believe that her wishes would be disregarded, that it wasn’t even worth the effort to ask for what she wanted in the first place, because those desires would be ignored or squelched. This experience thus may have set in motion a belief pattern that carried forward into adulthood, one that kept her from seeking meaningful help from others – especially when she needed it most (just ask her friends, ex-husband and therapist).
A tearful separation marks the end of a seven-year marriage between Cheryl Strayed (Reese Witherspoon, right) and her adoring husband, Paul (Thomas Sadoski, left), in the new fact-based drama, “Wild.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
However, as conscious creators know, we’ll never receive what we seek until we make the effort to ask for it. To be able to do that, we must adopt beliefs that asking and receiving are acts that are not only acceptable but essential to our well-being. If this is something Cheryl has previously been unwilling to embrace, then perhaps the conditions of her hike have materialized to help her get over such hesitancy. When she sees that the Universe responds to her requests (especially when approached through its terrestrial emissaries), the act of asking for fulfillment of her needs suddenly doesn’t seem so imposing. In fact, once she gets a taste of it, she just might make it a habit going forward.
Being willing to make such essential requests shows maturity and responsibility, added benefits that come with learning this life lesson. These traits end up serving Cheryl well, too, since these qualities were noticeably absent in her response to her mother’s demise. Bobbi’s death at age 45 was undoubtedly a terrible tragedy, but engaging in irresponsible, self-destructive behavior won’t bring back a lost loved one, either. Cheryl thus needed to develop these crucial traits at some point if she were to ever have a meaningful life as an adult. Again, the beliefs she used to create her journey thankfully provide the conditions necessary for the emergence of these attributes, and Cheryl fortunately has the wisdom to recognize the benefits these previously missing qualities afford her.
Perhaps most importantly, though, journeys like this help us to make peace with ourselves. While it may have been tempting for Cheryl to wallow in self-pity or beat herself up over her past transgressions, she ultimately comes to see that all of her experiences – for better or worse – have contributed to making her the person she has become, and, if she’s content with who she is, then even the “negative” incidents of her past were not in vain.
Cheryl comes to this conclusion during her trek while reflecting on memories of her mother, who always managed to remain optimistic, even in the face of the many difficulties she endured in life. For instance, during one of the film’s many flashback sequences, Cheryl asks Bobbi how she could maintain such an upbeat attitude in the wake of her abusive marriage. Bobbi replies that she wouldn’t have changed a thing, because, if she had, she wouldn’t have given birth to the beautiful daughter sitting before her. That realization was something Cheryl apparently had trouble embracing at the time Bobbi said it, but, now that Cheryl has created the time and space necessary to reconsider it, she can see the wisdom of her mother’s statement. It’s also an understanding she can apply to her own life – where it had been, where it is at that moment and where it’s likely to go moving forward.
“Wild” is an excellent film, far better than its marketing materials make it appear. Cheryl’s story is skillfully told, never revealing too much all at once, making for an experience that is as revelatory to the audience as it is to the protagonist. Viewers witness the unfolding of Cheryl’s odyssey in much the same way as she sees it for herself – quite a feat of movie making, to be sure. Credit the production’s great script and editing, not to mention the superb direction of filmmaker Jean-Marc Vallée, who has followed up his previous effort, “Dallas Buyers Club,” with an offering of equal magnitude and power. The picture is also gorgeously filmed and includes a great soundtrack featuring the music of Simon & Garfunkel, the Hollies, Leonard Cohen, Bruce Springsteen and the Grateful Dead, among others.
Hiker Cheryl Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) travels through the mountains of the Pacific Crest Trail as part of a journey to find herself in the moving new fact-based drama, “Wild.” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
Above all, though, the film is exceedingly well cast. It’s a terrific showcase for the considerable talent of Witherspoon, who has already garnered best actress nominations in the Screen Actors Guild and Golden Globe Award competitions (with more likely to come). It’s also an excellent platform for Dern, who has turned in some of her best work in years (and deserves more recognition than she has received thus far). And then there’s the excellent cast of colorful supporting characters who make Cheryl’s journey interesting, including a wily desert farmer (W. Earl Brown), the freewheeling editor of a “hobo journal” (Mo McRae) and a sexy concert promoter (Michiel Huisman) who takes a liking to the wandering protagonist.
To find our way in the world, sometimes we need to get away from it, to explore our inner realms and take a good hard look at who we are, what made us that way and what we want to become. This often involves unshackling ourselves from the constraints of daily living, getting in touch with our core beliefs and feelings, that untamed “wild” side we all too frequently never make the effort to know. But making an effort to embark on such an unrestrained journey may prove to be just what we need to live a life of fulfillment and satisfaction. All we need do is put on our metaphysical hiking boots – and hit the trail.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
How we became who we are sometimes baffles us. We go through life, not fully realizing who we are, what we do or why, a course that can be fraught with complications, misunderstandings and even obliviousness. Getting a handle on our intents and motivations can prove valuable for sorting out such matters, but how? Sometimes it may take something as simple as getting away from it all for a while, a tactic explored in the moving new fact-based drama, “Wild.”
Cheryl Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) is sorely in need of getting her life together. With the untimely death of her mother, Bobbi (Laura Dern), Cheryl’s life falls apart. Overcome by grief and unclear how to cope with the loss of the woman she considered her best friend, she turns to drugs (including heroin) and a string of extramarital affairs in an attempt to ease her pain. Unfortunately, none of these solutions provides the answers or relief she seeks; in fact, all they do is leave her broke, unemployed and divorced from her adoring husband, Paul (Thomas Sadoski). Even Cheryl’s longtime companions, like her childhood friend Aimee (Gaby Hoffmann), and her therapist (Randy Schulman) begin to lose faith in her ability to escape her cycle of self-destructive behavior, worried that she’s spiraling into an abyss from which she won’t emerge.
Somehow, though, Cheryl manages to find a way out – by deciding to hike the 1,100-mile Pacific Crest Trail, a destination that has always inexplicably captivated her. And so, despite a lack of hiking experience and not knowing what she’ll face, she sets off on her solo journey, beginning in southern California’s Mojave Desert and heading north up the coast.
The trip turns out to be nothing like what she expected, but it provides her with just what she needs – an opportunity to look inward to discover her true self and to heal a host of old wounds, some of which have to do with life events other than the passing of her mother and the fallout that came in its wake. To say more would reveal too much of Cheryl’s experiences and the insights that arose from them. Suffice it to say, however, that Cheryl’s trek brings her exactly what she needs at exactly the time she needs it. In fact, the journey itself becomes a metaphor for her own personal odyssey, one reflective of her inner being – the realm of her beliefs – the means by which she manifests her reality through the conscious creation process. It thus gives her an opportunity to address a range of issues, all the while providing an undeniable mirror of her true self. The experience proves quite profound; indeed, to call it cathartic and revelatory would be an understatement to be sure.
Embarking on an extended journey of some kind is often an effective means for getting away from it all to take stock of our lives, especially when traveling alone. The various stops along the way provide excellent opportunities to chart our personal growth and the evolution of our character, personal qualities that are almost certain to change over the course of the trek. Assessing the alterations and adjustments that emerge makes it possible to examine the beliefs that gave rise to them, shedding light on how and why they arose and, one would hope, how they’ve made our lives better.
As noted above, such journeys also serve as metaphorical mirrors of our beliefs. In Cheryl’s case, for example, she begins her odyssey in the desert, a place of isolation, limited life-sustaining resources and myriad perils, conditions not unlike those that prevailed in her reality before she began her hike. From there she journeys to the snow-covered mountains of central and northern California, a cold, sometimes-unforgiving landscape that demands much of those who seek to ascend to their exalted heights, circumstances reflective of Cheryl’s quest to better herself and change her existence. And, as she rounds out her travels, Cheryl heads into the lush old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest, a beautiful, abundantly verdant environment that fills her with a sense of renewal and vitality. That’s quite a trek – and on multiple levels to boot.
Of course, getting to that metaphysical promised land frequently takes work. In conscious creation terms, this primarily involves determining which manifesting beliefs need to be disposed of or rewritten. Intents that no longer serve us unduly weigh us down and make forward progress difficult, a circumstance that becomes symbolically apparent by the oversized bulky backpack Cheryl carries at her journey’s outset. It’s filled with all kinds of items she doesn’t need, which only slows her down and makes hiking needlessly burdensome. So it’s indeed fortuitous when she encounters someone who shows her how to lighten her load.
At one of the campsites along the trail, Cheryl meets Ed (Cliff De Young), one of the outpost’s full-time residents, who spends his days catering to the needs of passing hikers. He sorts through the items in her backpack, showing her what she doesn’t need (and, in Cheryl’s case, that proves to be considerable). Offloading such flotsam significantly unburdens her, an exercise that benefits her not only physically but that also symbolically reflects a useful – and necessary – shift in the palette of beliefs she needs to create her reality. Suddenly, Cheryl’s journey has become much easier, both literally and metaphorically.
When embarking on an undertaking as daunting as Cheryl’s, one might think that the foregoing should be obvious. But, given our heroine’s inexperience at hiking, it’s clear she’s not entirely sure what she needs for the trip. That, of course, could be resolved by simply asking others for assistance, but therein lies one of her personal challenges – developing a willingness to seek help when needed. These circumstances thus reflect one of the primary life lessons that Cheryl has drawn to herself to learn through this journey.
To overcome this issue, she must formulate suitable beliefs to materialize appropriate conditions for making that outcome possible. But, to do that, she must first determine why she has hesitated to embrace such intents. Perhaps it has something to do with her childhood, when her younger self (Bobbi Strayed Lindstrom) had to contend with an abusive father (Jason Newell) who frequently created chaos in the household. These disruptive circumstances may have led her to believe that her wishes would be disregarded, that it wasn’t even worth the effort to ask for what she wanted in the first place, because those desires would be ignored or squelched. This experience thus may have set in motion a belief pattern that carried forward into adulthood, one that kept her from seeking meaningful help from others – especially when she needed it most (just ask her friends, ex-husband and therapist).
However, as conscious creators know, we’ll never receive what we seek until we make the effort to ask for it. To be able to do that, we must adopt beliefs that asking and receiving are acts that are not only acceptable but essential to our well-being. If this is something Cheryl has previously been unwilling to embrace, then perhaps the conditions of her hike have materialized to help her get over such hesitancy. When she sees that the Universe responds to her requests (especially when approached through its terrestrial emissaries), the act of asking for fulfillment of her needs suddenly doesn’t seem so imposing. In fact, once she gets a taste of it, she just might make it a habit going forward.
Being willing to make such essential requests shows maturity and responsibility, added benefits that come with learning this life lesson. These traits end up serving Cheryl well, too, since these qualities were noticeably absent in her response to her mother’s demise. Bobbi’s death at age 45 was undoubtedly a terrible tragedy, but engaging in irresponsible, self-destructive behavior won’t bring back a lost loved one, either. Cheryl thus needed to develop these crucial traits at some point if she were to ever have a meaningful life as an adult. Again, the beliefs she used to create her journey thankfully provide the conditions necessary for the emergence of these attributes, and Cheryl fortunately has the wisdom to recognize the benefits these previously missing qualities afford her.
Perhaps most importantly, though, journeys like this help us to make peace with ourselves. While it may have been tempting for Cheryl to wallow in self-pity or beat herself up over her past transgressions, she ultimately comes to see that all of her experiences – for better or worse – have contributed to making her the person she has become, and, if she’s content with who she is, then even the “negative” incidents of her past were not in vain.
Cheryl comes to this conclusion during her trek while reflecting on memories of her mother, who always managed to remain optimistic, even in the face of the many difficulties she endured in life. For instance, during one of the film’s many flashback sequences, Cheryl asks Bobbi how she could maintain such an upbeat attitude in the wake of her abusive marriage. Bobbi replies that she wouldn’t have changed a thing, because, if she had, she wouldn’t have given birth to the beautiful daughter sitting before her. That realization was something Cheryl apparently had trouble embracing at the time Bobbi said it, but, now that Cheryl has created the time and space necessary to reconsider it, she can see the wisdom of her mother’s statement. It’s also an understanding she can apply to her own life – where it had been, where it is at that moment and where it’s likely to go moving forward.
“Wild” is an excellent film, far better than its marketing materials make it appear. Cheryl’s story is skillfully told, never revealing too much all at once, making for an experience that is as revelatory to the audience as it is to the protagonist. Viewers witness the unfolding of Cheryl’s odyssey in much the same way as she sees it for herself – quite a feat of movie making, to be sure. Credit the production’s great script and editing, not to mention the superb direction of filmmaker Jean-Marc Vallée, who has followed up his previous effort, “Dallas Buyers Club,” with an offering of equal magnitude and power. The picture is also gorgeously filmed and includes a great soundtrack featuring the music of Simon & Garfunkel, the Hollies, Leonard Cohen, Bruce Springsteen and the Grateful Dead, among others.
Above all, though, the film is exceedingly well cast. It’s a terrific showcase for the considerable talent of Witherspoon, who has already garnered best actress nominations in the Screen Actors Guild and Golden Globe Award competitions (with more likely to come). It’s also an excellent platform for Dern, who has turned in some of her best work in years (and deserves more recognition than she has received thus far). And then there’s the excellent cast of colorful supporting characters who make Cheryl’s journey interesting, including a wily desert farmer (W. Earl Brown), the freewheeling editor of a “hobo journal” (Mo McRae) and a sexy concert promoter (Michiel Huisman) who takes a liking to the wandering protagonist.
To find our way in the world, sometimes we need to get away from it, to explore our inner realms and take a good hard look at who we are, what made us that way and what we want to become. This often involves unshackling ourselves from the constraints of daily living, getting in touch with our core beliefs and feelings, that untamed “wild” side we all too frequently never make the effort to know. But making an effort to embark on such an unrestrained journey may prove to be just what we need to live a life of fulfillment and satisfaction. All we need do is put on our metaphysical hiking boots – and hit the trail.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
The New Back Cover Is Here!
Introducing the back cover of the newly revised and updated edition of Get the Picture?!: Conscious Creation Goes to the Movies, coming soon in print and ebook formats from all major online retailers!
Back cover design by Paul L. Clark, Inspirtainment (www.inspirtainment.com)
Friday, November 28, 2014
‘Theory of Everything’ choreographs the grand cosmic dance
“The Theory of Everything” (2014). Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Emily Watson, Simon McBurney, David Thewlis, Harry Lloyd, Charlie Cox, Christian McKay, Abigail Cruttenden, Maxine Peake. Director: James Marsh. Screenplay: Anthony McCarten. Book: Jane Hawking, Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen. Web site. Trailer.
They say it takes two to tango. It’s a concept that we can apply literally, metaphorically and even metaphysically. But nowhere is this notion more applicable than in the expression of the grand cosmic dance, a principle explored on multiple levels in director James Marsh’s inspiring new biopic, “The Theory of Everything.”
In 1963, cosmology student Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) seemed to have everything going his way. As a doctoral candidate at England’s storied Cambridge University, the somewhat-geeky but incredibly brilliant and deceptively charming graduate student was enrolled in one of the world’s most prestigious post-graduate programs. What’s more, before long, he met a beautiful and charming language arts student, Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones), with whom he fell madly in love. And, with the support of his loving parents, Frank and Isobel (Simon McBurney, Abigail Cruttenden), his jovial friend, Brian (Harry Lloyd), and his program advisor, Dennis Sciama (David Thewlis), Stephen apparently had what he needed to succeed in pursuing his goal – devising a simple, eloquent explanation for the existence of the Universe, in essence, a theory of everything.
But no sooner had Hawking embarked on this journey when he was blindsided by a major setback: He was diagnosed with motor neurone disease (also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or Lou Gehrig’s disease), a condition that would cause his muscle function to deteriorate while leaving his mind and brain intact. Faced with the prospect of being irretrievably trapped inside his own body and a projected life-span of only two years, Hawking lapsed into a deep depression. However, Stephen’s peers would have none of that attitude. And, before long, neither would he. He resolved to carry on with as “normal” a life as possible, a feat at which he succeeded beyond measure.
In his personal life, Stephen married Jane, despite their knowledge of what they would be up against. Meanwhile, in his collegiate life, Hawking would become inspired by the theories of physicist Roger Penrose (Christian McKay), which would subsequently lead him to the topic for his doctoral thesis, a paper that earned him his degree in 1966. In the ensuing years, the Hawkings would become the parents of three children, and Stephen would write a number of books, including the immensely successful best seller, A Brief History of Time (1988).
Despite these triumphs, however, life was not without its challenges. As Stephen’s health deteriorated, he eventually developed pneumonia, necessitating a tracheotomy that left him unable to speak on his own. Stephen and Jane also began experiencing marital difficulties as years of increasingly stressful living conditions piled up on them.
But the Hawkings also managed to come up with solutions to these challenges. To give him the ability to “speak,” Stephen was fitted with a special keyboard that translated his words into sound. And, on the home front, even though Stephen and Jane were unable to resolve their marital issues, they divorced and each found new partners; Stephen married his caregiver, Elaine Mason (Maxine Peake), while Jane was wed to longtime friend Jonathan Hellyer Jones (Charlie Cox). But, through their many travails, Stephen and Jane managed to remain friends. And, as for that two-year life-span prognosis, Hawking triumphantly beat it – by 50 years.
So how do individuals like Stephen and Jane beat such staggering odds so convincingly? As in any other conscious creation scenario, it all comes down to our beliefs. Given the Hawkings’ commitment to their convictions, they were able to successfully achieve seemingly implausible accomplishments, despite what the conventional wisdom and others had to say. Their noteworthy personal and professional achievements clearly illustrate the tremendous power inherent in our beliefs, conceptions that can indeed make the virtually unattainable entirely possible.
But what specifically makes our beliefs work so effectively under such trying circumstances? Two qualities come to mind: (1) leaving ourselves open to a range of myriad possibilities, no matter how unlikely some of them may seem, and (2) having an unshakable faith in the eventual fulfillment of those prospects, regardless of how heavily the deck may seem stacked against them. Based on how Stephen and Jane have lived their lives, these qualities have been undeniably present in their beliefs, even if they haven’t always been conscious of them, and those attributes have played a huge part in the realization of the Hawkings’ goals.
Moreover, Stephen and Jane have collectively made full use of the underlying components that drive the assimilation of our beliefs, namely, our intellect and intuition. Interestingly, in many ways, they each embody these traits as well, with Stephen representing the intellect and Jane epitomizing the intuition. Stephen’s profound scientific insights into matters of cosmology and physics have led to his many brilliant theories. By contrast, Jane’s spiritual devotion and love of all things expressive have resulted in her accomplishments as a writer and educator. Together, the synergy of their relationship inspired each of them to help one another in continually pushing the boundaries of their respective capabilities. With elements like this in place, their relationship thus symbolizes the grand cosmic dance that perpetually takes place between the intellect and the intuition in the formation of our beliefs and, subsequently, in the creation of our reality. And, given the dance that Stephen and Jane have engaged in over the years, they’ve jointly choreographed quite an astounding routine, one that’s beautiful, inspiring and enlightening in so many ways.
By engaging in this dance, Stephen and Jane each made it possible to show the other where they excel and where the other is in need of remedial enlightenment. For example, Jane, with her devout orientation, helps to illuminate the intellectual Stephen on the ways of spirit, an issue about which he often vacillated, depending on where the existence (or absence) of a God might fit into his equations for understanding the nature of reality. Stephen, meanwhile, used his knowledge of science to provide a tangible dimension to Jane’s spiritual musings, helping her understand the mechanics of what make her ethereal principles work. And, in their own way, they both came to appreciate the wisdom of Albert Einstein’s contention that “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”
All that aside, one still can’t help but wonder why Stephen and Jane created these trying circumstances in the first place. Undoubtedly there were life lessons involved, and these particular conditions may have been just what was called for as part of their ultimate unfolding, results that may not have been realized under other circumstances. For example, would Stephen have been able to come up with his brilliant insights if he hadn’t been confined to a wheelchair? Indeed, would he have achieved the same results if he had created a more customary lifestyle for himself, one in which had to contend with all the typical responsibilities of a traditional husband and father? Having imposed such conditions upon himself may have been just what he needed to concentrate the bulk of his attention on his work. And yet, despite the creation of these extraordinary circumstances, he was still able to enjoy some of life’s more conventional experiences (like becoming a parent), even if he didn’t realize them in quite the same way as most of us would.
By facing both life’s joys and sorrows, Stephen and Jane also afford themselves the opportunity to experience the full spectrum of what existence has to offer. This, too, is another permutation of the grand cosmic dance, showing the protagonists both sides of life, which makes it possible for them to more fully appreciate the qualities that characterize each. This, in turn, enables them to experience life’s richness and to dance their own tune – and in their own remarkable way.
“The Theory of Everything” thoroughly inspires from start to finish, eloquently showing us what’s possible when we employ the power of our beliefs to create masterpieces of existence. The overall tone is uplifting and engaging, if a bit overly earnest and borderline schmaltzy at times. Nevertheless, this is easily overlooked in light of the picture’s overarching message and outlook.
Perhaps the film’s most notable attribute, though, is its outstanding performance by Redmayne, whose incredible portrayal makes him a very strong contender for best lead actor in this year’s awards competitions. The role’s physical demands alone are astounding, yet Redmayne consistently rises to the occasion in his convincing portrayal of the enigmatic protagonist. Credit Jones as well with a fine performance as the film’s tireless heroine, one who takes on a heavy burden in the search to find herself.
When we go out steppin’ in this thing we call life, we have a wide range of dance moves to choose from. No matter what we select, though, we’d serve ourselves well by making choices that employ a wide range of steps. Doing so will certainly make the routine enjoyable for us as participants and for all who watch from the sidelines. But then that’s what happens when we make use of everything the grand cosmic dance allows.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
They say it takes two to tango. It’s a concept that we can apply literally, metaphorically and even metaphysically. But nowhere is this notion more applicable than in the expression of the grand cosmic dance, a principle explored on multiple levels in director James Marsh’s inspiring new biopic, “The Theory of Everything.”
In 1963, cosmology student Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) seemed to have everything going his way. As a doctoral candidate at England’s storied Cambridge University, the somewhat-geeky but incredibly brilliant and deceptively charming graduate student was enrolled in one of the world’s most prestigious post-graduate programs. What’s more, before long, he met a beautiful and charming language arts student, Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones), with whom he fell madly in love. And, with the support of his loving parents, Frank and Isobel (Simon McBurney, Abigail Cruttenden), his jovial friend, Brian (Harry Lloyd), and his program advisor, Dennis Sciama (David Thewlis), Stephen apparently had what he needed to succeed in pursuing his goal – devising a simple, eloquent explanation for the existence of the Universe, in essence, a theory of everything.
But no sooner had Hawking embarked on this journey when he was blindsided by a major setback: He was diagnosed with motor neurone disease (also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or Lou Gehrig’s disease), a condition that would cause his muscle function to deteriorate while leaving his mind and brain intact. Faced with the prospect of being irretrievably trapped inside his own body and a projected life-span of only two years, Hawking lapsed into a deep depression. However, Stephen’s peers would have none of that attitude. And, before long, neither would he. He resolved to carry on with as “normal” a life as possible, a feat at which he succeeded beyond measure.
In his personal life, Stephen married Jane, despite their knowledge of what they would be up against. Meanwhile, in his collegiate life, Hawking would become inspired by the theories of physicist Roger Penrose (Christian McKay), which would subsequently lead him to the topic for his doctoral thesis, a paper that earned him his degree in 1966. In the ensuing years, the Hawkings would become the parents of three children, and Stephen would write a number of books, including the immensely successful best seller, A Brief History of Time (1988).
Despite these triumphs, however, life was not without its challenges. As Stephen’s health deteriorated, he eventually developed pneumonia, necessitating a tracheotomy that left him unable to speak on his own. Stephen and Jane also began experiencing marital difficulties as years of increasingly stressful living conditions piled up on them.
But the Hawkings also managed to come up with solutions to these challenges. To give him the ability to “speak,” Stephen was fitted with a special keyboard that translated his words into sound. And, on the home front, even though Stephen and Jane were unable to resolve their marital issues, they divorced and each found new partners; Stephen married his caregiver, Elaine Mason (Maxine Peake), while Jane was wed to longtime friend Jonathan Hellyer Jones (Charlie Cox). But, through their many travails, Stephen and Jane managed to remain friends. And, as for that two-year life-span prognosis, Hawking triumphantly beat it – by 50 years.
So how do individuals like Stephen and Jane beat such staggering odds so convincingly? As in any other conscious creation scenario, it all comes down to our beliefs. Given the Hawkings’ commitment to their convictions, they were able to successfully achieve seemingly implausible accomplishments, despite what the conventional wisdom and others had to say. Their noteworthy personal and professional achievements clearly illustrate the tremendous power inherent in our beliefs, conceptions that can indeed make the virtually unattainable entirely possible.
But what specifically makes our beliefs work so effectively under such trying circumstances? Two qualities come to mind: (1) leaving ourselves open to a range of myriad possibilities, no matter how unlikely some of them may seem, and (2) having an unshakable faith in the eventual fulfillment of those prospects, regardless of how heavily the deck may seem stacked against them. Based on how Stephen and Jane have lived their lives, these qualities have been undeniably present in their beliefs, even if they haven’t always been conscious of them, and those attributes have played a huge part in the realization of the Hawkings’ goals.
Moreover, Stephen and Jane have collectively made full use of the underlying components that drive the assimilation of our beliefs, namely, our intellect and intuition. Interestingly, in many ways, they each embody these traits as well, with Stephen representing the intellect and Jane epitomizing the intuition. Stephen’s profound scientific insights into matters of cosmology and physics have led to his many brilliant theories. By contrast, Jane’s spiritual devotion and love of all things expressive have resulted in her accomplishments as a writer and educator. Together, the synergy of their relationship inspired each of them to help one another in continually pushing the boundaries of their respective capabilities. With elements like this in place, their relationship thus symbolizes the grand cosmic dance that perpetually takes place between the intellect and the intuition in the formation of our beliefs and, subsequently, in the creation of our reality. And, given the dance that Stephen and Jane have engaged in over the years, they’ve jointly choreographed quite an astounding routine, one that’s beautiful, inspiring and enlightening in so many ways.
By engaging in this dance, Stephen and Jane each made it possible to show the other where they excel and where the other is in need of remedial enlightenment. For example, Jane, with her devout orientation, helps to illuminate the intellectual Stephen on the ways of spirit, an issue about which he often vacillated, depending on where the existence (or absence) of a God might fit into his equations for understanding the nature of reality. Stephen, meanwhile, used his knowledge of science to provide a tangible dimension to Jane’s spiritual musings, helping her understand the mechanics of what make her ethereal principles work. And, in their own way, they both came to appreciate the wisdom of Albert Einstein’s contention that “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”
All that aside, one still can’t help but wonder why Stephen and Jane created these trying circumstances in the first place. Undoubtedly there were life lessons involved, and these particular conditions may have been just what was called for as part of their ultimate unfolding, results that may not have been realized under other circumstances. For example, would Stephen have been able to come up with his brilliant insights if he hadn’t been confined to a wheelchair? Indeed, would he have achieved the same results if he had created a more customary lifestyle for himself, one in which had to contend with all the typical responsibilities of a traditional husband and father? Having imposed such conditions upon himself may have been just what he needed to concentrate the bulk of his attention on his work. And yet, despite the creation of these extraordinary circumstances, he was still able to enjoy some of life’s more conventional experiences (like becoming a parent), even if he didn’t realize them in quite the same way as most of us would.
By facing both life’s joys and sorrows, Stephen and Jane also afford themselves the opportunity to experience the full spectrum of what existence has to offer. This, too, is another permutation of the grand cosmic dance, showing the protagonists both sides of life, which makes it possible for them to more fully appreciate the qualities that characterize each. This, in turn, enables them to experience life’s richness and to dance their own tune – and in their own remarkable way.
“The Theory of Everything” thoroughly inspires from start to finish, eloquently showing us what’s possible when we employ the power of our beliefs to create masterpieces of existence. The overall tone is uplifting and engaging, if a bit overly earnest and borderline schmaltzy at times. Nevertheless, this is easily overlooked in light of the picture’s overarching message and outlook.
Perhaps the film’s most notable attribute, though, is its outstanding performance by Redmayne, whose incredible portrayal makes him a very strong contender for best lead actor in this year’s awards competitions. The role’s physical demands alone are astounding, yet Redmayne consistently rises to the occasion in his convincing portrayal of the enigmatic protagonist. Credit Jones as well with a fine performance as the film’s tireless heroine, one who takes on a heavy burden in the search to find herself.
When we go out steppin’ in this thing we call life, we have a wide range of dance moves to choose from. No matter what we select, though, we’d serve ourselves well by making choices that employ a wide range of steps. Doing so will certainly make the routine enjoyable for us as participants and for all who watch from the sidelines. But then that’s what happens when we make use of everything the grand cosmic dance allows.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Learning To Trust
Having doubts about your conscious creation/law of attraction experience? Here's one way to bolster your faith. Read "Learning To Trust," my latest Smart Women's Empowerment post, available by clicking here.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Check Out Radio Out There
Now airing through November 28 -- check out my podcast interview on Radio Out There with host Barry Eaton. Our lively conversation about conscious creation and the movies is available for on-demand listening by clicking here.
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Let Me Inspire You Today!
I'm pleased to announce that I'm today's featured brilliance on Inspiremetoday.com! Click here to read more.
Friday, November 21, 2014
‘Rosewater’ unlocks freedom from fear
“Rosewater” (2014). Cast: Gael García Bernal, Kim Bodnia, Dimitri Leonidas, Haluk Bilginer, Shohreh Aghdashloo, Golshifteh Farahani, Claire Foy, Amir El-Masry, Nasser Faris, Hamza Muhaisen, Jason Jones. Director: Jon Stewart. Screenplay: Jon Stewart. Book: Maziar Bahari and Aimee Molloy, Then They Came for Me: A Family's Story of Love, Captivity, and Survival. Web site. Trailer.
Fear can be a crippling emotion that keeps us locked in place, unable to move forward in our lives. Under dire circumstances, those feelings can become debilitating, preventing us from extricating ourselves from what we’ve manifested and creating anew. For a foreign correspondent returning to the oppressive regime of the land of his birth, those notions get put to the test, as seen in the fact-based new biopic, “Rosewater.”
In 2009, Iranian-born journalist Maziar Bahari (Gael García Bernal) traveled from his home in London to Tehran to cover the nation’s presidential election for Newsweek magazine, a contest principally featuring hardline incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and progressive reform candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Bahari left behind his young pregnant fiancée, Paola (Claire Foy), believing that he would be gone for only a week. However, the trip turned into a much longer and more difficult journey than he ever imagined.
Bahari’s return to Iran evoked mixed personal feelings. On the plus side, it afforded him an opportunity to visit his aging, adoring mother, Moloojoon (Shohreh Aghdashloo). But, at the same time, the trip brought back painful memories of the incarceration of his free-spirited sister, Maryam (Golshifteh Farahani), who was jailed as a political prisoner by the fundamentalist government of Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1980s, and of his father, Baba Akbar (Haluk Bilginer), who was arrested for being a Communist during the reign of Shah Reza Pahlavi during the 1950s. Still, being the professional that he was, Bahari focused his attention on the task at hand – covering the election.
The 2009 Iranian presidential contest was a watershed moment in the country’s history. In the days leading up to the vote, Mousavi was believed to be steadily gaining momentum, giving the incumbent a genuine run for his money. However, when the results were announced, Mousavi was soundly defeated, an outcome many disbelieved, including Bahari, who received a jubilant phone call from one of Ahmadinejad’s campaign staffers (Amir El-Masry) enthusiastically proclaiming the president’s glorious re-election – before the polls even closed. In the ensuing days, claims of widespread election fraud circulated, and violent protests erupted, which Bahari documented with his video camera and released to the Western press. The intrepid journalist, who operated with official government accreditation, was simply doing his job – but that’s what got him into trouble.
Not long after the release of his protest footage, Bahari was taken into custody by the Iranian government. He was charged with being a Western spy and subjected to intensive, sometimes-brutal interrogation by a “specialist” (Kim Bodnia) seeking to coerce a confession out of him, a nameless captor who Bahari only knew by the ever-present scent of rosewater, a fragrance commonly used for cosmetic and ceremonial purposes in the Islamic world. The interrogator, who Bahari nicknamed for his signature bouquet, used seemingly every tactic imaginable to get his subject to confess, but Rosewater made little progress, especially since the allegations against his bewildered captive were rarely made clear and often based on laughably faulty “evidence.” Given the slow progress, Rosewater was increasingly pressured by his superior (Nasser Faris) to get results, and, over time, Bahari’s resolve gradually began to weaken; he was reaching the point where he was increasingly willing to do almost anything to secure his release.
To cope with these circumstances, Bahari frequently envisioned himself engaging in conversations with his sister and father. Having both been captives themselves, Bahari believed they might be able to provide him with insights from their experiences to help him get by. And that coping mechanism proved valuable, eventually providing him a key to outwit his captors. Drawing upon the advice of his sister, Bahari decided to follow her recommendation that he tap into his sense of internal freedom, a strategy that enabled him to strengthen his will to survive – and to shrewdly turn the tables on those who imprisoned him.
The intimidation inflicted by Bahari’s captors was undeniable. In fact, they came incredibly close to breaking him. But Bahari knew there was no basis behind their contentions, and his personal conviction successfully sustained him through these trying times. Indeed, the power of his beliefs in his personal truth enabled the creation of conditions necessary for preventing his interrogators from psychologically crippling him. And the employment of one’s beliefs in attaining a desired outcome, such as this, is the very essence of what conscious creation is all about.
As anyone familiar with this practice knows, we create the reality we experience through the power of our thoughts, intents and beliefs. And Bahari, as someone who was utterly convinced of his innocence, wielded tremendous personal power with his beliefs, a circumstance that ensured his eventual triumph.
Rosewater and his minions, by contrast, tried to achieve success by employing beliefs that they knew were disingenuous, tainted by unsupported claims, at best, and outright fabrications, at worst. They were so hell-bent on achieving their desired outcome that they were willing to disregard such considerations in their pursuit of success. The use of un-conscious creation (also known as creation by default) in this way rarely yields hoped-for results, especially if the practice rests on a foundation of beliefs tinged with doubt (as is often the case here, as depicted in several scenes in which Rosewater is visibly conflicted about what he’s asked to do, knowing that such requests are inherently foolhardy).
Is it any wonder, then, that Bahari’s captors are destined to fail? It’s a lesson we can all benefit from for those times when we try to force outcomes into manifestation, especially when we’re well aware that we don’t have adequate belief support to make them possible.
Part of the reason for Rosewater’s failure is due to the co-created nature of these circumstances. While he obviously had certain results in mind when employing his conscious creation skills, so did Bahari, and the captive’s objectives were clearly at odds with those of the captor. In an event like this, the presence of contradiction as part of the mix kept Rosewater’s desired outcome from being realized. Of course, contradiction also kept Bahari’s results from materializing, which raises a significant question for all involved – exactly why did they create these conditions in the first place? What’s to be gained from such a seemingly intractable stalemate?
In scenarios as complicated as these, there are often multiple motivations behind the creation of the attendant circumstances. But, in many instances, they often involve the manifestation of conditions needed for each party to learn various life lessons. In Bahari’s case, this scenario enabled him to learn much about fear, the freedom from it and what such liberation makes possible. Rosewater’s experience, by contrast, provided him with an opportunity for a valuable lesson in the perils of un-conscious creation. And, in tandem, Bahari and Rosewater each materialized the means for gaining a significant new understanding of the importance of integrity.
The degree of success we attain in pursuits like those outlined above depends on how well we pay attention at recognizing what we create. After 118 days of interrogation, it becomes apparent that Bahari and Rosewater achieved mixed results in their respective endeavors, and one need only look at the outcomes to see how this played out. For them, like us, when we succeed at a particular undertaking, we’re able to move on to new ventures; and, when we don’t, we often find it necessary to revisit the lesson in question, re-creating comparable conditions in the hope that we just might get it the next time around. In either case, though, it ultimately depends on what beliefs we employ and act upon in realizing whatever outcomes unfold.
“Rosewater” is an excellent debut feature from first-time writer-director Jon Stewart. The picture is something of a surprise offering from the host of Comedy Central’s bitingly satirical Daily Show, which probably helps to heighten the film’s overall impact. Yet, despite the unexpected subject matter probed here, Stewart has nevertheless infused portions of his excellent script with his signature wit, making his points with effectively nuanced humor that never becomes gratuitous. This nicely paced, skillfully edited release features great portrayals by Bodnia and Aghdashloo, as well as Bernal, who has quietly added yet another fine effort to his growing resume of first-rate performances.
When fear threatens to imprison us, we must have the wherewithal to realize that it arises just like any other creation – from the power of our beliefs – and that we can change our circumstances at any time we wish, as long as we allow ourselves to do so. Making such a change, however, requires us to envisage a different path and to draw upon our internal freedom to choose it. And, as long as we retain our vision of such possibilities, we can move forward confidently into the future – no matter what obstacles may seemingly block our way.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Fear can be a crippling emotion that keeps us locked in place, unable to move forward in our lives. Under dire circumstances, those feelings can become debilitating, preventing us from extricating ourselves from what we’ve manifested and creating anew. For a foreign correspondent returning to the oppressive regime of the land of his birth, those notions get put to the test, as seen in the fact-based new biopic, “Rosewater.”
In 2009, Iranian-born journalist Maziar Bahari (Gael García Bernal) traveled from his home in London to Tehran to cover the nation’s presidential election for Newsweek magazine, a contest principally featuring hardline incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and progressive reform candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Bahari left behind his young pregnant fiancée, Paola (Claire Foy), believing that he would be gone for only a week. However, the trip turned into a much longer and more difficult journey than he ever imagined.
Bahari’s return to Iran evoked mixed personal feelings. On the plus side, it afforded him an opportunity to visit his aging, adoring mother, Moloojoon (Shohreh Aghdashloo). But, at the same time, the trip brought back painful memories of the incarceration of his free-spirited sister, Maryam (Golshifteh Farahani), who was jailed as a political prisoner by the fundamentalist government of Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1980s, and of his father, Baba Akbar (Haluk Bilginer), who was arrested for being a Communist during the reign of Shah Reza Pahlavi during the 1950s. Still, being the professional that he was, Bahari focused his attention on the task at hand – covering the election.
The 2009 Iranian presidential contest was a watershed moment in the country’s history. In the days leading up to the vote, Mousavi was believed to be steadily gaining momentum, giving the incumbent a genuine run for his money. However, when the results were announced, Mousavi was soundly defeated, an outcome many disbelieved, including Bahari, who received a jubilant phone call from one of Ahmadinejad’s campaign staffers (Amir El-Masry) enthusiastically proclaiming the president’s glorious re-election – before the polls even closed. In the ensuing days, claims of widespread election fraud circulated, and violent protests erupted, which Bahari documented with his video camera and released to the Western press. The intrepid journalist, who operated with official government accreditation, was simply doing his job – but that’s what got him into trouble.
Not long after the release of his protest footage, Bahari was taken into custody by the Iranian government. He was charged with being a Western spy and subjected to intensive, sometimes-brutal interrogation by a “specialist” (Kim Bodnia) seeking to coerce a confession out of him, a nameless captor who Bahari only knew by the ever-present scent of rosewater, a fragrance commonly used for cosmetic and ceremonial purposes in the Islamic world. The interrogator, who Bahari nicknamed for his signature bouquet, used seemingly every tactic imaginable to get his subject to confess, but Rosewater made little progress, especially since the allegations against his bewildered captive were rarely made clear and often based on laughably faulty “evidence.” Given the slow progress, Rosewater was increasingly pressured by his superior (Nasser Faris) to get results, and, over time, Bahari’s resolve gradually began to weaken; he was reaching the point where he was increasingly willing to do almost anything to secure his release.
To cope with these circumstances, Bahari frequently envisioned himself engaging in conversations with his sister and father. Having both been captives themselves, Bahari believed they might be able to provide him with insights from their experiences to help him get by. And that coping mechanism proved valuable, eventually providing him a key to outwit his captors. Drawing upon the advice of his sister, Bahari decided to follow her recommendation that he tap into his sense of internal freedom, a strategy that enabled him to strengthen his will to survive – and to shrewdly turn the tables on those who imprisoned him.
The intimidation inflicted by Bahari’s captors was undeniable. In fact, they came incredibly close to breaking him. But Bahari knew there was no basis behind their contentions, and his personal conviction successfully sustained him through these trying times. Indeed, the power of his beliefs in his personal truth enabled the creation of conditions necessary for preventing his interrogators from psychologically crippling him. And the employment of one’s beliefs in attaining a desired outcome, such as this, is the very essence of what conscious creation is all about.
As anyone familiar with this practice knows, we create the reality we experience through the power of our thoughts, intents and beliefs. And Bahari, as someone who was utterly convinced of his innocence, wielded tremendous personal power with his beliefs, a circumstance that ensured his eventual triumph.
Rosewater and his minions, by contrast, tried to achieve success by employing beliefs that they knew were disingenuous, tainted by unsupported claims, at best, and outright fabrications, at worst. They were so hell-bent on achieving their desired outcome that they were willing to disregard such considerations in their pursuit of success. The use of un-conscious creation (also known as creation by default) in this way rarely yields hoped-for results, especially if the practice rests on a foundation of beliefs tinged with doubt (as is often the case here, as depicted in several scenes in which Rosewater is visibly conflicted about what he’s asked to do, knowing that such requests are inherently foolhardy).
Is it any wonder, then, that Bahari’s captors are destined to fail? It’s a lesson we can all benefit from for those times when we try to force outcomes into manifestation, especially when we’re well aware that we don’t have adequate belief support to make them possible.
Part of the reason for Rosewater’s failure is due to the co-created nature of these circumstances. While he obviously had certain results in mind when employing his conscious creation skills, so did Bahari, and the captive’s objectives were clearly at odds with those of the captor. In an event like this, the presence of contradiction as part of the mix kept Rosewater’s desired outcome from being realized. Of course, contradiction also kept Bahari’s results from materializing, which raises a significant question for all involved – exactly why did they create these conditions in the first place? What’s to be gained from such a seemingly intractable stalemate?
In scenarios as complicated as these, there are often multiple motivations behind the creation of the attendant circumstances. But, in many instances, they often involve the manifestation of conditions needed for each party to learn various life lessons. In Bahari’s case, this scenario enabled him to learn much about fear, the freedom from it and what such liberation makes possible. Rosewater’s experience, by contrast, provided him with an opportunity for a valuable lesson in the perils of un-conscious creation. And, in tandem, Bahari and Rosewater each materialized the means for gaining a significant new understanding of the importance of integrity.
The degree of success we attain in pursuits like those outlined above depends on how well we pay attention at recognizing what we create. After 118 days of interrogation, it becomes apparent that Bahari and Rosewater achieved mixed results in their respective endeavors, and one need only look at the outcomes to see how this played out. For them, like us, when we succeed at a particular undertaking, we’re able to move on to new ventures; and, when we don’t, we often find it necessary to revisit the lesson in question, re-creating comparable conditions in the hope that we just might get it the next time around. In either case, though, it ultimately depends on what beliefs we employ and act upon in realizing whatever outcomes unfold.
“Rosewater” is an excellent debut feature from first-time writer-director Jon Stewart. The picture is something of a surprise offering from the host of Comedy Central’s bitingly satirical Daily Show, which probably helps to heighten the film’s overall impact. Yet, despite the unexpected subject matter probed here, Stewart has nevertheless infused portions of his excellent script with his signature wit, making his points with effectively nuanced humor that never becomes gratuitous. This nicely paced, skillfully edited release features great portrayals by Bodnia and Aghdashloo, as well as Bernal, who has quietly added yet another fine effort to his growing resume of first-rate performances.
When fear threatens to imprison us, we must have the wherewithal to realize that it arises just like any other creation – from the power of our beliefs – and that we can change our circumstances at any time we wish, as long as we allow ourselves to do so. Making such a change, however, requires us to envisage a different path and to draw upon our internal freedom to choose it. And, as long as we retain our vision of such possibilities, we can move forward confidently into the future – no matter what obstacles may seemingly block our way.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Master Your Life!
If you weren't able to tune in live for my appearance on Life Mastery Radio with Todd Alan and Debby Handrich this past Tuesday, check out the archive version of the broadcast, available by clicking here.
Get Some Positive Living Vibrations!
Now airing through November 24 -- check out my podcast interview on Positive Living Vibrations with host Sara Troy, available by clicking here.
New Consciousness Review Broadcast Archived
In case you missed my appearance on New Consciousness Review with Miriam Knight this past Tuesday, you can catch the archive broadcast by clicking here. Tune in for a great conversation about conscious creation and the movies!
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Check Out These Great Titles
Some interesting choices here, and several of them are featured in my books about enlightened cinema. Two of them appear in Consciously Created Cinema ("Cloud Atlas" and "Samsara"), and one is featured in Get the Picture?! ("Waking Life"). Check out these and many other fine titles by clicking here.
Dancers from "Samsara." Photo courtesy of Oscilloscope Laboratories.
Monday, November 17, 2014
Tune in to New Consciousness Review
Tune in on Tuesday at 12 pm Eastern when I'll be a guest on the New Consciousness Review Radio Show with host Miriam Knight. We'll discuss my books and how they illustrate conscious creation in the movies. Click here for some lively chat!
Introducing the New Edition of 'Get the Picture'
I'm thrilled to introduce the upcoming release of the new revised and updated edition of my first book, Get the Picture?!: Conscious Creation Goes to the Movies, coming soon in print and ebook formats from all major online retailers! My thanks to Paul L. Clark of www.inspirtainment.com for such a terrific cover design!
Cover design by Paul L. Clark, www.inspirtainment.com
Check out the Updated Facebook Page
Check out the updated "Get the Picture" page on Facebook, available by clicking here!
Page banner design by Paul L. Clark, www.inspirtainment.com
Master Your Life!
Join me for a lively conversation about conscious creation and the movies when I'll appear on Life Mastery Radio with hosts Todd Alan and Debby Handrich on Tuesday November 18 at 1 pm, Eastern. We'll discuss how film illustrates the principles of conscious creation (also known as the law of attraction). Click here for some fun and inspiring chat!
Friday, November 14, 2014
‘Dear White People’ probes personal, racial identity
“Dear White People” (2014). Cast: Tyler James Williams, Tessa Thompson, Kyle Gallner, Teyonah Parris, Brandon P. Bell, Brittany Curran, Justin Dobies, Marque Richardson, Malcolm Barrett, Dennis Haysbert, Peter Syvertsen, Brandon Alter, Brian James, Katie Gaulke. Director: Justin Simien. Screenplay: Justin Simien. Web site. Trailer.
Finding our place in the world can be a daunting task, both personally and in our respective peer groups in society at large. This can be especially challenging in racial and cultural contexts, particularly with ever-changing shifts in attitude and relations among various constituencies. And, for those with limited life experience, the task can be confusing, perhaps even overwhelming, as they seek to define their identity, a challenge brought to light with biting wit in the satirical new comedy, “Dear White People.”
“Dear White People” cleverly weaves threads from the lives and relationships of a group of black, white and multiracial students and administrators at Winchester University, a fictional upscale American college loosely patterned after the hallowed halls of an Ivy League institution. Told primarily in flashback format, the film follows the principals through a series of on-campus events leading up to a Halloween party where racially charged tensions explode with consequences that are both troubling and farcical. It thus offers an intriguing, somewhat unorthodox look at a number of important contemporary social issues – and takes no prisoners in doing so.
To say more about the narrative would reveal too much of the plot. But knowing something about the characters would definitely give viewers a sense of what they’re in for:
• Samantha White (Tessa Thompson), a mixed-race media arts major and host of an often-inflammatory college radio show titled Dear White People, seeks to find her way in life, both personally and in the world at large. Her multiracial heritage has left her conflicted, however, torn between two cultural sensibilities, an internal struggle evidenced in everything from her taste in music to her taste in men, including two would-be suitors, Gabe (Justin Dobies), a white teaching assistant in the media program, and Reggie (Marque Richardson), a black computer science major and avid supporter of the views she expresses on her radio show.
• Troy Fairbanks (Brandon P. Bell) seems to have everything going for him. The gregarious, popular African-American political science major seems to be on the fast track for success. He’s also paired to an adoring Caucasian girlfriend, Sofia Fletcher (Brittany Curran), daughter of Winchester’s president (Peter Syvertsen). Troy’s father, the Dean of Students (Dennis Haysbert), is proud of his son’s many accomplishments, but he demands a lot, too – even if those expectations aren’t necessarily in line with what Troy wants. But, then, dad’s expectations aren’t always driven by simple paternal pride, either; sometimes they’re tied up in his longstanding rivalry with President Fletcher, a contentious relationship that began years before, when the two administrators were Winchester students themselves.
• Colandrea “Coco” Conners (Teyonah Parris) desperately wants to make a name for herself, but she’s frustrated that her public profile and web video presence are overshadowed by the eminently more popular Ms. White, whom she smugly chastises as “a bougee Lisa Bonet wannabe.” To elevate her public persona, Coco seeks the attention of Helmut West (Malcolm Barrett), a reality TV show producer looking to create a program based on Winchester campus life – one driven by drama and controversy, no matter how incendiary or contrived it might be.
• Lionel Higgins (Tyler James Williams), an unfocused undergrad who has yet to declare a major, looks for direction in his college life. The reserved gay sophomore feels like a fish out of water much of the time, not really part of his own community but not really part of mainstream campus society, either. He’s also culturally conflicted, sporting an enormous ʼ70s style Afro while simultaneously professing to like the music of Mumford & Sons and the films of Robert Altman. But, by becoming a writer for the campus newspaper, he begins to find himself (not to mention a potential romantic interest, the paper’s white editor, George (Brandon Alter)). How it all works out for him, though, depends on what Lionel makes of his opportunities.
• Kurt Fletcher (Kyle Gallner), son of the aforementioned university president, fancies himself a prototypical BMOC. As the editor of Pastiche, Winchester’s highly influential humor magazine, Kurt is a raucous, loud-mouthed party animal who believes he can get away with just about anything (mainly because he knows dad will bail him out if trouble arises). Unfortunately, Kurt’s lack of discretion extends to expressing his opinion, too, something that increasingly gets him in hot water when it comes to matters of race and sexual orientation. But, then, none of this should really come as a surprise, since he’s also the one chiefly responsible for organizing the ill-fated Halloween party.
The mix at work here is quite a volatile one, to say the least. And, as all of the elements blend together, the students of Winchester University are setting themselves up for some notoriety – and consequences – they can’t even begin to fathom.
Given the film’s subject matter, the question of beliefs comes squarely front and center, and that’s significant not only for the picture’s exploration of its core social issues but also for its metaphysical underpinnings. Considering that our beliefs dictate the manifestation of our reality through the conscious creation process, it’s easy to see how the various characters experience existences directly in line with their particular thinking.
In light of the movie’s central premise, this is obviously most apparent when it comes to matters of race relations and racial identity. For instance, those who believe they see racism at every turn will experience a reality commensurate with such beliefs. By contrast, those who are convinced that such views are overblown or overly intellectualized observations will find their existence characterized accordingly. In either case, these varying viewpoints aren’t intended to suggest that one outlook is necessarily any more “correct” than another; they both merely point to the differing beliefs that fostered their respective materializations in the first place.
However, in many ways, the characters’ struggles with racial identity issues are a pretext to some deeper, metaphysically oriented matters. In seeking to define their views on these questions, the students are also seeking to define themselves as individuals and the nature of their respective realities. These pretextual considerations lead the characters to ask themselves questions like, “Who am I, really?” Their beliefs, of course, will help to provide the answers, not only for the surface issues addressed in the film, but also for the much more personal questions that lurk within the consciousness of each character. And that can be quite a learning experience, as they each discover for themselves.
Given the learning experience nature of the story line, it’s only fitting that the narrative play itself out on a college campus, a haven for healthy debate and personal exploration of a host of topics, including those examined in the film. Of course, the academic environment, as a place of open discussion, makes it possible to explore these topics from a variety of angles, including everything from the noblest of enlightened dissertations to the shallowest, most cynical, most hypocritical, most self-serving belief stances.
One might easily question the breadth of such discourse, given that it may engender some “distasteful” notions. But, in true conscious creation fashion, the “universe-ity” environment makes it possible for all viewpoints to be addressed, no matter how politically incorrect some of them might seem. Now, this is not to suggest an implied endorsement of some of those less open-minded viewpoints (regardless of who endorses them), but it is a defense of the right for them to be aired, heard and debated. After all, conscious creation places all options on the table, all of which have their own intrinsic validity and their own rightful claim to expression, no matter how far out of fashion some of them may fall. And, in the film’s exploration of such matters, it doesn’t hesitate to probe them all, praising those with merit, deriding those that are questionable and unabashedly poking holes in all of them where warranted, regardless of how seemingly well intentioned (but inadvertently misdirected) some of them may be.
Exercises in self-exploration like those depicted here benefit immensely when approached with the aid of certain attitudes. For instance, taking on this task courageously often yields more satisfying results and produces desired outcomes more quickly. But those who allow their thinking to be clouded by fear or doubt are likely to stay stuck in place longer, as many of Lionel’s experiences illustrate, for example. However, those who step up forthrightly and without fear, as often happens with Troy, are likely to see their desires manifest more expeditiously. Now, this is not to suggest that no one ever backslides, either; we all make “mistakes” as part of our learning curve. Troy’s dealings with his father, for instance, sometimes cause him to back down and compromise his values. But, then, such incidents subsequently help to empower him, galvanizing his faith in his beliefs and making it possible for him to move forward with greater courage and confidence.
It also helps if we approach this task from a sense of personal integrity, for it promotes outcomes that are genuinely in line with our core being. But, while we’re learning our life lessons, as often happens when we’re still of college age, we might not always be able to identify our beliefs as clearly as they need to be. We may even convince ourselves that we’re being entirely sincere with ourselves when nothing could be further from the truth. However, by experimenting with our manifesting beliefs, we give ourselves an opportunity to work through the clutter and come ever closer to personal awareness. Such experiences, again, might be viewed as mistakes, but, instead, they should be seen as exercises in honing our skills as conscious creators. And what better place to learn how to be oneself than in the relative safety of a university setting, an environment that, at least theoretically, encourages us to robustly engage in such experimentation and exploration.
When all of the dust settles in scenarios like those depicted in the film, it becomes painfully apparent that divisive outlooks get us nowhere, regardless of how justified we might feel in buying into them. No matter how these outlooks may be clothed, they ultimately speak to a sense of selfishness and separation when, in fact, we’re all inherently and undeniably connected. This shortcoming is often drawn into sharp focus when viewed through the lens of race relations, especially when they’re strained, as they often are in this picture. However, the sooner we realize our intrinsic linkage to one another, the sooner we can move past these limitations and become everything we can be as one united people, no matter what our racial makeup.
“Dear White People” is a smartly satirical look at these issues, drawing upon an approach that’s very much in your face but that never goes over the top, successfully resisting the temptation to adopt a soapbox stance. Filmmaker Justin Simien, named one of Variety’s “10 Directors to Watch,” has come up with a winning formula in his first feature outing, producing a picture that’s well directed, nicely paced and capably edited while getting the most out of a cast of talented, up-and-coming performers. The film is generally well written, despite some occasional lapses into overly intellectualized dialogue, but that drawback is more than compensated for by its ample poignant laughs and razor sharp insights. As the winner of the 2014 Sundance Film Festival’s Special Jury Award for Breakthrough Talent, “Dear White People” is easily one of the best (and most underrated) releases of the year.
As we enter adulthood, we take our rightful places as individuals and in society at large. We have a wide range of choices available to us in doing so, and it’s in our best interests to choose wisely, for the decisions we make about which beliefs to embrace can have far-ranging implications. Just ask those in the university communities identified in the closing credits who underwent experiences of their own not unlike those depicted in the film. Suddenly, the abstract becomes startlingly real – and eminently disturbing. The cautionary tale served up in “Dear White People” should give us all pause to think about who we are, what values we seek to embrace and what kind of world we want to create for ourselves.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Finding our place in the world can be a daunting task, both personally and in our respective peer groups in society at large. This can be especially challenging in racial and cultural contexts, particularly with ever-changing shifts in attitude and relations among various constituencies. And, for those with limited life experience, the task can be confusing, perhaps even overwhelming, as they seek to define their identity, a challenge brought to light with biting wit in the satirical new comedy, “Dear White People.”
“Dear White People” cleverly weaves threads from the lives and relationships of a group of black, white and multiracial students and administrators at Winchester University, a fictional upscale American college loosely patterned after the hallowed halls of an Ivy League institution. Told primarily in flashback format, the film follows the principals through a series of on-campus events leading up to a Halloween party where racially charged tensions explode with consequences that are both troubling and farcical. It thus offers an intriguing, somewhat unorthodox look at a number of important contemporary social issues – and takes no prisoners in doing so.
To say more about the narrative would reveal too much of the plot. But knowing something about the characters would definitely give viewers a sense of what they’re in for:
• Samantha White (Tessa Thompson), a mixed-race media arts major and host of an often-inflammatory college radio show titled Dear White People, seeks to find her way in life, both personally and in the world at large. Her multiracial heritage has left her conflicted, however, torn between two cultural sensibilities, an internal struggle evidenced in everything from her taste in music to her taste in men, including two would-be suitors, Gabe (Justin Dobies), a white teaching assistant in the media program, and Reggie (Marque Richardson), a black computer science major and avid supporter of the views she expresses on her radio show.
• Troy Fairbanks (Brandon P. Bell) seems to have everything going for him. The gregarious, popular African-American political science major seems to be on the fast track for success. He’s also paired to an adoring Caucasian girlfriend, Sofia Fletcher (Brittany Curran), daughter of Winchester’s president (Peter Syvertsen). Troy’s father, the Dean of Students (Dennis Haysbert), is proud of his son’s many accomplishments, but he demands a lot, too – even if those expectations aren’t necessarily in line with what Troy wants. But, then, dad’s expectations aren’t always driven by simple paternal pride, either; sometimes they’re tied up in his longstanding rivalry with President Fletcher, a contentious relationship that began years before, when the two administrators were Winchester students themselves.
• Colandrea “Coco” Conners (Teyonah Parris) desperately wants to make a name for herself, but she’s frustrated that her public profile and web video presence are overshadowed by the eminently more popular Ms. White, whom she smugly chastises as “a bougee Lisa Bonet wannabe.” To elevate her public persona, Coco seeks the attention of Helmut West (Malcolm Barrett), a reality TV show producer looking to create a program based on Winchester campus life – one driven by drama and controversy, no matter how incendiary or contrived it might be.
• Lionel Higgins (Tyler James Williams), an unfocused undergrad who has yet to declare a major, looks for direction in his college life. The reserved gay sophomore feels like a fish out of water much of the time, not really part of his own community but not really part of mainstream campus society, either. He’s also culturally conflicted, sporting an enormous ʼ70s style Afro while simultaneously professing to like the music of Mumford & Sons and the films of Robert Altman. But, by becoming a writer for the campus newspaper, he begins to find himself (not to mention a potential romantic interest, the paper’s white editor, George (Brandon Alter)). How it all works out for him, though, depends on what Lionel makes of his opportunities.
• Kurt Fletcher (Kyle Gallner), son of the aforementioned university president, fancies himself a prototypical BMOC. As the editor of Pastiche, Winchester’s highly influential humor magazine, Kurt is a raucous, loud-mouthed party animal who believes he can get away with just about anything (mainly because he knows dad will bail him out if trouble arises). Unfortunately, Kurt’s lack of discretion extends to expressing his opinion, too, something that increasingly gets him in hot water when it comes to matters of race and sexual orientation. But, then, none of this should really come as a surprise, since he’s also the one chiefly responsible for organizing the ill-fated Halloween party.
The mix at work here is quite a volatile one, to say the least. And, as all of the elements blend together, the students of Winchester University are setting themselves up for some notoriety – and consequences – they can’t even begin to fathom.
Given the film’s subject matter, the question of beliefs comes squarely front and center, and that’s significant not only for the picture’s exploration of its core social issues but also for its metaphysical underpinnings. Considering that our beliefs dictate the manifestation of our reality through the conscious creation process, it’s easy to see how the various characters experience existences directly in line with their particular thinking.
In light of the movie’s central premise, this is obviously most apparent when it comes to matters of race relations and racial identity. For instance, those who believe they see racism at every turn will experience a reality commensurate with such beliefs. By contrast, those who are convinced that such views are overblown or overly intellectualized observations will find their existence characterized accordingly. In either case, these varying viewpoints aren’t intended to suggest that one outlook is necessarily any more “correct” than another; they both merely point to the differing beliefs that fostered their respective materializations in the first place.
However, in many ways, the characters’ struggles with racial identity issues are a pretext to some deeper, metaphysically oriented matters. In seeking to define their views on these questions, the students are also seeking to define themselves as individuals and the nature of their respective realities. These pretextual considerations lead the characters to ask themselves questions like, “Who am I, really?” Their beliefs, of course, will help to provide the answers, not only for the surface issues addressed in the film, but also for the much more personal questions that lurk within the consciousness of each character. And that can be quite a learning experience, as they each discover for themselves.
Given the learning experience nature of the story line, it’s only fitting that the narrative play itself out on a college campus, a haven for healthy debate and personal exploration of a host of topics, including those examined in the film. Of course, the academic environment, as a place of open discussion, makes it possible to explore these topics from a variety of angles, including everything from the noblest of enlightened dissertations to the shallowest, most cynical, most hypocritical, most self-serving belief stances.
One might easily question the breadth of such discourse, given that it may engender some “distasteful” notions. But, in true conscious creation fashion, the “universe-ity” environment makes it possible for all viewpoints to be addressed, no matter how politically incorrect some of them might seem. Now, this is not to suggest an implied endorsement of some of those less open-minded viewpoints (regardless of who endorses them), but it is a defense of the right for them to be aired, heard and debated. After all, conscious creation places all options on the table, all of which have their own intrinsic validity and their own rightful claim to expression, no matter how far out of fashion some of them may fall. And, in the film’s exploration of such matters, it doesn’t hesitate to probe them all, praising those with merit, deriding those that are questionable and unabashedly poking holes in all of them where warranted, regardless of how seemingly well intentioned (but inadvertently misdirected) some of them may be.
Exercises in self-exploration like those depicted here benefit immensely when approached with the aid of certain attitudes. For instance, taking on this task courageously often yields more satisfying results and produces desired outcomes more quickly. But those who allow their thinking to be clouded by fear or doubt are likely to stay stuck in place longer, as many of Lionel’s experiences illustrate, for example. However, those who step up forthrightly and without fear, as often happens with Troy, are likely to see their desires manifest more expeditiously. Now, this is not to suggest that no one ever backslides, either; we all make “mistakes” as part of our learning curve. Troy’s dealings with his father, for instance, sometimes cause him to back down and compromise his values. But, then, such incidents subsequently help to empower him, galvanizing his faith in his beliefs and making it possible for him to move forward with greater courage and confidence.
It also helps if we approach this task from a sense of personal integrity, for it promotes outcomes that are genuinely in line with our core being. But, while we’re learning our life lessons, as often happens when we’re still of college age, we might not always be able to identify our beliefs as clearly as they need to be. We may even convince ourselves that we’re being entirely sincere with ourselves when nothing could be further from the truth. However, by experimenting with our manifesting beliefs, we give ourselves an opportunity to work through the clutter and come ever closer to personal awareness. Such experiences, again, might be viewed as mistakes, but, instead, they should be seen as exercises in honing our skills as conscious creators. And what better place to learn how to be oneself than in the relative safety of a university setting, an environment that, at least theoretically, encourages us to robustly engage in such experimentation and exploration.
When all of the dust settles in scenarios like those depicted in the film, it becomes painfully apparent that divisive outlooks get us nowhere, regardless of how justified we might feel in buying into them. No matter how these outlooks may be clothed, they ultimately speak to a sense of selfishness and separation when, in fact, we’re all inherently and undeniably connected. This shortcoming is often drawn into sharp focus when viewed through the lens of race relations, especially when they’re strained, as they often are in this picture. However, the sooner we realize our intrinsic linkage to one another, the sooner we can move past these limitations and become everything we can be as one united people, no matter what our racial makeup.
“Dear White People” is a smartly satirical look at these issues, drawing upon an approach that’s very much in your face but that never goes over the top, successfully resisting the temptation to adopt a soapbox stance. Filmmaker Justin Simien, named one of Variety’s “10 Directors to Watch,” has come up with a winning formula in his first feature outing, producing a picture that’s well directed, nicely paced and capably edited while getting the most out of a cast of talented, up-and-coming performers. The film is generally well written, despite some occasional lapses into overly intellectualized dialogue, but that drawback is more than compensated for by its ample poignant laughs and razor sharp insights. As the winner of the 2014 Sundance Film Festival’s Special Jury Award for Breakthrough Talent, “Dear White People” is easily one of the best (and most underrated) releases of the year.
As we enter adulthood, we take our rightful places as individuals and in society at large. We have a wide range of choices available to us in doing so, and it’s in our best interests to choose wisely, for the decisions we make about which beliefs to embrace can have far-ranging implications. Just ask those in the university communities identified in the closing credits who underwent experiences of their own not unlike those depicted in the film. Suddenly, the abstract becomes startlingly real – and eminently disturbing. The cautionary tale served up in “Dear White People” should give us all pause to think about who we are, what values we seek to embrace and what kind of world we want to create for ourselves.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Get Some Positive Living Vibrations!
Tune in for some lively chat about conscious creation and the movies when I appear on the Positive Living Vibrations Radio Show with host Sara Troy. The show will be available for on-demand listening by clicking here November 18-24, after which it will be available through the site's archives. Sara and I will discuss how films illustrate the conscious creation process, as well as my two books, Consciously Created Cinema: The Movie Lover's Guide to the Law of Attraction and the upcoming re-released edition of my first book, Get the Picture?!: Conscious Creation Goes to the Movies. Enjoy!
Cover designs by Pail L. Clark, www.insportainment.com
Cover designs by Pail L. Clark, www.insportainment.com
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Lackluster ‘Citizenfour’ implies much, delivers little
“Citizenfour” (2014). Cast: Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill, Laura Poitras, William Binney, Jeremy Scahill, Julian Assange. Director: Laura Poitras. Web site. Trailer.
When presented with one of the biggest news stories of the century, one would hope that those covering it would make the most of the opportunity to inform the public about its scope and implications. That’s especially true when those ramifications have impacts that are far-reaching, both in our everyday lives and our metaphysical deliberations. Unfortunately, when it comes to coverage of one of the most significant milestone news events of recent years, those goals never reach the fruition they deserve, as becomes regrettably apparent in the recently released documentary feature, “Citizenfour.”
In January 2013, documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras received an email from an intelligence contractor working for the U.S. government who identified himself simply as Citizenfour. In the message, the contractor revealed that he possessed highly sensitive information that would create shockwaves if released to the public. The anonymous source made it clear that taking the information public involved significant risks but added that its ramifications were so staggering that it needed to be published.
So why did Citizenfour contact Poitras? Having made a name for herself with two acclaimed and provocative documentaries, “My Country, My Country” (2006), about the Iraq War, and “The Oath” (2010), about the Guantánamo Bay detention center, the anonymous contractor believed she would make the ideal cinematic scribe for telling his story. And so, after several months of encrypted correspondence, Poitras agreed to meet this mysterious source at a hotel in Hong Kong. That source would subsequently identify himself as Edward Snowden.
What ensued at that meeting would shock the world. Snowden and Poitras, who were now joined by reporters Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill of The Guardian, one of the United Kingdom’s most influential newspapers, thus embarked on several days of meetings in which the contractor detailed – with documentation – extensive revelations about the spying activities of the National Security Agency. Greenwald and MacAskill wrote a series of articles outlining the revelations, while Poitras captured the meetings on film as they happened, creating a cinematic record of one of the most historic events of the young century.
National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden (left) is interviewed by journalist Glenn Greenwald (right) of the United Kingdom’s Guardian newspaper in a Hong Kong hotel room in the new documentary, “Citizenfour.” Photo courtesy of RADiUS-TWC.
Through Snowden’s revelations, the world learned of the NSA’s intrusive and secret surveillance tactics involving the collection of customer information and user data from telecommunications and Internet companies like Verizon, Google, Yahoo, Apple, Facebook, AOL and YouTube, among others. The news set off a firestorm of controversy and a tidal wave of media inquiries, thrusting Greenwald into the limelight. And, when Snowden was publicly identified as the whistleblower, the story positively exploded.
With Snowden exposed, however, concerns over his safety, freedom and legal liability emerged, prompting him and his media associates to begin making plans for what would come next. He wanted to ensure that the information he had collected would continue to be disseminated. He also sought to find a location that would provide political asylum, a protracted odyssey that would eventually take him to Russia. The filmmaker follows Snowden through this process, chronicling his departure from Hong Kong and his eventual resettlement in Moscow, where he resides to this day.
Regardless of what one thinks about Snowden and his tactics, his revelation of the information in question raised the public debate about government involvement in surveillance activities both domestically and overseas. And, to have a real-time cinematic accounting of these disclosures, is indeed significant, if for no other reason than providing a documented record for the history books that will one day be written.
Revelations about the National Security Agency come under heavy scrutiny as a result of the whistleblowing activities of former contractor Edward Snowden, the subject of the new documentary feature, “Citizenfour.” Photo by Trevor Paglen, courtesy of RADiUS-TWC.
The real-life drama playing out on screen also raises a number of significant questions related to the conscious creation process. For instance, why did everyone involved in this story – including all the principals and the silent, unseen masses who are affected by its ramifications – create these contentious circumstances in the first place? What effects will the revelation of this information have on our collective existence going forward? And how will we respond to the continued unfolding of this story? Clearly, the implications here go deeper than just the exposure of information about government surveillance programs; they also have impact on the kind of world we create for ourselves.
As in any conscious creation-related scenario, everything depends on the beliefs involved, whether that relates to an individual’s particular manifestations or the mass-created materializations of a major public event such as this. These circumstances thus prompt us to take a hard look at the beliefs in question: Why have we allowed such secrecy to hold sway? Why have we allowed the agencies responsible for these actions to have such unchecked power? And, perhaps most importantly, why have we changed the game by prompting the exposure of such details now?
On a purely metaphysical level, some would say that this is part and parcel of the general global awakening in consciousness that has been transpiring in recent years. From a conscious creation perspective, it also sheds a bright light on such issues as our power of choice, our concerns about fear and courage, and our exercise of personal integrity. But, perhaps most significantly, it has much to do with the exploration of our value fulfillment, the principle associated with being our truest, best selves for our own benefit and the well-being of those around us. The actions Snowden took in making these revelations, and the efforts of Poitras, Greenwald and MacAskill in documenting his actions, speak volumes about the roles they each play in the manifestation of their value fulfillment and personal destinies.
From the foregoing, one might easily assume that “Citizenfour” is a compelling and suspenseful piece of filmmaking. Regrettably, however, its exploration of the foregoing notions is largely by implication, with the picture itself often falling far short of the mark. With a story as seemingly absorbing as this, much of its “witness to history” impact is lost in a glut of plodding footage desperately in need of editing. What’s more, much of Snowden’s on-camera explanations of what’s transpiring is shrouded in jargon-ridden technospeak, and, while that’s somewhat understandable in light of his professional expertise, it often obscures the meaning and implications of the events and revelations involved. A lack of further clarification and elaboration on these points thus keeps viewers from getting as much out of the film as they might have otherwise.
Filmmaker Laura Poitras chronicles the revelations of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in “Citizenfour.” Photo courtesy of RADiUS-TWC.
This is not to suggest “Citizenfour” is without its merits, however. The production values and cinematography are top notch, exceeding the quality often found in many independent documentaries. Its inclusion of material from other parties related to this story, such as the insights of investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and former NSA technical director William Binney, adds some much-needed elucidation to the film’s central narrative. But these attributes, unfortunately, aren’t enough to save the picture from its other shortcomings, which is disappointing, given the magnitude of the story involved here.
The kind of world we create for ourselves is obviously crucial to our continued well-being. But the responsibility for that falls squarely on us and the manifesting beliefs we maintain – in all areas of life. When we stumble in our efforts at this, it certainly helps to have resources (like movies and books) that undeniably show us the errors of our ways and where we need to make adjustments. It’s too bad that “Citizenfour” comes up short on this front, for it could have helped make us aware of changes we need to implement – while we still have the chance.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
When presented with one of the biggest news stories of the century, one would hope that those covering it would make the most of the opportunity to inform the public about its scope and implications. That’s especially true when those ramifications have impacts that are far-reaching, both in our everyday lives and our metaphysical deliberations. Unfortunately, when it comes to coverage of one of the most significant milestone news events of recent years, those goals never reach the fruition they deserve, as becomes regrettably apparent in the recently released documentary feature, “Citizenfour.”
In January 2013, documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras received an email from an intelligence contractor working for the U.S. government who identified himself simply as Citizenfour. In the message, the contractor revealed that he possessed highly sensitive information that would create shockwaves if released to the public. The anonymous source made it clear that taking the information public involved significant risks but added that its ramifications were so staggering that it needed to be published.
So why did Citizenfour contact Poitras? Having made a name for herself with two acclaimed and provocative documentaries, “My Country, My Country” (2006), about the Iraq War, and “The Oath” (2010), about the Guantánamo Bay detention center, the anonymous contractor believed she would make the ideal cinematic scribe for telling his story. And so, after several months of encrypted correspondence, Poitras agreed to meet this mysterious source at a hotel in Hong Kong. That source would subsequently identify himself as Edward Snowden.
What ensued at that meeting would shock the world. Snowden and Poitras, who were now joined by reporters Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill of The Guardian, one of the United Kingdom’s most influential newspapers, thus embarked on several days of meetings in which the contractor detailed – with documentation – extensive revelations about the spying activities of the National Security Agency. Greenwald and MacAskill wrote a series of articles outlining the revelations, while Poitras captured the meetings on film as they happened, creating a cinematic record of one of the most historic events of the young century.
Through Snowden’s revelations, the world learned of the NSA’s intrusive and secret surveillance tactics involving the collection of customer information and user data from telecommunications and Internet companies like Verizon, Google, Yahoo, Apple, Facebook, AOL and YouTube, among others. The news set off a firestorm of controversy and a tidal wave of media inquiries, thrusting Greenwald into the limelight. And, when Snowden was publicly identified as the whistleblower, the story positively exploded.
With Snowden exposed, however, concerns over his safety, freedom and legal liability emerged, prompting him and his media associates to begin making plans for what would come next. He wanted to ensure that the information he had collected would continue to be disseminated. He also sought to find a location that would provide political asylum, a protracted odyssey that would eventually take him to Russia. The filmmaker follows Snowden through this process, chronicling his departure from Hong Kong and his eventual resettlement in Moscow, where he resides to this day.
Regardless of what one thinks about Snowden and his tactics, his revelation of the information in question raised the public debate about government involvement in surveillance activities both domestically and overseas. And, to have a real-time cinematic accounting of these disclosures, is indeed significant, if for no other reason than providing a documented record for the history books that will one day be written.
The real-life drama playing out on screen also raises a number of significant questions related to the conscious creation process. For instance, why did everyone involved in this story – including all the principals and the silent, unseen masses who are affected by its ramifications – create these contentious circumstances in the first place? What effects will the revelation of this information have on our collective existence going forward? And how will we respond to the continued unfolding of this story? Clearly, the implications here go deeper than just the exposure of information about government surveillance programs; they also have impact on the kind of world we create for ourselves.
As in any conscious creation-related scenario, everything depends on the beliefs involved, whether that relates to an individual’s particular manifestations or the mass-created materializations of a major public event such as this. These circumstances thus prompt us to take a hard look at the beliefs in question: Why have we allowed such secrecy to hold sway? Why have we allowed the agencies responsible for these actions to have such unchecked power? And, perhaps most importantly, why have we changed the game by prompting the exposure of such details now?
On a purely metaphysical level, some would say that this is part and parcel of the general global awakening in consciousness that has been transpiring in recent years. From a conscious creation perspective, it also sheds a bright light on such issues as our power of choice, our concerns about fear and courage, and our exercise of personal integrity. But, perhaps most significantly, it has much to do with the exploration of our value fulfillment, the principle associated with being our truest, best selves for our own benefit and the well-being of those around us. The actions Snowden took in making these revelations, and the efforts of Poitras, Greenwald and MacAskill in documenting his actions, speak volumes about the roles they each play in the manifestation of their value fulfillment and personal destinies.
From the foregoing, one might easily assume that “Citizenfour” is a compelling and suspenseful piece of filmmaking. Regrettably, however, its exploration of the foregoing notions is largely by implication, with the picture itself often falling far short of the mark. With a story as seemingly absorbing as this, much of its “witness to history” impact is lost in a glut of plodding footage desperately in need of editing. What’s more, much of Snowden’s on-camera explanations of what’s transpiring is shrouded in jargon-ridden technospeak, and, while that’s somewhat understandable in light of his professional expertise, it often obscures the meaning and implications of the events and revelations involved. A lack of further clarification and elaboration on these points thus keeps viewers from getting as much out of the film as they might have otherwise.
This is not to suggest “Citizenfour” is without its merits, however. The production values and cinematography are top notch, exceeding the quality often found in many independent documentaries. Its inclusion of material from other parties related to this story, such as the insights of investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and former NSA technical director William Binney, adds some much-needed elucidation to the film’s central narrative. But these attributes, unfortunately, aren’t enough to save the picture from its other shortcomings, which is disappointing, given the magnitude of the story involved here.
The kind of world we create for ourselves is obviously crucial to our continued well-being. But the responsibility for that falls squarely on us and the manifesting beliefs we maintain – in all areas of life. When we stumble in our efforts at this, it certainly helps to have resources (like movies and books) that undeniably show us the errors of our ways and where we need to make adjustments. It’s too bad that “Citizenfour” comes up short on this front, for it could have helped make us aware of changes we need to implement – while we still have the chance.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
‘Birdman’ explores the power of discernment
“Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)” (2014). Cast: Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, Andrea Riseborough, Zach Galifinakis, Amy Ryan, Lindsay Duncan, Jeremy Shamos. Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu. Screenplay: Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacabone, Alexander Dinelaris and Armando Bo. Web site. Trailer.
Making up our minds about what we want from life can be tricky business. Sometimes we think we know what we want only to find out later that we’ve confused ourselves, often in ways that we have trouble sorting out. This is where the power of discernment can be a big help to us. It’s a tool that comes in handy for a long-suffering protagonist in the eccentric new comedy, “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).”
Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) is trying to figure out his life. The late middle-aged actor, who made a name for himself 20 years earlier portraying a big screen action hero named Birdman, seeks to redeem his sagging career by directing and starring in a new Broadway production. The play in question, What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, is based on a Raymond Carver short story that Riggan has adapted for the stage. This piece represents a radical departure from Riggan’s typical fare, but it’s an attempt to return to the early days of his acting career, when he was performing more serious material, a time when he earned the praise of Carver himself.
But, as earnest as Riggan is about staging this new play, the production is fraught with problems. For example, one of his principal actors, Ralph (Jeremy Shamos), is severely injured during rehearsal right before previews are set to begin. While Riggan is not entirely upset with needing to find a replacement (Ralph’s acting is terrible), he’s still saddled with the challenge of having to do so at the eleventh hour. Thankfully, another of his performers, Lesley (Naomi Watts), recommends a stand-in, Mike Shiner (Edward Norton), her romantic partner – and one of the hottest names on Broadway.
When faced with needing to make a last-minute replacement for one of his performers for his new play, writer-director-actor Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton, left) taps the services of Mike Shiner (Edward Norton, right), one of the hottest names on Broadway, in director Alejandro González Iñárritu’s latest offering, “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
Still, even though Riggan is able to find a replacement, his challenges continue: Mike proves to be a capable but highly unpredictable substitute; some elements of the play work, while others don’t, causing Riggan to frequently second-guess the viability of his project; money issues threaten to undermine the production’s future, especially with an impending lawsuit from an injured actor looming; and scathing, prejudicial, unjustified attacks from a powerful, self-important critic (Lindsay Duncan) endanger the play’s run before it even starts.
Patching up a troubled parental relationship is a goal for aspiring Broadway actor Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton, left) and his daughter, Sam (Emma Stone, right), in director Alejandro González Iñárritu’s “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
If all that weren’t bad enough, Riggan has his share of issues to contend with offstage as well. For starters, there’s his troubled relationship with his daughter, Sam (Emma Stone), a production assistant on the play who recently emerged from drug rehab. Then there’s Riggan’s on-again/off-again relationship with one of his co-stars, Laura (Andrea Riseborough), a promising and potentially healthy romance that, unfortunately, he often takes for granted because of his many other preoccupations. But, perhaps most importantly, there’s the recurring voice in his head, that of an alter-ego of sorts – the character he portrayed on the screen so many years ago – who alternates between deriding Riggan and counseling him on how to reclaim his personal power.
The on-again/off-again romance between actor Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton, right) and his co-star, Laura (Andrea Riseborough, left), is one of many troubled relationships associated with a new Broadway production in “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
Riggan’s challenges obviously give him a full plate to manage. Thankfully, he’s not without support, such as the aid provided by his producer, attorney and best friend, Jake (Zach Galifinakis), and the loving compassion of his ex-wife, Sylvia (Amy Ryan), both of whom always manage to show up and offer assistance just when it’s needed most. And, then, there’s the aforementioned advice served up by Birdman, who seems to have Riggan’s best interests at heart, even if his recommendations don’t always involve suggestions that our hero wants to hear.
When trouble strikes the life of an aspiring Broadway actor, he fortunately has the support of his best friend, Jake (Zach Galifinakis, right), and his ex-wife, Sylvia (Amy Ryan, left), to come to his rescue in the unconventional new dark comedy, “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
So how will everything shake out for Riggan? It all comes down to what he’s willing to believe, particularly about himself and the reality he creates. Of course, that requires him to sort out what he believes in the first place, a feat easier said than done. To his credit, he’s willing to pursue practices like meditation to help him get a handle on matters, but, if any of his issues are to be successfully resolved, he must commit to doing the work needed to realize that goal – and that’s what his story (and this film) are ultimately all about.
To get where we want to be in life, it’s imperative that we take charge over our personal power. To do that, though, we must first believe we can and then know what we want to do with it. For his part, Riggan struggles on both fronts.
This is where the significance of the conscious creation process comes into play, for it impels us to get a clear handle on what we believe and, consequently, how we employ it. And that’s crucial, because what we materialize in life is a direct result – and reflection – of our beliefs, especially those that characterize the core of our being.
In Riggan’s case, the primary core belief issue he struggles with is the ability to distinguish between matters of love and admiration. He has always confused the two, often believing that admiration equates to love, and such thinking has been faithfully reflected back to him in his professional accomplishments and personal life. But does the admiration he receives fulfill him in the same way that love does? And, if not, what does it take to get the love he hopes for? That’s what Riggan’s current experiences are all about – to illustrate why he’s getting the results he does and to show him the way toward what he truly wants to achieve. Such is the power that comes from our judicious application of discernment.
Lesley (Naomi Watts), one of the stars in a new Broadway production, realizes her dream of finally making it to the Great White Way in Alejandro González Iñárritu’s “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
This theme plays out in many ways in the film. Consider, for instance, the play Riggan is staging. Look at its subject matter, and compare that to the quandary he’s seeking to reconcile. The parallels are more than a little coincidental. But is Riggan’s rationale behind this production based on the admiration he’ll get back from audiences and critics or from some hoped-for outpouring of love that will come flooding his way?
This conundrum is also mirrored back to Riggan through the lives and creations of those around him. In their own ways, they, too, wrestle with issues of reconciling love and admiration (particularly in terms of what they get from Riggan in these regards). For instance, Riggan clearly admires Laura for her acting talent and her personal qualities, but, considering the emotional distance he often places between them, does such admiration really equate to heartfelt love? In many ways, it would seem not. And, for her part, Laura recognizes this deficiency in their relationship, realizing that, if she ever hopes to be happy, she must change her beliefs to change her circumstances to attract what she wants in life – those manifestations that are genuinely in line with her core convictions.
Riggan’s awareness of this core distinction is obviously not as clearly defined as it is in the minds of others, so his challenges regarding it permeate more aspects of his life than it does in the lives of those around him. And, in an attempt to make sense of it all, he often looks outside of himself for answers. However, as seasoned conscious creators know, the real answers lie elsewhere – inside, in the realm of our beliefs – which is where Riggan needs to look, too.
If Riggan believes he readily receives admiration but not love, then he must ask himself why. From a conscious creation perspective, that shortcoming almost certainly has nothing to do with what he gets from others but, rather, what he gives to himself. Indeed, if he believes he’s incapable of genuinely loving himself, is it realistic to expect that he’ll receive love from others? If he ever hopes to rectify circumstances in his outer world, he must first do so in his inner world. But, once he does, that change of heart is sure to be reflected back to him in the reality he experiences.
To a great degree, this is where Riggan’s alter-ego comes into play. Birdman pushes his real-world counterpart to take a hard look at himself and his beliefs, to encourage him to see where he truly excels, and to see why people either love or admire him. In his own unconventional way, Birdman realizes that the insights Riggan gleans from these musings will help him understand himself and his beliefs better, which, in turn, will fuel his sense of personal empowerment. And with his empowerment energized, Riggan can more effectively create an existence that brings him what he wants – no matter how unusual that may be.
Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton), a former big screen action hero, is haunted by his past as he struggles to make a career transition to a Broadway actor in the audacious, unconventional dark comedy, “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).” Photo courtesy of Fox Searchlight Pictures.
Without such clarity of thought and personal empowerment, however, Riggan (or any of us, for that matter) won’t be able to manifest what we seek. When fear, doubt or an internal sense of contradiction is allowed to hold sway (all of which Riggan wrestles with to one degree or another), sought-after results simply won’t materialize. To be sure, if our hero aspires to the heroic attainment of fulfilling his innermost destiny, these are the steps he must take. And, if he does, he just might soar.
“Birdman” is definitely not for everyone, but those who appreciate the thoughtfully offbeat will certainly enjoy this quirky offering. It’s an audacious black comedy that makes us think as much as it does laugh. Its metaphysical insights are spot-on, as are its incisive observations of what we believe constitute love and admiration in today’s culture (such as unapologetically posing questions like, “Is a massive Twitter following really a valid measure of love for someone?”). Admittedly, there are some lapses in writing and pacing at times, but they’re more than compensated for by its many other attributes, such as its distinctive soundtrack and inventive visual effects.
The picture’s greatest strength, though, is its superb ensemble. Keaton shows a range in this role unlike any other part he’s ever played, and he’s a deservedly strong contender for awards season consideration. The supporting cast is excellent as well, with Norton and Stone turning in some of the best work they’ve ever done. Even those players with small roles, like Duncan, shine in their performances. This truly is an actors’ film, and viewers who value the art will certainly relish the stellar portrayals on display here.
Realizing the life we desire is a truly admirable goal, but we had better be prepared to do the work necessary to achieve it. That means getting our belief houses in order through the virtues of discernment, clarity of thought and personal empowerment. At the same time, we must also avoid the pitfall of overthinking our circumstances, for that practice has the potential to keep us from making effective use of those conscious creation powers that are integral to our accomplishments. If we triumph on those fronts, we just might find ourselves taking flight, successfully bringing our high-flying aspirations into being, no matter what they may be.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Making up our minds about what we want from life can be tricky business. Sometimes we think we know what we want only to find out later that we’ve confused ourselves, often in ways that we have trouble sorting out. This is where the power of discernment can be a big help to us. It’s a tool that comes in handy for a long-suffering protagonist in the eccentric new comedy, “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).”
Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) is trying to figure out his life. The late middle-aged actor, who made a name for himself 20 years earlier portraying a big screen action hero named Birdman, seeks to redeem his sagging career by directing and starring in a new Broadway production. The play in question, What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, is based on a Raymond Carver short story that Riggan has adapted for the stage. This piece represents a radical departure from Riggan’s typical fare, but it’s an attempt to return to the early days of his acting career, when he was performing more serious material, a time when he earned the praise of Carver himself.
But, as earnest as Riggan is about staging this new play, the production is fraught with problems. For example, one of his principal actors, Ralph (Jeremy Shamos), is severely injured during rehearsal right before previews are set to begin. While Riggan is not entirely upset with needing to find a replacement (Ralph’s acting is terrible), he’s still saddled with the challenge of having to do so at the eleventh hour. Thankfully, another of his performers, Lesley (Naomi Watts), recommends a stand-in, Mike Shiner (Edward Norton), her romantic partner – and one of the hottest names on Broadway.
Still, even though Riggan is able to find a replacement, his challenges continue: Mike proves to be a capable but highly unpredictable substitute; some elements of the play work, while others don’t, causing Riggan to frequently second-guess the viability of his project; money issues threaten to undermine the production’s future, especially with an impending lawsuit from an injured actor looming; and scathing, prejudicial, unjustified attacks from a powerful, self-important critic (Lindsay Duncan) endanger the play’s run before it even starts.
If all that weren’t bad enough, Riggan has his share of issues to contend with offstage as well. For starters, there’s his troubled relationship with his daughter, Sam (Emma Stone), a production assistant on the play who recently emerged from drug rehab. Then there’s Riggan’s on-again/off-again relationship with one of his co-stars, Laura (Andrea Riseborough), a promising and potentially healthy romance that, unfortunately, he often takes for granted because of his many other preoccupations. But, perhaps most importantly, there’s the recurring voice in his head, that of an alter-ego of sorts – the character he portrayed on the screen so many years ago – who alternates between deriding Riggan and counseling him on how to reclaim his personal power.
Riggan’s challenges obviously give him a full plate to manage. Thankfully, he’s not without support, such as the aid provided by his producer, attorney and best friend, Jake (Zach Galifinakis), and the loving compassion of his ex-wife, Sylvia (Amy Ryan), both of whom always manage to show up and offer assistance just when it’s needed most. And, then, there’s the aforementioned advice served up by Birdman, who seems to have Riggan’s best interests at heart, even if his recommendations don’t always involve suggestions that our hero wants to hear.
So how will everything shake out for Riggan? It all comes down to what he’s willing to believe, particularly about himself and the reality he creates. Of course, that requires him to sort out what he believes in the first place, a feat easier said than done. To his credit, he’s willing to pursue practices like meditation to help him get a handle on matters, but, if any of his issues are to be successfully resolved, he must commit to doing the work needed to realize that goal – and that’s what his story (and this film) are ultimately all about.
To get where we want to be in life, it’s imperative that we take charge over our personal power. To do that, though, we must first believe we can and then know what we want to do with it. For his part, Riggan struggles on both fronts.
This is where the significance of the conscious creation process comes into play, for it impels us to get a clear handle on what we believe and, consequently, how we employ it. And that’s crucial, because what we materialize in life is a direct result – and reflection – of our beliefs, especially those that characterize the core of our being.
In Riggan’s case, the primary core belief issue he struggles with is the ability to distinguish between matters of love and admiration. He has always confused the two, often believing that admiration equates to love, and such thinking has been faithfully reflected back to him in his professional accomplishments and personal life. But does the admiration he receives fulfill him in the same way that love does? And, if not, what does it take to get the love he hopes for? That’s what Riggan’s current experiences are all about – to illustrate why he’s getting the results he does and to show him the way toward what he truly wants to achieve. Such is the power that comes from our judicious application of discernment.
This theme plays out in many ways in the film. Consider, for instance, the play Riggan is staging. Look at its subject matter, and compare that to the quandary he’s seeking to reconcile. The parallels are more than a little coincidental. But is Riggan’s rationale behind this production based on the admiration he’ll get back from audiences and critics or from some hoped-for outpouring of love that will come flooding his way?
This conundrum is also mirrored back to Riggan through the lives and creations of those around him. In their own ways, they, too, wrestle with issues of reconciling love and admiration (particularly in terms of what they get from Riggan in these regards). For instance, Riggan clearly admires Laura for her acting talent and her personal qualities, but, considering the emotional distance he often places between them, does such admiration really equate to heartfelt love? In many ways, it would seem not. And, for her part, Laura recognizes this deficiency in their relationship, realizing that, if she ever hopes to be happy, she must change her beliefs to change her circumstances to attract what she wants in life – those manifestations that are genuinely in line with her core convictions.
Riggan’s awareness of this core distinction is obviously not as clearly defined as it is in the minds of others, so his challenges regarding it permeate more aspects of his life than it does in the lives of those around him. And, in an attempt to make sense of it all, he often looks outside of himself for answers. However, as seasoned conscious creators know, the real answers lie elsewhere – inside, in the realm of our beliefs – which is where Riggan needs to look, too.
If Riggan believes he readily receives admiration but not love, then he must ask himself why. From a conscious creation perspective, that shortcoming almost certainly has nothing to do with what he gets from others but, rather, what he gives to himself. Indeed, if he believes he’s incapable of genuinely loving himself, is it realistic to expect that he’ll receive love from others? If he ever hopes to rectify circumstances in his outer world, he must first do so in his inner world. But, once he does, that change of heart is sure to be reflected back to him in the reality he experiences.
To a great degree, this is where Riggan’s alter-ego comes into play. Birdman pushes his real-world counterpart to take a hard look at himself and his beliefs, to encourage him to see where he truly excels, and to see why people either love or admire him. In his own unconventional way, Birdman realizes that the insights Riggan gleans from these musings will help him understand himself and his beliefs better, which, in turn, will fuel his sense of personal empowerment. And with his empowerment energized, Riggan can more effectively create an existence that brings him what he wants – no matter how unusual that may be.
Without such clarity of thought and personal empowerment, however, Riggan (or any of us, for that matter) won’t be able to manifest what we seek. When fear, doubt or an internal sense of contradiction is allowed to hold sway (all of which Riggan wrestles with to one degree or another), sought-after results simply won’t materialize. To be sure, if our hero aspires to the heroic attainment of fulfilling his innermost destiny, these are the steps he must take. And, if he does, he just might soar.
“Birdman” is definitely not for everyone, but those who appreciate the thoughtfully offbeat will certainly enjoy this quirky offering. It’s an audacious black comedy that makes us think as much as it does laugh. Its metaphysical insights are spot-on, as are its incisive observations of what we believe constitute love and admiration in today’s culture (such as unapologetically posing questions like, “Is a massive Twitter following really a valid measure of love for someone?”). Admittedly, there are some lapses in writing and pacing at times, but they’re more than compensated for by its many other attributes, such as its distinctive soundtrack and inventive visual effects.
The picture’s greatest strength, though, is its superb ensemble. Keaton shows a range in this role unlike any other part he’s ever played, and he’s a deservedly strong contender for awards season consideration. The supporting cast is excellent as well, with Norton and Stone turning in some of the best work they’ve ever done. Even those players with small roles, like Duncan, shine in their performances. This truly is an actors’ film, and viewers who value the art will certainly relish the stellar portrayals on display here.
Realizing the life we desire is a truly admirable goal, but we had better be prepared to do the work necessary to achieve it. That means getting our belief houses in order through the virtues of discernment, clarity of thought and personal empowerment. At the same time, we must also avoid the pitfall of overthinking our circumstances, for that practice has the potential to keep us from making effective use of those conscious creation powers that are integral to our accomplishments. If we triumph on those fronts, we just might find ourselves taking flight, successfully bringing our high-flying aspirations into being, no matter what they may be.
Copyright © 2014, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)