The Night Writer - Fundamentals in Film

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Fundamentals in Film: Groundhog Day

by The Night Writer

When I told the lads last week that we were going to watch a classic Bill Murray movie that featured a cute, furry animal they were all, "Cool - Caddyshack!"

"Oh yeah," I replied, "And what positive message could I possibly squeeze out of that besides 'Be the ball.'"

There were a number of reasons for me to choose "Groundhog Day": 1) It's February, 2) The story, and 3) Bill Murray is about the only actor to come out of Saturday Night Live who's movies I like. As it turns out, the movie was timely for another reason as well, which I'll get to.

I think most people know the plot of the movie. Murray is an egotistical, selfish jerk of a TV weatherman who literally gets stuck in Puxatawney, PA covering the annual Groundhog Day ceremonies. Not just stuck as in he can't leave town, but stuck living the same day over and over again although he's the only one who's aware of what's happening — everyone else in the town forgets what happened before when they live the day all over again. Why this particular jerk is singled out for this anomaly is hard to say, but just go with it. Murray soon discovers that no matter what he does — including getting locked in jail, kidnapping Puxatawney Phil or killing himself — will keep him from waking up at 6:00 a.m. the "next" morning to the exact same story.

When he first realizes there are "no consequences" he indulges in any and every thing he can think of to amuse himself, whether it's stealing money, taking advantage of unsuspecting women, pigging out on fatty food, sweets and smoking...all while it's clear that he's coming apart trying to deal with this unique kind of Hell. He eventually sets his sights on seducing his new producer, played by Andie MacDowell, using his endless series of days to learn everything about her, what she likes, what she hopes for, what might impress her and then trying to use this knowledge to deceive her. She has a good heart and he's very nearly successful again and again but each time her common sense and character undo his schemes. Thwarted in his quest and ultimately bored by his all his indulgences, Murray tries a number of inventive ways to kill himself, but always waking up back in his bed. At his lowest point he spends another day with MacDowell, not trying to scam her but trying to convince her of the absurd thing that is happening to him. She agrees to help him, and in the wee hours of the morning, exhausted, Murray realizes that what attracts him to her is her kindness, fairness and compassion even when dealing with a guy she knows only as a jerk.

At rock bottom, and from that revelation, Murray starts to change, using his unique situation and "omniscience" to help others. Strangely enough, he starts to have fun and begins enjoying himself by helping others, preventing accidents and becoming the most popular guy in town.

I first got the idea to show this movie this month back in November or December, but what makes it especially timely now is that it comes on the heels of the post I wrote earlier this week about the book Born to be Good and the "discovery" that humans have a built-in and measurable warm feeling and reaction to doing good or seeing good things done. Murray's journey from bewilderment to dissipation, depression and ultimately redemption — though filmed 25 years before the book was written — demonstrates that premise in a funny and touching movie that is as fundamental as any film in this series. (See Sidebar Categories for other films).

Posted on February 5, 2009. 1 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, December 12, 2008

Fundamentals in Film: Into the Woods

by The Night Writer

Fairy tales are one of the oldest ways mankind has used entertainment to teach the value of good behavior and consequences of bad. Most tales at heart tell of a central character who does either good or bad and either triumphs in the end or suffers gruesome retribution (especially in the original, non-sanitized versions of the tales — not for nothing were the most famous compilers known as the Brothers Grimm.) Pure hearts received happily ever after and malefactors suffered blindings, beheadings and bloody reprisals. What a great set-up for a musical comedy!

In Into The Woods, Stephen Sondheim mixes together several familiar tales, adds in his trade-mark clever wordplay and weaves it all together into a fast-paced, two-act, Tony-award-winning musical with a light touch that covers some fundamental values and moral dilemmas. The long-running Broadway show was filmed for television in 1991, featuring the spectacular Bernadette Peters in the pivotal role of The Witch. (The DVD of this production is available from Netflix).

In addition to The Witch, the central characters are Cinderella, Jack from "Jack in the Beanstalk", a baker and his wife, and a couple of handsome-prince brothers. All have something they greatly desire, expressed in the all-purpose and all-powerful motto of the show: "I wish." There is also a "Mysterious Man" who's motives in the first act are not clear, though it turns out he is the one who's first transgression sets all the other plot wheels into motion.

The movie version is a delightful, hilarious romp for the whole family though it is a bit ribald in places with a lot of cleavage and an anatomically-correct Wolf (Hello, Little Girl), as well as some adult themes that are deftly and creatively handled. The message is that wishes lead to actions and actions have consequences, some of which may not be immediately realized. The first act of the show weaves each character's story together as they interact with each other in their pursuit of their respective wishes, wrapping up in a "happy ever after" — or so you might think. Act 2 then goes into just how happy "happy ever after" can be if you haven't really resolved who you are and what is truly important to you and in life. The cleverness and humor continues throughout the second act, but profound revelations and morals are in store. Here's a summary of the character of the main characters:

Cinderella: gentle and kind, she spends a great deal of her hard life wishing for better things but especially to be able to go to the king's festival. Her inability to decide what it is she really wants, however, leads to a number of complications.

Jack: a simple-minded boy with no father on the scene and a nagging but protective other, he discovers a fabulous new world with giants but his almost-innocent greed and suddenly discovered desire for adventure means complications are most definitely in store!

The Baker and his Wife: These are the characters on whom the story truly turns. A childless couple due to a curse the Witch put on the Baker's household as a result of his father stealing beans from the Witch's garden both ties the other stories together and carries the most complete moral dilemmas. The Baker also grew up without a father, and while his instincts are good and decent, he is easily swayed by his practical, ends-justifies-the-means (or beans) wife who's situational ethics and strong personality add momentum to the causes and effects initiated by others. Ultimately, she is undone by another who's situational ethics outmaneuver hers. The Baker, however, ultimately overcomes his timidity and realizes his weakness, ultimately leading to him becoming a better man.

The Witch: Somewhere I once heard someone use the line, "I'm not evil, I'm just efficient." While that isn't in this show, it describes the Witch. Ruthless, practical and powerful she has her weaknesses and is the character you can't stop watching.

Little Red Riding Hood: a young girl, not as simple-minded as Jack, but immature and easily controlled by her own desires and indulgent impulses, she learns a hard lesson when she encounters the older, wiser Wolf but after her rescue has one of the most poignant songs in singing "I Know Things Now." The last line of that song is that "Nice is different from Good." Keep that in mind as this review continues.

Cinderella's Prince and Rapunzel's Prince. Two royal brothers and the apparent romantic ideal of any story, they are in fact driven by their competition with each other and their love of the quest and of obtaining that which appears out of reach. Once obtained, they lose interest, leading to heartbreak and devastation, though not necessarily for themselves. As one says when confronted with his faults, "I'm sorry, I was raised to be charming, not sincere."

My favorite scene in the movie is in act two when the Baker, overcome by tragedy and fear, leaves his baby son with Cinderella and runs away, intending to abandon his son just as his father had abandoned him. In the woods, however, he encounters the ghost of his father (the Mysterious Man from act one) and gains an important perspective that helps move him past his own selfishness (click on the video below).

I like everything about that scene and the way it is handled, but I'm especially drawn to the father's rationalization, as he confesses to the original theft of the beans that set everything into motion, "How was I to know? How are we ever to know?" Exactly — that's the excuse just about everyone in the show and in real life uses at some point, but as I pointed out to the Fundamentals in Film class when we watched this, is that really true? Don't we really know that certain behaviors are not going to turn out well, yet we blind ourselves to them anyway?

Another key lesson comes from the Witch in act two when the cast is confronted with a huge (literally) consequence for their actions and they try to establish the blame for what has befallen them, learning that they've each played a part in bringing this turn of events to pass. One way out is a ruthless and cold-blooded "for the greater good" decision, and of course the Witch is ready to act, to the horror of the others. Her response in the song "The Last Midnight" is apt, both for the situation and the lesson of the story:

You're so nice.
You're not good,
You're not bad,
You're just nice.
I'm not good,
I'm not nice,
I'm just right.
I'm the Witch.
You're the world.

Ultimately, most debts are paid and lessons are learned and the surviving characters start a new life, not necessarily happier, but definitely smarter ever after.

Posted on December 12, 2008. 1 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, October 10, 2008

Fundamentals in Film: lessons from history

by The Night Writer

I haven't pulled back from the monthly movie classes with the boys and this month I took us even deeper and darker than where we've gone of late (The Dark Knight and The Ghost and the Darkness). Last week we watched two segments of an excellent BBC documentary entitled The Nazis: A Warning From History.

It's a six-part series (available through Netflix) that looks at the social and political turmoil in post-WWI Germany that gave rise to the National Socialist Party, the intimidation and co-option of the church and citizenry leading up to the war, the atrocities of the war itself and the fall of Hitler and the aftermath of the war. The two episodes I focused on were "The Wild East" and "The Road to Treblinka." The first described the dividing of Poland between Germany and Russia and the "Germanization" or ethnic cleansing of the German-held Polish territories which included the forced resettlement of the Polish and Slavic peoples. "The Road to Treblinka," obviously, dealt with the events leading up to the persecution and "ultimate solution" regarding the Jews in Europe. Both episodes were grim, gritty and explicit.

My purpose for showing them was I didn't want the boys to fall into the easy belief that the Nazis were generic boogey-men taken out of the Hollywood props closet whenever a handy bad guy was needed. Neither were they cartoon caricatures as in the old Hogan's Heroes TV shows where Sgt. Schult's signature"I know notthhink!" line was really a macabre parody of the German people willfully ignorant of the horrors going on around them. Actual footage from the relocation and concentration camps, clips of hangings and other executions and interviews with survivors — and with soldiers, townspeople and others that took part in the midnight raids, the extortion and outright theft. It was amazing that these let themselves be interviewed and compelling to watch as they tried to explain the rationalizations they used to justify their actions, or to let themselves sleep more or less peacefully.

Afterwards we talked about how surreal it must have seemed to the people at thetime, living in civilized Europe, to be rousted from their homes in the middle of the night and loaded on trucks, to see their neighbors herded through the streets and to wonder what the world was coming to. We also discussed the possibility that that kind of evil wasn't necessarily destroyed in 1945, but continued in the killing fields of Cambodia, Bosnia and Africa, and twitches like a restless leg beneath the flannel trousers in Russia, Georgia and the Ukraine today.

"What would you do?" I asked the boys, if given the opportunity to move into a Jewish merchant's home, or had the opportunity to sell black-market bread to those starving in the Lodz or Warsaw ghettoes, or put in charge of sorting the people that came off the trains at Treblinka and directing them to the hygiene procedures or medical center? What standard would you use, what rationalization would come most easily?

Most of the group were engaged enough to come back this week for a special encore that was really the main thing I wanted them to see: Martin Doblmeier's excellent documentary, Bonhoeffer. It is the story of a man who acted on his deepest faith and principals in the face of the darkest times. I wanted them — and you — to know who Dietrich Bonhoeffer was, what he did and why. To frame it for you, here's what I wrote on this blog about Bonhoeffer on April 9 of 2005, the 60th anniversary of his death:

"This is the end — but for me, the beginning of life."

Those were not the words of Pope John Paul II, but of German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, executed 60 years ago today by the Nazis in the closing days of World War II.

I thought of these words this week as the world honored the Pope and I listened to commentators in every media try to put their political spin on what a life of faith should look like. And when I thought of their words in the context of this anniversary, I could only shake my head at the subtleties of God and offer a bitter smile. Bitter at the foolishness and presumption, but a smile nonetheless in order to share in the laugh God must have been having.

Bonhoeffer is one of my heroes. Supremely talented and perceptive, he saw spiritual truth in a clear light and threw himself into writing it down and vigorously living it out in total commitment to the lives of those around him, yet he was also capable of the loneliest touch of inner doubt. He was one of the earliest and most unyielding voices in opposition to Hitler as far back as 1933 and struggled to shine a light on Hitler's co-opting of the German church and to reconstruct Christian ethics.

Fearing for Bonhoeffer's life, his friends arranged a position for him in America ahead of the coming war, only to have him turn around and return to Germany almost immediately, saying:

I have made a mistake in coming to America. I must live through this difficult period of our national history with the Christian people of Germany. I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people.

A pacifist, he ultimately saw the need to try and throw a spoke into the wheel of the Nazi war machine and was arrested in 1943 and accused of being part of a plot to kill Hitler. Over the next two years Bonhoeffer wrote prodigiously and powerfully, cramming each paragraph with stunning clarity and revelation almost as if he sensed his time was short (he was 39 – younger than I am now – when he died). As he watched the German church crumble around him and embrace the unbiblical tenets of Nazism, he exhorted his followers and his country that obedience and belief were bound together, saying "Only he who believes is obedient, and only he who obeys, believes."

You can find out much more about his incredible and courageous story here on the pages hosted by the United States Memorial Holocaust Museum, but let me return to the present and the spirit of our age so much in evidence the past few weeks, and what Bonhoeffer might wryly refer to as another example of:

...the vigilant religious instinct of man for the place where grace is to be obtained at the cheapest price.

What he meant was that we all too easily fall into iniquity by trying to determine for ourselves and by our own standards what pleases God. Today there is a lot of easy talk about spirituality as we boomers age and find that our first commandment – "Love thyself" – doesn’t sustain. Christian or otherwise we seek to set our own standards for what is "good enough," forgetting what it cost those who came before us to raise God’s standard. Journalist David Brooks calls it "building a house of obligation on a foundation of choice," or, "orthodoxy without obedience."

You can be thought to be spiritual merely for acknowledging there is a need for spirituality without admitting that you have any responsibility to live up to it in any way. It is a spirituality that honors teachers but not a Messiah. It is what Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace" and described as being the greatest threat to the Church. The threat, however, wasn’t from the world but rather from within the Church.

The complacency of cheap grace allowed Nazism to subvert the gospel in the German church, and the spiritual complacency of America in the 50s and 60s germinated the seeds that bear so much bitter fruit in our culture today. (Btw, you might find it an interesting study to compare the origins, thinking and actions of the original Nazis with the origins, thinking and actions of those who are the first to label others as Nazis today.) It is this "cheap grace" with which we try to cover a multitude of sins while projecting a rich aura of tolerance and enlightenment. As Bonhoeffer wrote in his classic, "The Cost of Discipleship":

This is what we mean by cheap grace, the grace which amounts to the justification of sin without the justification of the repentant sinner who departs from sin and from whom sin departs. Cheap grace is not the kind of forgiveness of sin which frees us from the toils of sin. Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves.

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without Church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without contrition. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the Cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble, it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows Him.

Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.

Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of His son: 'ye were bought at a price,' and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon His Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered Him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.

In what I have read of the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and - though I am not a Catholic - what I have seen in the life of Pope John Paul II, I sense they both understood that their own lives were not too dear a price to pay for the sake of future generations. As Bonhoeffer wrote in one of his letters from prison:

The ultimate question for a responsible man to ask is not how he is to extricate himself heroically from the affair, but how the coming generation shall continue to live.

I would not have the coming generation live in ignorance, complacency and hopelessness.

Posted on October 10, 2008. 1 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Fundamentals in Film: Khartoum

by The Night Writer

I've always been on the lookout for films with strong messages dealing with honor and character in this series for teen-age boys, and the stories can be fictional, factual or a bit of both. It's a bonus, however, when we have a chance to see something of a historical nature that can also help us learn something about the world today. Last month our movie was The Wind and the Lion, a mostly historical story with some movie-making embellishments that provided a useful sketch of early 20th century geo-politics while still offering a rip-roaring adventure.

Afterwards the young men seemed to be interested in the Middle Eastern dynamics of that time and how these were still resonating today. Our next class is Thursday night and I've decided to follow up on that with a film I happened to catch on AMC right after Charlton Heston died: Khartoum. It's an amazing and reliably accurate telling of Islamic jihad in the late 1800s that has striking, and sobering, parallels to today.

Here's the set-up for the story: It's the 1880s and most countries in the Middle East are under the influence, if not outright control, of one or another of the European nations. Egypt, supported by England, controls the Sudan, including the capital city of Khartoum. A few years earlier a British officer, Charles George "Chinese" Gordon, had been Governor-General of the Sudan and largely stamped out the slave trade in the country. As this had been the major industry in the land, the economy had subsequently tanked and in the hard times a religious leader, Muhammad Ahmad, proclaimed himself the Mahdi (Expected One) and rallied thousands to holy war to drive out the Egyptians and Europeans. He has early successes and England sends 10,000 men under General Hicks to put down the insurgency (Gordon had been recalled to England a few years earlier), but the Mahdi lures them into the dessert and then wipes out the entire command. This disaster is not well-received back in England where the government of Prime Minister William Gladstone is on shaky ground and the public is outraged at the loss of the expedition but also weary of foreign entanglements, especially on behalf of their Egyptian allies. While England and Gladstone want little to do with the Sudan, they need the Egyptians and especially the Suez Canal.

As portrayed in the movie, Gladstone (Ralph Richardson) wants to wash his hands of the Sudan but is experiencing pressure to rescue the Egyptian and European citizens in the city before it is overwhelmed by the Mahdi's (Laurence Olivier) army. There is no way he wants to commit an army to that cause, however, so he charts a canny course of sending the hero Gordon (Heston) back, alone, to Khartoum to organize an evacuation. Gordon, a national hero with a string of successes in China as well as Africa, is known to be a difficult person to control because of his deep Christian faith and what some described as arrogance and mysticism. He nevertheless accepts the apparently hopeless mission, knowing that he's being sent as a political gesture but also having an agenda of his own. It turns out he grew to love the Sudan and its people during his earlier duty and he couldn't abide the thought of abandoning his city, or of England abandoning its allies, to the foreseen slaughter of the Mahdi.

Upon arriving in Khartoum he does evacuate some of the Europeans, but also sets about rallying the Egyptian troops and the citizenry to defend the city, while playing a brilliant but dangerous game of military, administrative and political chicken, simultaneously keeping the Mahdi at bay while hoping to hold out long enough for Gladstone to change his mind and send relief. While the movie sets up the primary conflict between Gordon and the Mahdi, it really is a 3-way battle with Gladstone showing his own determination and tactical abilities. The Mahdi, despite his own mysticism, recognizes the danger of turning Gordon into a martyr, as does Gladstone but for different reasons. Gordon knows that this is where he has them both. One of the great lines in the movie is when Gordon says, "Every man has a final weapon: his own life. If he's afraid to lose it, he throws the weapon away."

Both the Mahdi and Gladstone, again for their own reasons, try different ways to induce Gordon to leave. By this time, English public opinion is pressuring Gladstone to send a relief column to Gordon's rescue. Ultimately Gladstone makes a big show of doing just that, marching a regiment through London to take ship for Africa, ostensibly to support Gordon but secretly ordered to move slowly in the hopes that Gordon will ultimately "see reason" and abandon his quest. I won't offer a spoiler here on how it comes out (go to your history books if you want that), but the ensuing battle of wills between the three men, plus lots of real battles between armies, makes this a tense and gripping story with some interesting perspectives on the nature of power, the power of belief, and the designs of destiny.

The history is pretty solid in this story and the movie hews pretty closely to what is recorded. There are a lot of resources for historians to refer to, including the newspapers of the time, Gordon's own writings during the 10-months of the siege, and the writings of Colonel Sir Rudolph Slatin, a contemporary and friend of Gordon's who got to spend several years as the "guest" of the Mahdi himself.

Great Quotes:
William Gladstone: "I don't trust any man who consults God before he consults me."

Gen. Charles Gordon: "Every man has a final weapon: his own life. If he's afraid to lose it he throws the weapon away."

Gordon: "I'm known to be a religious man, yet I'm a member of no church. I've been introduced to hundreds of women, yet I've never married. I daresay that no one's ever been able to talk me into anything."

Gordon: "While I may die of your miracle, you will surely die of mine."

About Fundamentals in Film: this series began as a class I taught to junior high and high school boys as a way to use the entertainment media to explore concepts of honor, honesty, duty and accountability. The movies were selected to demonstrate these themes and as a contrast to television that typically either portrays men as Homer Simpsons or professional wrestlers, with little in between those extremes. I wrote questions and points to ponder for each movie to stimulate discussion and to get the boys to articulate their thoughts and reactions to each movie. I offer this series here on this blog for the benefit of parents or others looking for a fun but challenging way to reinforce these concepts in their own families or groups. I'm also always open to suggestions for other movies that can be added to the series. You can browse the entire series by clicking on the "Fundamentals in Film" category in the right sidebar of this blog.

Posted on June 4, 2008. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, May 2, 2008

Out with the boys

by The Night Writer

Tonight was "Fundamentals in Film" Night with the teen-age boys and a couple of the dads. We watched a movie, as usual, but first I had to interject some real life — much to the lads' chagrin.

I haven't blogged about our movie nights for awhile but we've been getting together regularly for two years now, cutting back to just once a month since last fall. I've wanted to use the movies we've watched and the discussions afterwards to illustrate proper manly behavior and character. Originally the movies we watched were pretty black and white about good guys and bad guys but since the first of the year I've begun mixing in movies where the "hero" of the story might not really be such a good guy; my purpose being to show the young men how their emotions can be manipulated and their perceptions bent by the prism of the craft. The first such movie was John Wayne's "The Shootist", and since then we've watched "Patton", the remake of "3:10 to Yuma" and some others.

The other day, however, I heard that several of these young men had been together discussing another movie that some of them had seen; a movie with graphic sexuality and they were regaling each other with explicit details. Bad enough that they should be so coarse, but they also happened to be doing so in the presence of my daughter — and without a second thought.

Tonight, before the movie and before I had the food brought in (so I could be sure of having their attention) I stood in front of the room and asked them what they thought the objective was of these sessions. "To teach us morals," one said. "To build our character," said another. "To be gentlemen," said a third. "To show us how to break out of prison," said another, remembering a previous movie.

"No," I said to the last speaker, "but if you pay attention here it just might keep you out of prison in the first place."

"Snap!" said another boy.

Since we all seemed to be on the same page I asked them where on the scale of good and bad, appropriate and inappropriate, would talking about sex fall — and especially in front of women. "Uhhh...real bad?" one offered.

I then told them I had heard of a recent instance where some of them had done exactly that. I also said that since they had felt free to do that in public then I, too, would talk about the incident in public. I added that I hadn't pressed for specific names, so I wouldn't mention specific names, but that I would address them all for the correction of those involved and the edification of those who weren't. The squirm factor in the room was now about 7.5.

Among the things I told them was that people have always misbehaved regarding sex but that there have been times when the culture at least held out an ideal that humans could control themselves, or should at least try to. Today everything — TV, movies, commercials, billboards, radio, you name it — treats us like animals that can be lead about by our appetites and that women get no support from the culture to sustain an ideal of purity. In fact, they get a double whammy: men are encouraged to act like animals without restraint while the message to women is that they are the crazy ones if they don't go along. Then I told the guys that if they didn't get the proper understanding of the value and worth of a woman then their best days were already behind them because nothing they were being "sold" was anything like reality and they would never be satisfied chasing after some pornographic ideal of sex, beauty and what constitutes a relationship.

Sure, they could go along with the system that seems set up all to their advantage, buy into the stereotype that they're just hounds, call each other "Dog" and spend their life running around with their tongues hanging out and sniffing butts. And dog they will be, if they are content to let themselves be led about as if there were a large fish-hook in their gonads. The squirm factor was suddenly up past 9, and I was about to kick it to 11.

The movie we watched last month was "The Shawshank Redemption." It wasn't one that I particularly wanted to teach because of some of its grittier aspects, but it was a favorite of one of the fathers and of his son and they wanted to show the movie and expound upon the lessons they saw in it so I agreed, albeit with some reservation. Afterward we had had a pretty good discussion about justice and injustice, hypocrisy, perseverance and the importance and indomitability of hope, and how systems are designed to steal hope from you. We didn't get into the prison rape scenes then, but as this week went on I saw that those gave me an opportunity to make a point.

Tonight I asked the boys what their reactions had been during those scenes last month. "Gross" and "sick to my stomach" were the responses. "What you need to realize," I said, "is that that is the same reaction God has to any sex outside of marriage." We talked about 1 Corinthians 6 a bit, and I told them that, yes indeed, sex is a fabulous thing, but there's nothing that compares to being with a woman who gives herself to you in total trust and security, knowing that she is loved, respected and honored — and that is what happens in the best marriages. "Just getting married won't make it so," I said, "If you still have the wrong attitude it's not going to be a very happy marriage.

"If you want that, then - even now - you have to be thinking not about how you can get what you want from a woman, but on what it is you have to do to make yourself marriageable." I also suggested that they begin to treat each woman as if she were someone else's wife, even if the woman is single. "Your wife, should you be so lucky, is out there somewhere now. How do you want other guys to be treating her?"

There are other things we talked about along that line, but I won't go into them here. Some of these may show up in another post I've been working on. I only spoke for about 20 minutes, and it was probably the most rapt audience I've ever had but I wasn't going to push it.

It was time to order pizza and start this month's movie, "The Wind and the Lion."This is a great flick, by the way, with the great Sean Connery and a superb performance by Brian Keith as President Teddy Roosevelt. The movie is based fairly closely on a true story from the Middle East in 1904, and features a lot of great action and some very important (and manly) monologues from Connery and Keith that also seemed to fit our discussion topic.

I can't wait to see who shows up for next month's movie!

Posted on May 2, 2008. 3 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Saturday, March 31, 2007

The end of the war

by The Night Writer

No, I haven't set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but the Fundamentals in Film class finally completed the Band of Brothers mini-series last week.

There were 10 episodes, plus the documentary "We Stand Alone Together", in the mostly true-to-life story of E company, paratroopers of the 101st Airborne in World War II. With our bi-weekly schedule it took awhile to get through them all, even with watching two episodes each time. The boys were very excited to begin the series and were generally pretty riveted throughout with lots of questions and commentary. I don't know yet what impressions it made on them (and I'm fully resigned that I may never know) but I know it will stick with me for a long time.

I debated with myself for some time before introducing the series to the class, and spoke with the fathers a couple of times about it. The language in the series is frequently extreme, and the violence is often sudden and explicit. On the other hand, it was a chance to feature some history lessons, introduce a more realistic and human sense of the "up close and personal" nature of war to a video game generation raised on "Halo" and "Doom", and to impart some lessons in leadership and grace under pressure.

I dealt with the language issue right up front with the guys, explaining how it became a form of bonding for the soldiers who were undergoing severe hardships together, but even at that the men were aware that it wasn't appropriate in general society and were careful of their language around women - a distinction commonly disregarded these days. I also reminded the young men that "out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks" - whatever comes out of their mouths communicates a lot more than just the words themselves. Finally, I directed them to pay attention to Dick Winters, the main character in the ensemble cast, and the way he controlled his words (even when wounded) and swore only for effect in getting his men moving again when they froze while out in the open and under fire.

Winters was also an example of leadership - a quiet man of faith, committed to the well-being of his men but also able to order them into harm's way when needed, but with the tactical skills to keep the men alive as well. While not flashy or self-promoting, he quickly gained the universal respect and admiration of his men and his superior officers and his example was a model for men like Sgt. Carwood Lipton and in stark contrast to the "leadership" of Easy Company's first CO, Captain Sobel, and to the company's CO during the siege of Bastogne, Lt. Dike. Lipton's leadership during the Battle of the Bulge — his focus on the men and the mission — gave the class a lot to talk about after we watched the Bastogne episode (a particularly gory and challenging episode that saw a lot of the men we'd come to know get killed or seriously wounded). That particular chapter also showed how it was possible for a group of men to do more than they thought was possible while under the harshest conditions.

It was also interesting for the class to see just how screwed up so many of the military operations became, from the errors on D-Day that led to so many of the paratroopers being dropped in the wrong place, without much of their equipment and groggy from the air-sickness pills they were ordered to take (for the first time), to the Allied High Command being caught by surprise at the Bulge and the 101st being sent in to Bastogne, again without proper equipment, winter clothing or even enough weapons and ammunition. Despite the almost catastrophic errors and miscalculations, the men on the ground succeeded thanks to their training, their character and the bond between them that allowed them to function as a highly-effective team. The mini-series often made me wonder how today's media would have focused on the blundering (without acknowledging how massive and complicated the D-Day invasion was or the logistics of maneuvering several hundred thousand men in a short period of time in Belgium) and overlooked the successes.

Today the Battle of the Bulge would be the German equivalent of the Tet Offensive, and though the Viet Cong and the Germans both ultimately lost these battles decisively, the end result was dramatically different. Back then General McAuliffe was celebrated for his bold response of "Nuts!" when the Germans sent their surrender demands to his besieged forces; today he'd be criticized as a blood-thirsty maniac unconcerned about the soldiers he was keeping in harm's way in the Belgian quagmire.

That's not to say that Band of Brothers glorified the war. The series did an excellent job of portraying the hardships and sacrifices — and sometimes all-too-human failings and frustrations — of the men of Easy Company and the 101st Airborne. Especially in the later episodes when it was clear that the war was winding down and that the surviving members might just live through it after all, the loss of their friends and the apparent futility of the war weighed heavily on the men and, to some extent, on our film class. While there was little action in the episode where Easy discovers the Landsberg concentration camp ("Why We Fight"), it was one of the most powerful and affecting in the series. Combined with the last episode ("Points") where Easy takes and occupies Berchtesgaden, these concluding segments did a good job of showing the costs, personally and nationally, of war for even the winners.

After we finished episode 10 and then watched the documentary "We Stand Alone Together" featuring interviews with the real Easy Company survivors (a very moving experience after having come to "know" their actor counterparts over the past few months), it indeed felt to me as if a long war was over. I was left with a deeper appreciation and admiration for what the men had sacrificed and achieved and knew that I would have a hard time measuring up under the same circumstances. I don't know what the young men of the class got out of it, or even if I or they will be able to measure its affects over the next few weeks, months and years, but I don't think any of us will be the same.

Posted on March 31, 2007. 1 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Thursday, February 8, 2007

Fundamentals in Film: Black History Month

by The Night Writer

I've been leading the bi-weekly "Fundamentals in Film" class for the current group of teenage boys for about a year now, and my focus has been to feature movies with strong, positive male role models demonstrating character, honor, courage and grace under fire (physical, mental, spiritual fire) and especially an ability to put others ahead of themselves. Many of the movies we've watched also opened a door for our group to discuss the larger social and historical context of the events depicted in the movie.

The movie that probably had the most profound affect on our young men was Glory, the story of the first all-black regiment in the Civil War. The discussion following the film drew the strongest reactions and the most spontaneous questions from the guys of any that we've had. Some months later we watched The Tuskegee Airmen, a similar story but brought "four-score" years into the future with the first U.S. squadron of black fighter pilots. Back at the beginning of the football season we also watched the original TV-movie version of Brian's Song (gotta love Netflix!), the Gale Sayers/Brian Piccolo story, set in the late 1960s against the backdrop of the Civil Rights Movement.

All three films were based on true events (with some dramatic license) and as we bumped through the century or so that the movies spanned it was useful and interesting to see what things had changed, and what things remained the same, in our society and in the lives of the men profiled. I believe this has been especially beneficial for my group of young men who have grown up with little knowledge or exposure to the events that have led up to today and helped them to get a sense that, while it seems like certain events happened a long time ago, they really represent a relatively short and intense period in history (and it isn't over yet). While the movies have been useful in describing and discussing this time, the history of the struggle wasn't my main reason for introducing these films into the series.

For me, the essence of these movies still comes down to bedrock issues of honor, duty, respect and being willing to do the hard thing even at great personal cost for the greater good. The lessons of being a man that can be counted on, of being a man that can be a true friend, are universal and go beyond race.

The thing I've stressed with our group is that fear and hate are also universal and that no matter who you are or what "group" you belong to, there are always going to be those who have a degree of power and authority over your life that are going to look down upon and even hate you because of the way you look, the way you talk, the things that you believe or, especially for these young men, their age. Lynching and flogging may not be part of their lives but they are still going to be judged and dismissed because of what they appear to be. Their challenge, like those faced by the men in these movies, will still be to live their lives with courage and integrity and not give in to (and live down to) the lower expectations that others might have of them.

If they can do that I am confident that they will have little trouble in extending the consideration to others they meet, even if they appear to be different from them.

Posted on February 8, 2007. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, December 15, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Gene Kelly

by The Night Writer

I'm going to take a little bit of a different approach with this FiF entry in that I'm not going to delve so much into the character themes in a particular movie, but I do want to call your attention to some treasures you might be overlooking.

I was doing some channel surfing the other night and came across Singin' in the Rain on the Turner Classics channel. It was close to the beginning of the movie and I'd only ever seen snippets of the film, so I put the remote down and the Mall Diva and I settled in to watch. I've always liked Gene Kelly's athletic dancing style and good-guy persona so I expected to enjoy the movie. What I didn't anticipate was how much the Mall Diva would like it!

The phrase, "they don't make them like they used to" definitely applies to Singin' in the Rain and similar movies of that era that used the story mainly to create a link between one singing and dancing number and the next. For that matter, the singing and dancing didn't even have to have much to go with the movie or the story at all and this is especially true with Singin' in the Rain (even the title of this movie has very little to do with the story itself; I think it mainly serves to let you know that this is the movie with the great sequence of Gene Kelly dancing down a city street in a rainstorm). That just serves to make the movie even more of a refreshing change of pace from today's films. Of course, it helps a great deal that the singing and dancing itself is exceptional.

They don't make them like that anymore — and they don't need to because they did it right the first time.

Kelly, as I've said, is brilliant but SitR also features a young Debbie Reynolds and a truly amazing performance by Donald O'Connor. I didn't have much of a conception of O'Connor other than his later "Frances the Talking Mule" movies so it was an unexpected delight to see what gifted singer, dancer and physical comedian he was. The Diva and I laughed outloud at several of his antics, especially in his tour-de-force performance of "Make 'Em Laugh". While the plot of the movie is a puffy confection, the entertainment value is very high. If you haven't seen SitR, don't dismiss it as being an "old" movie; I think you'll be as delighted in the experience as my daughter and I were.

Also, I referenced Kelly's good-guy persona earlier. I've watched several of his movies and always liked his characters (though they were usually just variations on the same). He always played a decent, honorable guy that you couldn't help but root for. Also, from what I've read about him, it sounds as if Kelly was a decent and stand-up guy in real life as well. One of the pleasures of watching some of these old movies is that they could (and did) feature nice guy heroes without feeling an obligation to add some character flaw to make him "real". Okay, that may be necessary in dramas, but I can appreciate good schmaltz, too (which reminds me of the "Schmaltz Waltz" number in Kelly's An American in Paris. In fact, a Gene Kelly trilogy of Singin' in the Rain, An American in Paris and Brigadoon would be a nice collection for a film fan's shelf (tough as it is to leave out Anchors Aweigh or On the Town).

I'm not saying that all old movies are great and all new movies are crap; there's good and bad in every era. Truly good things, however, transcend eras and hold up. If you want an entertaining and uplifting diversion that leaves you feeling good about yourself and others then I highly recommend these three films.

Posted on December 15, 2006. 8 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, July 28, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Secondhand Lions

by The Night Writer

Secondhand Lions is both a great addition to this blog series and a well-received film by the young men in our bi-weekly viewing group. The viewing group has largely followed the order of the original class I taught a few years ago while the blog series has gone on to feature additional movies. This week I decided to overlap the two and feature the same movie in both. As such it was a change of pace for the class in that it's not a war movie or a western, but a comedy. Even the movie makes many important points about honor, honesty and "what a boy needs to know to be a man."

The story is about a young teenage boy, Walter (Haley Joe Osment), who has grown up without a father - and with a never-ending series of lies from his irresponsible and self-serving mother. In her latest scheme she dumps him for the summer with his eccentric great uncles, Hub (Robert Duval) and Garth (Michael Caine) McCann, about whom many local rumors and legends have circulated about their supposed wealth — and how they came by it. Walter's mother has two objectives; get some time away without the responsibility of having Walter around, and the hope that Walter might find out where the brothers hide their money.

Garth and Hub don't appear to be especially upright examples of virtuous men as they live in a poorly maintained house on a remote farm or ranch in the wilds of Texas and their main form of entertainment is taking potshots at the series of opportunistic traveling salesmen that come their way. As the days and nights go on, however, Walter starts to hear an amazing tale of adventure, courage, romance and justice spun out that almost sounds too good to be true, especially after his experiences with his mother. While Walter fears being abaondoned, his uncles (especially Hub) fear becoming useless. While Garth appears willing to settle down and act his age, Hub is still restless for his lost love and not ready to surrender to the expectations of old age. As Garth explains it to Walter, "A man's body can grow old but the spirit inside of him doesn't."

Naturally their fears are mutually answered in each other, especially as Walter gets curious about the mysterious speech Garth says that Hub gives to young men on what they need to know to be good men. It could all get pretty syrupy but for a brisk plot and a series of great scenes that advance the story and message. In particular, the scene were Hub, Garth and Walter stop for barbeque at a roadhouse and have their meal interrupted by a young ruffian and his gang who decide to have a little sport with the "old men." Viewing the youth as no more of a bother than a mosquito, Hub continues his discussion, telling Garth and Walter:

Here's a perfect example of what I've been talking about. Since this boy was suckling on his momma's tit, he's been given everything but discipline. And now his idea of courage and manhood is to get together with a bunch of punk friends and ride around irritating folks too good natured to put a stop to it.

Naturally this means the rumpus is soon on, and the leader of the group asks Hub who he thinks he is. Suddenly taking the young man by the throat, Hub stares down into his eyes and delivers the second-best monologue in the movie:

I'm Hub McCann. I fought in two world wars and countless smaller ones on three continents. I've led thousands of men into battle with everything from horses to swords to artillery and tanks. I've seen the headwaters of the Nile, and tribes of natives no white man had ever seen before. I've won and lost a dozen fortunes, killed many men and loved only one woman, with a passion a flea like you could never begin to understand. That's who I am.

After administering a thrashing to the gang Hub brings them back to the farm to tend their wounds and they listen raptly (in sight of, but out of the hearing of, Walter and us) as he ultimately gives them "the speech" that Walter so longs to hear, but is still excluded from hearing. Later, after being confronted by Walter, Hub agrees to give the boy "just a piece" of the speech, promising to deliver the rest when he's older. The part he shares is the number one monologue in the movie:

Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things that a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil. And I want you to remember this, that love...true love...never dies. You remember that, boy. Doesn't matter if they're true or not because those are the things worth believing in.

Ultimately Walter's mother returns, accompanied by an unsavory new boyfriend. When the boyfriend outrageously steps over the line, Walter has to draw upon the seeds of courage and self-respect that have been planted over the past few months to face her (and get her to face herself) as he makes his case that his best hope for the quality of the rest of his life is to stay with his uncles instead of following her to Las Vegas. Since the movie is told as a flashback, Walter obviously stays with his uncles and grows up. We can assume that he ultimately hears the rest of the speech from Hub on "what a boy needs to know to be a man" but this is never shared with the audience except for the excerpt above.

Typically in this series I include a series of questions and points to ponder for readers to consider or share with others. There were some questions I asked the boys last night about the underlying themes of the movie (including some of the plot elements I haven't covered here), but I think I will leave you with the same "homework" I gave to them. I told them the next time we get together they need to come back to me with at least one thing they think went into the rest of the speech we didn't hear. If you want to help us out, leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

Posted on July 28, 2006. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, June 30, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Boys' Night Out #5 - Glory

by The Night Writer

I had a coach and gym teacher back in junior high school that used to call us guys a bunch of "Yo-yos". We knew that wasn't a good thing, but it also seemed like kind of a silly insult. Now that I'm about the age he was, and have deliberately subjected myself to the company of 13-to-15 year old boys, I know exactly what he meant by the term.

These kids can't sit still, and bounce around mentally just as much and as fast as they do physically. You can get their attention, but it's like having it on a string; it constantly goes off in different directions and has to be pulled back. Similarly my own experiences with them can are up and down. I've gotten involved because I want the lads to be of future benefit to society, but there are times when I think society might be best served by me drowning them in the river. Then there are times...

Last night we got together to watch Glory, the movie about the black regiment, the 54th Massachusetts, during the Civil War. The movie quickly got their attention (exploding heads in the opening scene will do that) and it appeared they were soon caught up in the story, even taking the unusual steps of raising their hands to ask questions about what was going on at different times in the movie. I'd stop the movie and answer the questions, giving them additional history about the Civil War and the politics of that time and using the opportunity to point out contrasts between different characters and how the actions of various men reflected their thoughts, assumptions and expectations (good and bad) of their fellow soldiers.

The boys became so engrossed in the story that they started offering exclamations and commentary when certain things happened on the screen, showing their own frustration with what the men in the movie were experiencing. When the 54th arrived in the South and was put to work felling and hauling timber one of our young men made the observation that, "They're still just like slaves!" At the end of the movie when the written epilogue revealed that the fort the men had sacrificed themselves to storm was never taken, another young man exclaimed, "What a waste!"

This was an excellent opening into discussing the movie, because I could ask him why he thought it was a waste. His response was because they had been killed with nothing to show for it; I asked the rest of the group if that was true, which led to some good responses as they started to grasp the significance of the "blood sacrifice" the regiment had made toward earning the respect of the nation for themselves and for their people. We also spent a long time talking about the dynamics of the flogging that one character received in the movie and whether or not it was "just", what it "cost" different people in the movie and whether it served a greater good. It was a very interesting discussion with some saying it was a racist act, while others saw the need for discipline to be enforced for the benefit of the regiment.

The boys were energized by the movie, and I was energized by their interest and the quality of their questions and answers and by the way they listened to the observations from the dads in the group. Before the movie started I had told them to watch for how different people had different expectations about the soldiers (even among the soldiers themselves) and how these expectations were reflected in different actions...and led to different results. A key thing I wanted them to understand is that "hard" doesn't necessarily mean "bad" and that "no pain, no gain" doesn't just apply to one person at a time. (Click on the link earlier in this post to see the original study guide and questions I use with this movie if you want to know more).

It was a good for me to review the lesson on expectations as well. Both the men in the movie and the boys in the class have to deal with the expectations — positive and negative — of others. Whether the boys made the connection or not, they, too, are judged by others simply because of their age and the "expectation" of their behavior. Sometimes they are dismissed as uncontrollable and barely human; other times they are held to an idealized and unrealistic standard; often the person holding both of those attitudes is myself.

What the men of the 54th needed, and what these boys who will be men are needing, is to be seen for the value that they have and for what they will be. Training can be hard and unpleasant for all concerned, but training exercises are a piece of cake compared to the real-life lessons that await. We do them no favors by thinking of them as just so much fodder to be thrown away, or by cutting them slack now out of mis-placed pity for how tough things are going to be for them later. Thinking back to my own days as a "yo-yo", I can see the difference others have made in my life.

Posted on June 30, 2006. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, June 23, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Update

by The Night Writer

I'm trying to get up to speed again on this weekly film series after my trip. I had ordered a couple of movies from Netflix based on recommendations from some of you and I watched these but they weren't right for the series. They were a couple of WWII movies, The Longest Day and A Bridge Too Far.

This series is about finding examples of strong character and to demonstrate character. War movies, with their crucibles of courage, sacrifice and heroism, can be a rich source of material (as well as providing examples of less than admirable behavior as well). These two movies are acknowledged as classics but they left me flat. It took me a little while to put my finger on it, but watching them close together helped. Both take the "grand spectacle" approach to filming a war movie with casts of thousands and dozens of big stars. Additionally, both take an almost reverent view of these historical moments. This is justified, but in these movies "reverent" means "slow." Both drag on ponderously (especially the aptly named Longest Day) while the big name stars make their brief cameo appearances. There's very little chance to examine a particular character, or small group of characters, or identify with them.

In contrast, a war movie such as Saving Private Ryan or Glory brings you up close to the men. For my purposes, this is essential because you have to see and relate to them being tested, not only by outside forces but from within. War movie or otherwise, this will be a key factor I'll look for when considering including a film that's new to me.

You might recall that we currently have a "second front" (to stretch the war analogy) going on with this series. A couple of months ago I started going through these movies again with a new group of boys, this time accompanied by their fathers. Initially the boys were kind of silly when it came to the discussion part after the first movie (High Noon) , but they started to get into the rhythm and purpose of it as we went through Zulu and The Tin Star.

In fact, we watched the latter right before I left on our trip and we had a very good discussion on motives, behavior, the nature of a bully, and how to use your brain before you use a gun. One of the questions I always ask with this movie is, "Who do you think the best man in the movie was?" We went around the room with boys and their dads saying either "Ben" or "Morg"; to my delight, however, one of the dads said, "Dr. Joe." This was what I was looking for because the elderly doctor displays a lot of good qualities that can easily be overlooked in a movie like this because he's "old" or doesn't carry a gun. It was a good class.

After the trip hiatus though we had a "technical difficulty" and the boys also seemed to revert a bit to the silliness of our first get-together. The technical difficulty was in getting a copy of the movie I wanted to watch, the Gary Cooper classic, "Sergeant York." This film is not available on DVD yet, and the Hollywood and Blockbuster stores near me (where I had originally rented this a few years ago) no longer carried it in their stock. I may have to buy a VHS copy from Amazon, but on short notice I pulled my copy of John Wayne's The Quiet Man from my shelf and went with that. It's a good story with a great fight scene at the end, but it's also "mushy" and mainly a love story (including Director John Ford's love of Ireland) so I may have lost the lads a bit. It was harder to keep them on focus during the discussion, but they were all interested in hearing what the next movie will be. I'll either get a copy of Sergeant York or go with Glory.

There might also be a chance to move this class in a third direction. Our church has been approached about hosting a Boy Scout "lock-in" this summer, and it's been suggested that I put on one or two of these movies during that. We'll see how it goes. At any rate, next week I'll be back in this space either with a new film in the series or a report from the next group gathering.

Posted on June 23, 2006. 3 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, April 28, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Boys' night out #2

by The Night Writer

The boys and their dads reconvened for the second movie, drawn by the smell of the large pan of fried chicken I'd set out and my promise that this week's movie would have a higher body count than the first movie we watched, High Noon. As we ate, however, I went back to the first movie to once again highlight how Marshall Kane's sense of duty and honor led him to go back and deal with the trouble that was coming because here were similar elements in this week's movie, Zulu.

With that I started the movie and used the handy DVD "skip to the next scene" feature to jump from the end of the first scene, where a Zulu warrior picks up a rifle from the British column they've just wiped out, to the beginning of the third scene where a Zulu runner interrupts a village wedding dance to bring word of the victory to the Zulu chief. This strategic use of the remote control meant we could skip the bit with the topless, dancing Zulu women without losing much of the pre-battle exposition. (I don't know how much of this movie the boys will remember, but if they only remember one thing I didn't want it to be dancing girls.)

The group appeared to enjoy the movie, especially the fighting scenes where I heard a few "whoa's" and "ahh's" at different times when the action was particularly intense. I also heard a couple of giggles from one young man when he found some deaths kind of funny. I may ask his father to check his son's bedroom for carcasses of wingless flies. Anyway, it was later in the evening when the film finished and some of the guys were clearly tired so we tried to step through the discussion questions quickly.

This week there a lot fewer silly comments or attempts to veer off into side topics. Part of it may have been because of the hour, but it was also because the guys were more involved in this story. I found, however, that I got better responses and discussion if I made a statement about, for example, the value of discipline and training, rather than asking a leading question as a way to get the young men to reach the answer themselves. A high point, though, was when I asked why Lt. Bromhead had said he wished at that moment that he wasn't "an officer and a gentleman." A couple of the boys grasped right away it was because he would have liked to have run away but knew that he couldn't because of his family history and sense of duty. This discussion gave me the chance to tie this concept back to High Noon and this time I think I saw a couple of light bulbs go on over some heads.

It was also gratifying that as we finished up the guys were asking what movie we were going to see next and not what we were going to have for dinner!

Posted on April 28, 2006. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, April 21, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: To Kill a Mockingbird

by The Night Writer

Courage and integrity aren't always demonstrated in the heat of battle or proved by some dramatic, attention-getting act. Often the best examples are those of quiet resolution by people who wouldn't even grasp what all the fuss is about when their actions are honored. An excellent example is the 1962 classic film To Kill a Mockingbird starring Gregory Peck in the memorable role of Atticus Finch. (The role of Finch was voted as the greatest film hero of all time by the American Film Institute).

Most people know the story of the local lawyer who sometimes takes hickory nuts and collard greens in return for his services in the small, southern town of Maycomb during the Depression. Atticus is a widower with two young children, Jem, 10, and Jean Louise (called Scout), 6, who is asked to defend a black man accused of raping a white woman. The story is narrated as a flashback by the adult Scout and despite the town's sleepy demeanor and the polite and respectful way most people addressed each other, there is an underlying creepiness that gradually builds the drama and suspense.

Despite having known tragedy in his life Atticus is a steady, unflappable man who tells his children, "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view; until you climb into his skin and walk around in it." When the local judge asks him to take the case of Tom Robinson, does so even though he knows that many in the town will be angry if he gives Robinson the defense he deserves and is entitled to by law. When confronted early on by the father of the alleged victim he holds his ground, telling the man, "I've been appointed to defend Tom Robinson. Now that he's charged that's what I intend to do."

In the ensuing months leading up to the trial the pressure mounts both for Atticus and his family. Scout, quick to defend what's right, gets into fights at school with children who criticize her father. When she asks Atticus why he can't or won't quit the case or let someone else handle it he tells her that he has to do it because, "If I didn't, I couldn't hold my head up in town. I couldn't tell you and Jem not to do something again." Ultimately he has to tell Jem, "There's a lot of ugly things in this world, son. I wish I could keep them away from you. But that's never possible."

Some, such as his children, mistake his quiet demeanor as a sign of weakness, not realizing that it is the earmark of a man who knows he doesn't have anything to prove to himself and unconcerned with what others may think about him (his earlier comment to Scout about being able to hold his head up in town had more to do with being ashamed of himself rather than ashamed of what others would say). He is resolute in doing what needs to be done, whether it's defending Tom or shooting a rabid dog threatening the street where his children play. When he shoots the dog, in fact, he does so dispassionately and with a bit of regret. He reacts in much the same way later when he sits up at night on the steps of the jail, unarmed, to face down a lynch mob determined to drag Tom out and kill him before the trial can even start.

For those who haven't seen the movie I won't give away the ending, but suffice to say there are many challenges and suspenseful episodes with help late in the movie coming from an unlikely source. It's a good message for a family, but perhaps too intense for younger members.

Questions to answer:

Why do you think the judge asked Atticus to be Tom Robinson's public defender? Why did he come to his house to ask him in person?

Why did Atticus feel that if he didn't defend Tom that he wouldn't be able to ever tell Scout and Jem, "not to do something again"?

Was there anything in common between the way Atticus dealt with the rabid dog and the way he defended Tom? (hint: think of what both had to do with his children).

What did Atticus hope to accomplish (and how) when he went to the jail to gaurd Tom from the lynch mob?

Points to Ponder:

Though the story is set in the Depression-era south, do the same challenges exist today? What are they?

How are these alike and how are they different from what Atticus faced in the movie?

What role do men (and women) like Atticus play in our culture? What is the cost to them?

Great Quotes:
"Miss Jean Louise, stand up. Your father's passing."

"There are some men in this world who are born to do our unpleasant jobs for us. Your father's one of them."

About Fundamentals in Film: this series began as a class I taught to junior high and high school boys as a way to use the entertainment media to explore concepts of honor, honesty, duty and accountability. The movies were selected to demonstrate these themes and as a contrast to television that typically either portrays men as Homer Simpsons or professional wrestlers, with little in between those extremes. I wrote questions and points to ponder for each movie to stimulate discussion and to get the boys to articulate their thoughts and reactions to each movie. I offer this series here on this blog for the benefit of parents or others looking for a fun but challenging way to reinforce these concepts in their own families or groups. As the list of films grows each week, feel free to use these guides and to mix and match movies according to your interests or those of your group. I'm also always open to suggestions for other movies that can be added to the series. You can browse the entire series by clicking on the "Fundamentals in Film" category in the right sidebar of this blog.

Posted on April 21, 2006. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, April 7, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Apollo 13

by The Night Writer

"From now on we live in a world where man has walked on the moon. It wasn't a miracle. We just decided to go." Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks) spoke those words early on in Apollo 13, setting a tone of both hubris and awesome pluck and ingenuity. This is an inspiring movie and quite unlike others in this Fundamentals in Film series in that the men in the movie weren't in a
battle between good and evil, or facing conventional conflict against an enemy, but were struggling, literally, against time and space. All the while, however, they also had to draw deeply from their own reserves of character and resolve.

The movie starts with the landing of Apollo 11 and Neil Armstrong's walk on the moon (something my parents got me out of bed to watch on tv) and then focuses on the true story of the men of Apollo 13 and their families as they prepared for what would have been the third moonwalk and instead turned into a harrowing fight for survival after an explosion while in space knocks out most of their ship's power, fuel and oxygen. Forced from their Odyssey capsule the three astronauts (Lovell, Fred Haise, Jack Swigert) squeeze into the still attached lunar module (LEM) designed for two men. While the astronauts take steps and make calculations to survive, an initially frantic ground crew in Houston under the direction of Gene Kranz (Ed Harris) works around the clock to find a way to bring the men home safely.

There weren't any scary monsters in the movie to leap out and eat someone, or bad guys with fiendish plots, but the suspense and tension are constant and intensifying as you watch the astronauts and Houston deal with problem after problem. The character study in the movie comes from watching the men control their emotions and fears in order to focus on the incredibly complex and even unfair obstacles facing them, taking them on one by one and ingeniously improvising new uses for their available equipment. Another key factor in successfully returning the men to earth was the quality of leadership exhibited by Lovell and Kranz; without their examples the men under their respective commands could have quickly fallen prey to panic and fault-finding. Apollo 13 is an excellent example of leadership under great stress.

It is also an interesting contrast to see how rudimentary the technology was in many ways. The astronauts, for example, perform complex mathematical calculations with paper and pencil while engineers in Houston were still using slide rules. It kind of makes you wonder about how well today's students or engineers could perform under stress and without battery power.

Discussion Questions:

How did the training the astronauts and the technicians received affect the way each was able to respond? Give examples.

Lovell had to chose between bumping his pilot, Ken Mattingly, from the flight at almost the last minute or replacing the entire crew for the mission. Why do you think he chose to tell Mattingly his decision face to face and to accept the responsibility for a decision that was forced on him? What other ways could he have handled this?

Emotionally, hHow did Lovell and Kranz react to the crisis, and what affect do you think this had on the men around them and the outcome of the mission?

In what ways did Lovell encourage his fellow astronauts at different times during the crisis?

Points to ponder:

How much do we rely on our technology, and how can we cope without it in an emergency?

How important was it for Gene Kranz to say, "Failure is not an option"? What affect did this have?

Great quotes:
"Houston, we have a problem." (Jim Lovell)

"Failure is not an option." (Gene Kranz)

NASA Director: "This could be the greatest disaster NASA's ever experienced."
Kranz: "With all due respect, sir, I believe this is going to be our finest hour."

About Fundamentals in Film: this series began as a class I taught to junior high and high school boys as a way to use the entertainment media to explore concepts of honor, honesty, duty and accountability. The movies were selected to demonstrate these themes and as a contrast to television that typically either portrays men as Homer Simpsons or professional wrestlers, with little in between those extremes. I wrote questions and points to ponder for each movie to stimulate discussion and to get the boys to articulate their thoughts and reactions to each movie. I offer this series here on this blog for the benefit of parents or others looking for a fun but challenging way to reinforce these concepts in their own families or groups. As the list of films grows each week, feel free to use these guides and to mix and match movies according to your interests or those of your group. I'm also always open to suggestions for other movies that can be added to the series. You can browse the entire series by clicking on the "Fundamentals in Film" category in the right sidebar of this blog.

Posted on April 7, 2006. 4 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, March 31, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Luther

by The Night Writer

This week's movie might be controversial for some since it looks at the events leading up to the Protestant Reformation by dramatizing the life of Martin Luther. Though I'm not Lutheran or Catholic the interpretation I got from Luther is that it was about a man trying to save his faith, not start a new one. Even without the spiritual context, however, this is a compelling story of a basically timid and politically naive man trying to stand up for what he thought was right against incredible pressure and then trying to come to grips with the consequences of his actions.

It is also a very well made movie featuring an all-star cast that includes Joseph Fiennes, Peter Ustinov in his final movie, Alfred Molina and Bruno Ganz (who I loved in "Wings of Desire", the German movie that was the basis for the Nicholas Cage/Meg Ryan "City of Angels" movie.) The movie is briskly paced (sometimes too briskly as you might miss the significance of some statments and political explanations) with evocative scenery and settings that really communicate the era.

As the movie was about Martin Luther you can expect that Pope Leo and the cardinals don't fare well or have much chance to present their positions sympathetically, but the movie appears to take pains to present Luther's conflict as being with the leadership of the church and not with the faith itself. Indeed, just as the early Jews who followed Christ still considered themselves Jews, not Christians, it occurred to me that Luther and his followers would still have thought of themselves as Catholic (or at least catholic). From my experience and observation, the faithful of every religion and denomination have to constantly be on guard against elevating the traditions (and "wisdom") of man over the word of God, and the compelling part of this story for me wasn't Luther resisting the Catholic hierarchy but resisting his own inner fears and self-doubts so that he could later rise against his physical fears and doubts.

Luther is an inspiring and thought-provoking movie that will stay in your mind for days after you see it.

Questions to answer:

What was the stumbling block for Luther in his understanding of God at the beginning of the movie? How and when did this begin to change?

Fr. Johann von Staupltz was Luther's "spiritual father". What do you think his purpose was in sending Luther first to Rome and then to Wittenberg?

What was Luther's original intent when he reported the practice of selling indulgences to the Pope? What led him to believe the practice was wrong?

What is the disturbing realization that Prince Frederick the Wise experiences when Rome sends him a gilded rose? What does it change, and why?

Dr. Carlstadt claimed he was a supporter of Luther, yet his objectives were ultimately something different. Describe.

Who said, "Before I let anyone take from me the word of God and ask me to deny my belief I will kneel and let him strike off my head," and what was the significance of that statement at that time?

Points to ponder:
Consider the turmoil and violence in Germany after Luther left Worms. What, if any, similar schisms do you see in today's world? Are the differences spiritual or political at their core? Why do you think so?

Great Quotes:

"Those who see God as angry do not see him rightly, but look upon a curtain as if a dark storm cloud has been drawn across his face. If we truly believe Christ is our Savior, then we have a God of love and to see God in faith is to look upon his friendly heart. So when the devil throws your sin in your face and says you deserve death say, 'I admit I deserve death and hell, what of it? For I know one who suffered and made satisfaction in my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, son of God. Where He is, there I shall be also.'"

"I am Yours. Save me."

Posted on March 31, 2006. 3 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, March 24, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: The Quiet Man

by The Night Writer

I can't believe I missed the opportunity last Friday, St. Patrick's Day, to feature John Ford's The Quiet Man, a classic Irish tale and my favorite John Wayne film. Oh well, like the train to Castletown, better late than never.

This is a delightful and beautifully photographed movie with great performances by Wayne, Maureen O'Hara, Ward Bond and the quirky Irish cast. The depiction of the Irish as colorful but short-tempered folk much given to drinking and fighting is perhaps a bit politically incorrect in this day and age, but very entertaining and as it is Ford's tribute to his homeland, though I'm not Irish, it gets a pass from me (not unlike Tim Story's effort with Barbershop - stereotypes can be effective). Definitely not politically correct is the bit where a woman hands Wayne a stick "to beat the lovely lady" but it's played for humor and within the context of the story.

The interesting contrast for me between this film and others in the series is that in other movies the main character doesn't quite know what he is capable of and is unsure of what may happen when pushed to the brink. In this movie, Wayne (as Sean Thornton) is fully aware of what he is capable of and fears that it might happen again. He plays an American prizefighter who has killed an opponent in the ring and since retired and immigrated back to Ireland to buy the cottage where seven generations of his family lived. He is resolved to control himself and live quietly — even to the point of allowing people to think he's a coward — but his pursuit of the cottage and the lovely and fiery-tempered Mary Kate Danaher (O'Hara) sets him on an inevitable collision course with Mary Kate's brother, Will Danaher, the biggest, roughest and richest man in the county.

Sean's patience and self-control in the face of the offenses and goads of the Danahers is admirable, but hardly to be seen in his courting of Mary Kate where he is more than a little forward. No doubt the script was written this way to accentuate the cultural differences between America and Ireland, but it does open the door for discussion with young viewers on proper behavior. The story also reminded me of some of the things my wife and I learned recently about why the Bible emphasizes that a husband love his wife but that a wife respect her husband. In this story Sean loves Mary Kate despite her temper and faults but fails to understand how important her things and dowery are to her. Mary Kate on the other hand loves her husband but struggles to respect him, at one point even leaving Sean, telling Michaleen Oge Flynn, "I love him too much to go on living with a man I'm ashamed of," as he drives her to Castletown to catch the Dublin train. Both, however, come to understand each other and make a formidable team.

Despite the personal tensions and strife in the movie it is mainly a comedy and when the inevitable fight comes at the end of the movie the release is thoroughly enjoyable. All in all it is a very fun movie with some excellent performances and more than a few good points to make.

Questions to answer:

Why were Mary Kate's possessions and dowry so important to her? Was it a matter of greed or something else? What was the significance of these things, given the place of women in that culture?

Why was Sean afraid to fight? What did he value more than his reputation?

Describe the differences between Sean's American ways of courting and the Irish customs. What purpose do you think the Irish ways served, and do they have value today?

Great Quotes:
Michaleen: "What do they feed Irishmen in Pittsburgh to make them so big?"
Sean: "Steel, Micheleen, and pig iron in furnaces so hot a man forgets his fear of hell. And when you're hard enough, and strong enough, other things."

Mary Kate: "What manner of man have I married?"
Friend: "A better one than I think you know, Mary Kate."

About Fundamentals in Film: this series began as a class I taught to junior high and high school boys as a way to use the entertainment media to explore concepts of honor, honesty, duty and accountability. The movies were selected to demonstrate these themes and as a contrast to television that typically either portrays men as Homer Simpsons or professional wrestlers, with little in between those extremes. I wrote questions and points to ponder for each movie to stimulate discussion and to get the boys to articulate their thoughts and reactions to each movie. I offer this series here on this blog for the benefit of parents or others looking for a fun but challenging way to reinforce these concepts in their own families or groups. As the list of films grows each week, feel free to use these guides and to mix and match movies according to your interests or those of your group. I'm also always open to suggestions for other movies that can be added to the series. You can browse the entire series by clicking on the "Fundamentals in Film" category in the right sidebar of this blog.

Posted on March 24, 2006. 5 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, March 17, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Key Largo

by The Night Writer

If you like your good guys and bad guys in black and white with effective shades of gray then Key Largo is for you, and there's a lot of star power to boot. The film was directed by John Huston and featured Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Edward G. Robinson, Lionel Barrymore and Claire Trevor (who won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress). There's even a cameo by Jay Silverheels, TV's Tonto from the Lone Ranger.

While the movie is described as a film noir thriller it's not that noir-ish, and while there's plenty of action it isn't as suspenseful as you might expect. Still, it's a very entertaining drama, well-acted and well-told and set against the backdrop of post-World War II America.

Bogie plays Frank McCloud, an idealistic but jaded war veteran who travels to Key Largo to visit the crippled father (Barrymore) and widow (Bacall) of George Temple, a friend who served under him in Italy. They are good, decent people and he tells them about George, saying, "You'd have been proud of him, like every man in his regiment. With good reason. It wasn't just a matter of doing his duty. He was always looking for a way to do more. And finding it. George was a born hero, Mr. Temple. He couldn't imagine his own death. Only dishonor."

The Temple family owns a hotel, which also happens to have some unsavory guests in the person of Robinson, as gang-boss Johnny Rocco, and his assorted henchmen who are there to close a counterfeiting deal. Oh, and did I mention a hurricane is on the way?

As in Casablanca, Bogart plays a good guy who just wants to mind his own business and not get involved in any causes, but who ultimately can't ignore his conscience. A subtext to the story that younger viewers are likely to miss is the postwar disillusionment Frank feels after sacrificing so much to defeat evil and then returning home to find things little changed, as ultimately manifested by Rocco. (Talk about great acting - one of the most powerful scenes is when Robinson is whispering to Lauren Bacall, even though she doesn't speak and you can't hear a word he is saying).

Thrown together in close quarters due to the storm, the Frank and Rocco naturally clash but when pressed to the sticking point Frank initially backs down to preserve his life, saying "One more or one less Johnny Rocco in the world isn't worth dying for" even though it costs him the respect of the Temples (who apparently prefer dead heroes to survivors). It also costs him some of his own self-respect but he ultimately regains all when he realizes that "a fighter can't walk away from a fight" and goes against doing the sensible because "your head says one thing but your whole life says another."

Questions to answer:

Was Frank's bigger struggle with himself or with Rocco?

Is "one more or one less Johnny Rocco in the world" worth dying for? How would you balance that equation?

What is the one thing in the movie that Rocco fears, and why? Is this symbolic on a spiritual level?

What do you think Nora meant when she said, "When you believe like George believed, maybe dying isn't so important."

Points to ponder: From the dialog in the story, why do you think Frank drifted between so many jobs after the war. What do you think his expectations were when the war was over, and how did he adapt to the reality?

Great quote:
"You've got to be lying. 800 people swept out to sea in a hurricane? Who would ever live here again if that really happened?"

About Fundamentals in Film: this series began as a class I taught to junior high and high school boys as a way to use the entertainment media to explore concepts of honor, honesty, duty and accountability. The movies were selected to demonstrate these themes and as a contrast to television that typically either portrays men as Homer Simpsons or professional wrestlers, with little in between those extremes. I wrote questions and points to ponder for each movie to stimulate discussion and to get the boys to articulate their thoughts and reactions to each movie. I offer this series here on this blog for the benefit of parents or others looking for a fun but challenging way to reinforce these concepts in their own families or groups. As the list of films grows each week, feel free to use these guides and to mix and match movies according to your interests or those of your group. I'm also always open to suggestions for other movies that can be added to the series.

Posted on March 17, 2006. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, March 10, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Intermission

by The Night Writer

I'm taking a little time out to watch some more movies and to try to get a little ahead of the pace I've set for myself with these reviews. I've got a couple of films queued up and should be back next week with a new movie for the series. This week, however, I want to focus on a subject that I see as being closely intertwined with this series: educating boys.

As I've said before, this series started out as a way to illustrate positive character traits to teenage boys in an entertaining way. I think one of the greatest failings of the modern U.S. education system is the way it suppresses boys' natural behavior and instincts through its educational orthodoxy and even with drugs, simultaneously dampening their natural desire and ability to learn in their own manner. At the same time a further disservice is performed by our culture of entertainment that, instead of suppressing boys' instincts, plays to the basest of these. Alternately numbed and overstimulated, we have a generation of young men who may be easy to manipulate but hard to educate.

I'm not a distinguished pedagogue, but I am male and I have followed this subject for some time. I am also sympathetic to the impulses of the schools. There are many times in the youth group my wife and I lead where if I had a tranquilizer dart gun I'd be seriously tempted to use it on the young teen males in the group. I'd rather have them rambunctious, however, than sitting in a stupor because it's easier to engage them during the former. I know that boys have high energy and learn kinetically, often by doing rather than listening. Sitting still disconnects something in their brain, yet "sit still" may be the thing they hear the most in school.

Since I was in college, much has been made about how schools have to do a better job in creating a "safe" learning environment for girls where boys don't dominate the lessons, or unintentionally intimidate girls from participating in class. If this premise was ever true, it seems that the enforced solution has been effective if you look at the statistics offered by Michael Gurian and Kathy Stevens, co-authors of "The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons From Falling Behind in School and Life." Using data from the Department of Education, the State Department and other sources, they report that boys:

Receive the majority of D and F grades given to students in most schools, as high as 70 percent.

Create 80 percent of classroom discipline problems.
Account for 80 percent of high school dropouts.

Represent 70 percent of children diagnosed with learning disabilities and 80 percent of those diagnosed with behavioral disorders.

Are an average of a year to a year-and-a-half behind girls in reading and writing skills. (Girls are behind boys in math and science, but to a lesser degree.)

Represent 80 percent of schoolchildren on Ritalin or other medications used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Make up less than 44 percent of America's college population.

In this article from the January 22nd Washington Times, Guerian and Stevens say that a key reason boys are not performing as well as girls is that there are neurobiological differences that are not recognized by most teachers.

"We have an industrial schooling system to educate the greatest number of people, and this system — with its emphasis on reading, writing and talking — is set up for the female brain, not the male," Mr. Gurian says. "And this verbally motivated environment will leave out large groups of males, who are not very verbal."

He says boys cannot benefit optimally in an environment where they are under tight control.

"When boys sit down, their brain shuts down," Mr. Gurian says.

Some boys need to be more active in the classroom, and because of this, they are more likely to become discipline problems, he says. Although Mr. Gurian acknowledges that not all boys will be lost in the current system, about five boys in a class of 30 will be left behind.

(Read the whole article for some more great insight into this subject. Also, I think one of the reasons Calvin and Hobbes was so funny, poignant and successful is that people could relate to Calvin's imagination, energy and rebelliousness, especially as counterbalanced by Suzie Derkins.)

My observation from growing up and from hanging around young men now is that boys see through false "self-esteem building" exercises that are too easy, but they can be challenged to excel by appealing to their competitive yet cooperative natures and by holding out an inspiring and chivalrous ideal. Credit for that idea has to go to King Arthur, and the British certainly understood the value of what was learned "on the playing fields of Eton."

An example that occurred to me once was to picture an island in the middle of a raging river. Imagine the island has arable land and a small population of men and women. It is capable of supplying enough food for everyone until the population grows. The women might suggest a method for equitably rationing food, but the masculine response would be to think, "If I can just build a bridge across this part of the river, we can find more land to feed our families. Oh, and you say I might die trying to build that bridge? Cool!" Sure, that's the kind of thinking that leads to war sometimes, but it's also what has pushed exploration and civilization forward. It's not exclusively the province of the male chemistry, but it shows what can happen if you harness, rather than benumb boys.

This "Fundamentals in Film" series isn't a solution to the problem, but my hope is that it can help provide part of that virtous inspiration in an engaging way and that it will be helpful for parents, home educators and youth leaders who want to counter the media's portrayal of men as either mindless brutes, mindless slugs or — if they have a mind — as nerds. Illustrating and encouraging strong character and channeling your strength for the benefit of others is beneficial not just to the boys but to society as a whole.

(Along the same lines is a great on-line program meant to encourage boys, young men and even older men to read. Called Guys Read, it has a fantastic understanding of what kinds of stories interest males of all ages and tries to use these books and stories to kindle a love of reading that will also ultimately lead to more academic success. Check it out.)

Related Posts (on one page):

Posted on March 10, 2006. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, March 3, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: The Tuskegee Airmen

by The Night Writer

This week's movie, The Tuskegee Airmen, is based on a true story about a group of young black men recruited to be fighter pilots in World War II. It's a stirring and thought-provoking movie that easily stands on its own from a cinematic and historical perspective, but at the same time it plays almost like a sequel to another movie, Glory (see link below). While the black Union soldiers in Glory were fighting for freedom, the men in this movie are fighting for equality and both groups have to overcome many of the same hurdles and pay a blood sacrifice as a down-payment on that goal. (Another commonality is the appearance of Andre Braugher in both movies, as Thomas in Glory and as Col. Benjamin O. Davis in The Tuskegee Airmen.

I recommend this movie to young men not just for its themes of honor, perserverence and looking out for one another but because it deals effectively (and not too heavy-handedly) with the additional burden of being a standard-bearer for your race and the daily, deliberate attacks on your character, integrity and sense of self. In this case these attacks come through racism but in every area of life we are going to be faced with people who don't like us for some reason — faith, background, politics, accent, past mistakes — and have the power to mess with our lives. When it happens will you blow up, wash out or persevere?

The movie is also an interesting perspective for anyone who assumes that nothing much happened to the conditions of blacks in the U.S. in the 100 years between the end of the Civil War and the civil rights movement. While the young cadets are the first of their race to pursue combat pilot status, each of the young men is college educated. Further, the men from the North had a culture shock when they arrived in the South, such as being removed from their train car because it was now "Whites Only" — and seeing their seats given to German prisoners of war being transported. "Normal" treatment for the southern men, but shocking to the ones from Iowa and New York.

The ensemble cast is universally solid and even exceptional, though it did seem to me that Laurence Fishburne alternates only between super-solemn and solemn moods and Cuba Gooding, Jr. plays, well, Cuba Gooding, Jr. The most interesting character for me was Lt. Glenn (Courtney Vance), the black "liasion officer" between the white chain of command and the cadets during their training. As the only pilot - black or white - on the base with actual combat experience (from volunteering in the Canadian Air Force) his demeanor is ultra-sharp and tightly controlled but you can still see the powerful emotions and drive in him to be the ultimate, consummate soldier and by force of will do the same for the cadets in his charge.

Beyond the racial story, Airmen is pretty much standard war movie fare with good messages in terms of the men maturing, coming to grips with their fears and bonding as a team. That additional element, however, provides an especially poignant perspective that I think is moving, inspiring and educational for viewers of any color. The discipline and common cause the men demonstrated and the understanding that this was something bigger than themselves are important takeaways.

Points to Ponder:

Why do you think it was so challenging to people such as Major Joy and Senator Conyers for the black airmen to succeed?

Can you help others by being hurtful? Can you hurt others by being helpful?

Was the "blood sacrifice" in the movies Glory and The Tuskegee Airmen important? Why or why not?

Questions to Ask:

Was Colonel Rogers correct in his discipline of Cadet Peoples? What was the conflict the Colonel faced within himself?

What did Hannibal Lee mean when he said to his friends, "I'd rather be here by my lonesome than play with a couple of jokers who can't figure out the game." What was the significance of this?

What does Lt. Glenn's demeanor and conduct say about what he feels he has to prove as a soldier, a pilot and an instructor.

The cadets heard two speeches from two different officers, as Lt. Glenn noted, when they arrived in Tuskegee. What was the significance of each speech and what did they say about what was ahead of the men?

References are made in the movie to Jesse Owens and Joe Louis. Who were these men, and what was the significance of these references in the story?

What would you do if faced with the same choices of these men: Hannibal Lee, Colonel Rogers, Lt. Glenn, Cadet Peoples?

Great quotes:
"Cadet (spoiler) just taught you men the most important lesson here at Tuskegee. If you don't believe in God, you better find yourself a damn good substitute."

"It's your privilege to live in the air. It is your destiny to die by fire."

About Fundamentals in Film: this series began as a class I taught to junior high and high school boys as a way to use the entertainment media to explore concepts of honor, honesty, duty and accountability. The movies were selected to demonstrate these themes and as a contrast to television that typically either portrays men as Homer Simpsons or professional wrestlers, with little in between those extremes. I wrote questions and points to ponder for each movie to stimulate discussion and to get the boys to articulate their thoughts and reactions to each movie. I offer this series here on this blog for the benefit of parents or others looking for a fun but challenging way to reinforce these concepts in their own families or groups. As the list of films grows each week, feel free to use these guides and to mix and match movies according to your interests or those of your group. I'm also always open to suggestions for other movies that can be added to the series.

Related Posts (on one page):

Posted on March 3, 2006. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, February 24, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: The Red Badge of Courage

by The Night Writer

The Red Badge of Courage is a John Huston Civil War classic starring Audie Murphy and Bill Mauldin (yes, the WWII creator of the "Willie and Joe" cartoons). Barely over an hour long, the movie pretty much sticks to Stephen Crane's novel and features multiple passages read outloud by the film's narrator. While clearly a war movie about "courage", I found the most interesting embedded message here to be about the untested soldier Henry Fleming's struggles to match his confidence and self-image with what he wanted it to be or hoped it could be and with his perception of the expectations of others. Battle happens to be the ready setting for this story, but the essential conflict could have been depicted in many ways.

At the beginning of the story Fleming and his Union comrades in arms have never been in battle and are bored with military life and useless drilling. Itching to fight (each other if they can't get at the Rebels) the men talk boisterously of the feats they will perform under fire and young Fleming joins in while alternately withdrawing into his doubts. He struggles because he's afraid he will be afraid, and because the realization of his fear appears to confirm the worst. Yet he doesn't want to consider himself a coward, or be considered a coward by his fellow troops or his family. He speaks and writes in ways meant to show that he will stand firm, but he has to question himself.

Battle looming or not, untested young men have to deal with the same concerns and hope they will rise to be among the best while fearing they will be among the worst, and the fear of failure can be more motivating than the fear of death itself. This movie is a good opportunity to look at the nature of courage, the influence of others around us in inspiring our best or most craven characteristics, and even to examine the role of faith in giving us a workable handle for grabbing hold of the world. It is also good preparation for young men (or older men) who have not been tested so that they know their doubts or thoughts are not unique to them.

Point to Ponder:
After the Rebels' first brief attack and retreat, and then after the last battle, Fleming and the others saw the world - and appreciated things - in a different way. Imagine yourself in those same moments; how would you describe the sensation?

Questions to ask:

Fleming was embarrassed first to have run, and then embarassed to be recognized for his fighting. Why do you think both were embarrassing to him?

What was the philosophy of the "happy soldier" (played by Andy Devine) that Fleming met the night after the first battle? Did this have an affect on Fleming?

Was it courage or another kind of fear that propelled Fleming into battle on the second day?

What effect did the actions of the soldiers who ran and the soldier's who stayed and fought have on Fleming? What consequences did his actions have on others on the first day and then on the second? Which behavior do you think was closest to his true character?

The narrator said, "He had performed his mistakes in the dark so he was still a man." If nobody sees what you do does it make a difference?

Even when Fleming confessed the truth to his friend he couldn't bring himself to tell the whole truth. Was this another kind of fear? How well did he confront and overcome this challenge? All in all, would you say he was brave, or a weasel, or something in between? Why?

Great quote:
"So it came to pass as he trudged from the place of blood and wrath his soul changed. He had been to touch the great death...and found that after all it was but the great death. Scars faded as flowers and the youth saw that the world was a world for him. He had rid himself of the red sickness of battle."

About Fundamentals in Film: this series began as a class I taught to junior high and high school boys as a way to use the entertainment media to explore concepts of honor, honesty, duty and accountability. The movies were selected to demonstrate these themes and as a contrast to television that typically either portrays men as Homer Simpsons or professional wrestlers, with little in between those extremes. I wrote questions and points to ponder for each movie to stimulate discussion and to get the boys to articulate their thoughts and reactions to each movie. I offer this series here on this blog for the benefit of parents or others looking for a fun but sometimes challenging way to reinforce these concepts in their own families or groups. As the list of films grows each week, feel free to use these guides and to mix and match movies according to your interests or those of your group. I'm also always open to suggestions for other movies that can be added to the series.

Related Posts (on one page):

Posted on February 24, 2006. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, February 17, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Conagher

by The Night Writer

This week's movie is Conagher. If you're looking for a film to demonstrate certain manly virtues it's hard to go wrong with a movie based on a Louis L'Amour book and starring the laconic Sam Elliott. Elliott plays Conn Conagher, a seasoned cowhand with the highest personal integrity; not looking for trouble, willing to avoid it if he can, but able to deal with it efficiently if the need be. The role could have easily been a caricature but in Elliott's hands (and face) it comes off as note perfect. In fact, the acting throughout the film, originally made for TNT, is first rate: Kathryn Ross (not afraid to show some lines in her face) and veteran character actor Barry Corbin are excellent and there's even a small but significant appearance by Festus himself, Ken Curtis. Shot on location in Colorado, the scenery is spectacular and even the minor characters look as if they've just stepped from a Frederic Remington or Charles Russell painting.

The action revolves around one man, Conagher, making a stand for doing what's right in a wide open land with little "controlling legal authority" where many are looking to take advantage of others any way they can. There's also a strong but largely unspoken love story woven throughout that is heightened by the sense of loneliness and isolation that is well illustrated by the cinematography. For all of Conagher's rawboned toughness, he's also consciously well-mannered and respectful around the widow Evie Teale and her children. His silences and discomfort are not because of boorishness or a lack of confidence, but because he knows himself so well and doesn't think he'd be good for her. As he asks Charlie McCloud (another interesting character study) at one point, "What have I got to offer a woman like that?" To which McCloud replies, "Why don't you let her answer that question?"

As I mentioned earlier, Conagher doesn't go looking for trouble with other folks, but just by the way he goes about doing his business he convicts others of their shortcomings and causes them to feel as if they need to prove themselves - for good or ill - as a result. Conflict and teachable moments abound throughout the movie as a result without bogging down into preachy dialogue. You can watch it with the whole family and everyone will enjoy the story and get something different out of it.

Here are some questions I'd ask a viewer:

What did it mean to Conagher to "Ride for the brand"?

What does it mean to have integrity in a world with little in the way of effective law enforcement?

Chris Mahler, Kiowa Staples and Smoke Parnell were members of the Ladder 5 gang that Conagher was resisting. Aside from the conflict over the cattle-rustling, however, each man was challenged in some way by Conager's personal character. Can you describe what it was that bothered Phillips and Mahler the most, and the way Parnell regarded Conagher?

Describe Evie Teale's character. Do you think it makes a difference in the story that the children are her step-children?

Describe what kind of men Charlie McCloud and Seaborn Tay are.

Points to Ponder:

Independence is apparently understood and highly valued in the part of the country where the story takes place. Why do you think that is, and how is this expressed by the different characters?

Johnny McGivern's father died when he was very young. How would you describe his personality and how these factors influenced his decisions? Do you think Laban might have turned out to be like him as well? Why or why not?

Great Quotes:
Laban: "Who gave you the black eye?"
Conn: "Nobody gave it to me. I fought for it."

Tile Coker (under Conn's gun): "East? But that's a 50 mile walk!"
Conn: "That's the life of an outlaw. Tough, ain't it?"

Related Posts (on one page):

Posted on February 17, 2006. 0 Comments 1 Trackbacks

Friday, February 10, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Kidnapped

by The Night Writer

You can trust a Robert Louis Stevenson tale to work in plenty of swashbuckling action, hair-breadth escapes ... and moral clarity. Kidnapped doesn't disappoint, and this 2004 made-for-tv adaptation (don't confuse it with the earlier PBS version that plays fast and loose with history and the book) delivers a rollicking story with plenty of villains and heroes.

Young Davie Balfour (Brian McCardie) is the rightful heir to the Shaws estate in the Lowlands but his miserly and covetous uncle conspires to have Davie kidnapped for eventual sale into slavery in order to keep the estate for himself. On the ship carrying him away he meets another traveler who didn't intend to be there, Alan Breck Stuart (Armand Assante), a supporter and agent for the Scottish king in exile, Bonnie Prince Charles. Stuart is a fugitive from the English trying to smuggle gold to Charles from his still loyal subjects after the failed Jacobite rebellion. Together they make a plan and escape the ship and its evil crew and find themselve cast up again on the shores of Scotland.

Stuart is a man of action and experience, while Davie is quiet and well-educated. They make an unlikely, and sometimes unwilling, team as they try to stay one step ahead of the British soldiers, complete Stuart's mission and regain Davie's inheritance. Despite their different backgrounds and circumstances, both are clearly men of honor who thereby bring out the worst in those who would harm them. Greed drives many of the actions of others, while some are in it for power. Stuart remains steadfast to his cause and his loyalty to his king, while Davie is "betwixt and between" in his political sentiments but committed to acting honestly and justly.

This version is nearly three hours long and Assante's Scots brogue is as uneven as the terrain the men find themselves traipsing around, but the story is fun and the on-location scenery is spectacular. It is an entertaining movie for the whole family with several good talking points on the role and importance of honor, duty and honesty. It also has a stirring recitation from Psalms 35 from an innocent leader condemned to die.

Points to Ponder:
The role of clan feuds and long-standing enmity between the people of Scotland and the role this has played in the country's history.

Questions to answer:

Why did Davie not open the envelope his father left, even though it had to do with him?

What question did Stuart ask Campbell the Red Fox that put him on the spot and proved that Campbell was lying to him? Why wouldn't Campbell answer him?

Why did James of the Glen surrender himself to Mr. Reed, the agent of King George? Why was this necessary?

Describe the life of Uncle Ebenezer and the use he got out of his wealth.

How did Davie change over the course of his adventures, and in what ways did he not? What affect, if any, did he have on Alan Breck Stuart?

Great quotes:
(Despite my politics) "As a gentleman, it is my duty to see justice done if I can." (Davie Balfour)

Related Posts (on one page):

Posted on February 10, 2006. 1 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, February 3, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Beyond the Gates of Splendor

by The Night Writer

I want to go in a little different direction with this week's movie. Instead of a classic movie or a more contemporary film that illustrates strong values and virtues I want look at the documentary Beyond the Gates of Splendor. This documentary is the factual and very well done basis for the new movie in theaters now, End of the Spear (both were produced by the same people).

This is a very intense film that tells the story of the massacre of five missionaries in the 1950s by a primitive tribe of people in the jungles of Ecuador, and the subsequent and near miraculous actions of the families of the men to continue the work that they began — with the same tribe and individuals that killed their husbands and fathers.

While the story is nearly forgotten today, it was a major sensation at the time it happened. While it took place in the 1950s there are enough people still alive today to offer first hand accounts of the events. There is also a lot of home movie clips shot by the men that have been worked into the film. These accounts and film clips are especially moving and compelling elements of the documentary. The time that has passed also provides an interesting perspective when discussing how similar and different the world is now compared to then.

Beyond the Gates of Splendor begins almost as a National Geographic program as it details the primitive life of the Waodani tribe. It is a violent life where murder is the expected and accepted way of settling disputes. With six out of every 10 adult deaths attributed to homicide, the tribe is spearing itself into extinction. Then the focus shifts for a time to the background of the missionaries and their families. The five men — Nate Saint, Jim Eliot, Ed McCully, Pete Fleming and Roger Youderian — will certainly challenge the image some may have of what a missionary looks like. They were all young, handsome, fit, energetic and resourceful. They were leaders in everything they did and drew people to them; truly the flower of a generation. They literally could have done or been anything they wanted yet their hearts were for people in distant lands.

The second half of the documentary details their efforts in Ecuador and Peru and their initial and ingenious method for making contact with the Waodani and early successes. All is well until a young Waodani, to cover his own misbehavior, lies to the tribe about the men, resulting in the fatal assault party. If the film stopped here it would still be compelling, but the real story is just beginning as the wives, children and friends of the men continue to minister to the tribe over the next generation, leading to a spectacular turnaround — so much so that at one point one of the missionary’s daughters is baptized at the same spot in the river where her father was killed, with two of the men from the group that killed him participating in the ceremony. My kids were completely mesmerized by Beyond the Gates of Splendor and while it can be emotionally challenging at times, it is a stirring depiction of vision, commitment and faith.

Points to Ponder:

The Waodani society was based on two key values: egalitarianism and autonomy. No one could consider himself better than anyone else, but also, no one could get away with wronging another. With no institutionalized way of settling disputes, murder was the recourse of choice, often sparking a cycle of retribution. Does this sound familiar to other parts of the world or cities you know?

What is your conception of the mission field today? Do you think it is the same or different from 50 years ago?

What would you have done?

Questions to Answer:

How did the men go about introducing themselves to the Waodani? Why did they do it this way?

Nate Saint said “They’re not ready for ready for heaven, and we are,” in explaining why the men had decided not to use guns even to defend themselves. What did he mean by that?

What were the circumstances that led up to the attack? Could they have been prevented?

Why did the women return to the Waodani?

What effect did all of this have on the Waodani?

(About Fundamentals in Film -)

Related Posts (on one page):

Posted on February 3, 2006. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, January 27, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Spartacus

by The Night Writer

The 1960 epic Spartacus is long and in it’s production and pacing doesn’t fare well when compared to modern films that tell similar stories such as Gladiator or Braveheart, so it might be difficult for younger viewers to appreciate. (Really, when was the last time you saw a movie that took itself so seriously as to have an overture and an intermission?). The movie does explore some key themes, however, that can make for interesting starting points for discussion on the nature of love, power, freedom, hate, sexuality, political intrigue, loyalty, and friendship.

The central theme, however, is man’s desire to live free and with dignity and the willingness to sacrifice all to achieve it. This is shown well in several scenes and with dialog that is powerful and not too preachy or long-winded. While the movie is based on a book by Howard Fast and the screen play was by Dalton Trumbo (both Communists), the movie is not as political as you might expect. While the story is about gladiators and slaves (the proletariat) trying to throw off their masters, I thought the presentation and scenes explaining what Spartacus hoped to achieve were more closely related to the Declaration of Independence than to The Communist Manifesto. Indeed, part of the irony is to consider how much of what Spartacus said and did would have resulted in the same treatment from a Communist government as what he received from the Romans.

In addition, the film’s illustration of the dehumanizing aspect of slavery without a racial element may be eye-opening for those who think of slavery as being a black and white issue only.

Of particular meaning for young men are the scenes that show that self-control is the foundation, and not the opposite, of freedom. First in his initial dealings with the woman Virinia when Spartacus refused to perform sexually for the entertainment of the guards, and in his control over the gladiator army to keep it from behaving like a drunken mob, showed that the power to do something is nowhere near as important as the power to choose not to do that thing.

Finally, the political intrigue is instructive as we watch Crassus and Gracchus manuever and manipulate others to serve their own ends, becoming the personification of two opposing political philosophies willing to mouth anything to gain power when in reality there was little difference between them. One illuminating quote was when Gracchus said, referencing the gods: “Privately I believe in none of them. Neither do you. Publicly I believe in them all.” Also, later in the movie, when Julius Ceasar (then commander of the garrison of Rome) questions Gracchus on the unseemliness of dealing with pirates and criminals and Gracchus replies, “Don’t be so stiff-necked. Politics is a practical profession.”

Points to ponder:
What is the nature of freedom; how do you get it and how do you maintain it.

Questions to answer:

On two occasions Spartacus draws distinctions between being man and being an animal. What were these occasions, and how did they relate to each other?

One difference between Crassus and Gracchus is that one saw the people as something to be exploited and the other saw them as something to be controlled. Which was which, and how did they go about trying to achieve their ends? What differences, if any, were there between their objectives?

At the end of the rebellion, why did the gladiators all claim to be Spartacus, even though it meant death? Was their decision similar to, or different from, Gracchus’ action at the end of the movie? How and why?

Great quote:
Spartacus said, “When just one man says, ‘No, I won’t,’ Rome began to fall.”

Related Posts (on one page):

Posted on January 27, 2006. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Friday, January 20, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: class report

by The Night Writer

No movie this week as I’ve exhausted my original list of films and discussion topics I compiled for the Fundamentals in Film class I taught to a small group of junior and senior high school boys. I am, however, in the process of reviewing other films I’ve thought of or that people have recommended so I can continue the series, using the same approach of looking for examples of personal character within the movies. My thanks to those of you who have commented, e-mailed or spoken to me in person to tell me what you’ve gotten out of this series or how you plan to use it with your own sons or young adults. I’m honored by your response, and it is your reaction that has encouraged me to expand the series.

I’ve been promising a post describing how the Fundamentals in Film class went over with the boys and whether or not I felt it met the objectives I had in mind, and this is as good a time as any to get into this.

(Continue reading to see what this was really all about.)

Related Posts (on one page):

Posted on January 20, 2006. 0 Comments 0 Trackbacks

Illuminating fun, faith,
family and foolishness.

“Peace, prosperity, liberty and morals
have an intimate connection.”

- Thomas Jefferson

About

Contact

Categories

Subscribe

Archives

Blogroll

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Friday, December 12, 2008

Friday, October 10, 2008

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Friday, May 2, 2008

Saturday, March 31, 2007

Thursday, February 8, 2007

Friday, December 15, 2006

Friday, July 28, 2006

Friday, June 30, 2006

Friday, June 23, 2006

Friday, April 28, 2006

Friday, April 21, 2006

Friday, April 7, 2006

Friday, March 31, 2006

Friday, March 24, 2006

Friday, March 17, 2006

Friday, March 10, 2006

Friday, March 3, 2006

Friday, February 24, 2006

Friday, February 17, 2006

Friday, February 10, 2006

Friday, February 3, 2006

Friday, January 27, 2006

Friday, January 20, 2006

Illuminating fun, faith, family and foolishness.

“Peace, prosperity, liberty and morals have an intimate connection.” - Thomas Jefferson

About

Contact

Categories

Subscribe

Archives

Blogroll

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Friday, December 12, 2008

Friday, October 10, 2008

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Friday, May 2, 2008

Saturday, March 31, 2007

Thursday, February 8, 2007

Friday, December 15, 2006

Friday, July 28, 2006

Friday, June 30, 2006

Friday, June 23, 2006

Friday, April 28, 2006

Friday, April 21, 2006

Friday, April 7, 2006

Friday, March 31, 2006

Friday, March 24, 2006

Friday, March 17, 2006

Friday, March 10, 2006

Friday, March 3, 2006

Friday, February 24, 2006

Friday, February 17, 2006

Friday, February 10, 2006

Friday, February 3, 2006

Friday, January 27, 2006

Friday, January 20, 2006

Illuminating fun, faith,
family and foolishness.

“Peace, prosperity, liberty and morals
have an intimate connection.”

- Thomas Jefferson