“It is the duty of every citizen according to his
best capacities to give validity to his
convictions in political affairs.”

- Albert Einstein

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:

1. 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?


2. 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?


3. 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?


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


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


6. 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."

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:

1. 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?


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


3. 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.

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:

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


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


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


4. 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.

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.)

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:

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


2. 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?


3. 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.


4. 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?


5. 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?


6. 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.