"The first family of Minnesota Blogging" - Mitch Berg, Shot in the Dark

Illuminating fun, faith,
family and foolishness.

“Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment.”

- Damon Runyon

Friday, January 27, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Spartacus


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:

  1. 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?


  2. 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?


  3. 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.”

Friday, January 20, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: class report
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.


Friday, January 13, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: U-571

The point of the Fundamentals in Film class was to help a group of young men see examples of “manly” behavior beyond just pro wrestlers or Homer Simpson. The World War II submarine movie U-571 fit the bill, having the requisite non-stop action and examples of strong character under stress (true of most films in the series). The special lesson from this film, however, also dealt with being able to control your face and emotions when things don't go your way.

This was a good lesson for the group of young men in my charge who were prone to expressive outbursts, eye-rollings and other body language if they felt an injustice had been done unto them.

At the beginning of the movie young Andy (Matthew McConaughey) is the executive officer of a submarine who has just been passed over for promotion to captain of his own sub, due mainly to his own captain rating him as not being ready for command.

He finds this out just before their sub is sent on an urgent, secret mission to try and capture a damaged German submarine and its priceless Enigma decoding device. Andy knows he’s a good officer and can’t understand why his captain (Bill Paxton) thinks he is lacking. The captain explains that Andy is still too much of a friend to his sailors and not a commander, ready to make hard decisions and give orders that might get some of them killed in order to preserve the rest or the mission (so guess what’s going to happen in the movie).

Indeed, when Andy is forced to take command under pressure he is uncertain and his lack of confidence threatens to lose him control of the ship as his lack of leadership creates a vacuum that threatens chaos. Another great example in the movie is how the sailors cope with the stress of their constantly deteriorating situation, even as one seemingly unfair thing after another happens. The men aren’t happy about it, of course, but go about doing what has to be done.

U-571 is an excellent movie simply from an entertainment perspective. If you add in the examples of character under extreme circumstances it also becomes an especially meaningful movie.

Themes:

  • The qualities of leadership.

  • The meaning of sacrifice (“Greater love has no man but that he lay down his life for his brother”).

  • Having a perspective of the greater good, beyond yourself.

  • Showing respect and being obedient even if you are upset or feel wronged (controlling your face and your emotions).

  • The necessity at times of having to make hard decisions, using imperfect information, that have significant consequences in other peoples’ lives.

Questions to answer:

  1. Why did the captain think Andy was not prepared to be the captain of his own sub?

  2. Did Andy’s disappointment affect his obedience and discipline? Contrast Andy’s behavior with Mazzola’s.

  3. What are the burdens of authority?

  4. What was the over-riding principle Andy had to use in making his decisions?

  5. Would it have done any good for Andy (or anyone in the crew, to protest being in an unfair situation?


Great quote:
“A sea captain is a mighty and terrible thing.”

Friday, January 6, 2006

Friday Fundamentals in Film: The Shootist


I have some more movies in mind that will allow me to continue this Friday series, but this week’s movie was the last one I presented to a class of junior high and senior high school boys. I chose The Shootist (1976) as the final movie not just for the character issues, which we’d pretty much covered already in other movies, but for the subtleties and shadings of character and the way a movie or story can manipulate our emotions and get us to identify with a “hero” who might not be all that heroic when you look really closely.

This is not to bad-mouth John Wayne at all, here appearing in his final movie, or even the character he played. Fittingly, this is the story of a famous but terminally ill aging gunfighter (or “shootist”) trying to find peace in his final days. The point I was trying to get across to the boys, however, is how easily we look for a “good” guy in a story and identify with him - even if it’s only because he’s “less bad” than others.

The movie features a great cast with Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Lauren Bacall, Henry Morgan, Richard Boone and Ron Howard as a fatherless and impressionable young man. Howard narrates the opening sequence of the movie, a flash back of gunfights featuring the infamous John Bernard (JB) Books which were, cleverly, scenes lifted from earlier John Wayne movies. When Books rides into Carson City, Nevada in 1901 he suspects he’s dying and is looking to lie low and pass away in obscurity. After his doctor friend (Stewart) confirms the diagnosis, however, word gets out in the town that they have a “celebrity” in their midst and many people start angling for a way to make a name or some money for themselves at Books’ expense. In the process he meets and eventually befriends the widow (Bacall) running the boarding house where he stays and her son (Howard). In interludes with this broken family Books gains a small taste of the life he might have had as a husband and father if he hadn’t followed the path his life took instead.

There were three things I wanted the boys to get out of the movie. One was the way Howard’s character, young Gillom, attempted to act more “manly” by swearing and drinking and otherwise carrying on as he thought men do because he didn’t have a model in his life. Another lesson was in the way Gillom’s mother, a staunch Christian who deplored Books’ lifestyle and history, came to see the “Christian” way to act toward someone who is suffering. The main point, however, was the code Books emphatically claimed that he lived by — “I won’t be wronged, I won’t be insulted, I won’t be laid a hand on...I don’t do these things to others, and I expect the same from them” — and how he regularly broke that code without seeing the irony in doing so.

Points to Ponder:

  • Does your life make your reputation, or does your reputation make your life?

  • The influences (or lack of influences) that shape our lives.

  • The consequences and significance of decisions we make.

  • Society’s expectations and exploitation of heroes.

  • Is being good, good enough?


Some questions you might want to be able to answer:

  1. What was Books’ personal code that he explained to Gillom? Did he live up to it?

  2. What were Mrs. Rogers’ personal codes? How did her codes come into conflict with each other?

  3. How did Gillom try to make himself appear manly? What events in his life might explain his behavior?

  4. Was Books a good man or a bad man? What qualities did he have that were admirable? What qualities did he have that were not?

  5. What price did Books pay for his way of life? (What things did he give up, or miss out on?)

  6. Did Books have faith? Was it sufficient to get him into Heaven?

Great Quote:
JB: “Damn!”
Bond: “John Bernard, you swear to much.”
JB: “The hell I do!”

As I said, I have a few more movies in mind that I think portray admirable character qualities and motives and are useful examples for young people and I hope to continue this series and format here. If you have a favorite movie that fits this profile and objective by all means leave a comment or send me an email; I'd be happy to consider watching the movie and including it here at some point.

In a future, separate, post I'll describe the results of the class and the impact, if any, it had on the young men who participated.