READ: Fresh starts showcased in the film ‘Marigold Hotel’

“The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” (2011 production, 2012 release). Cast: Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, Tom Wilkinson, Bill Nighy, Penelope Wilton, Ronald Pickup, Celia Imrie, Dev Patel, Tena Desae, Seema Azmi, Diana Hardcastle, Rajendra Gupta, Neena Kulkami, Lillette Dubey, Vishnu Sharma, Sid Makkar, Bhuvnesh Shetty. Director: John Madden. Screenplay: Ol Parker. Book: Deborah Maggoch, These Foolish Things. www.foxsearchlight.com/thebestexoticmarigoldhotel/

Facing the autumn of one’s life can be challenging in many ways. Coming to terms with the realities of having fewer, rather than more, years ahead, as well as the increasingly debilitating effects of age, are daunting enough. But what if the means to live out those remaining days in comfort are in peril, too? This combination of elements might seem deflating or overwhelming to some, but, with one’s independence, dignity and survival at stake, the more adventurous and innovative among us may elect to take some extraordinary, uncharacteristic or even drastic measures to make the most of those circumstances, as seen in the delightful new comedy, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.”

With retirement looming, seven British seniors weigh their options for what lies ahead:

* For Evelyn Greenslade (Judi Dench), the golden years look a lot bleaker than she had once anticipated. The lifelong, recently widowed housewife is forced into selling her residence to pay a backlog of debts left by her deceased husband, saddling her with a very uncertain future.

* Retired housekeeper Muriel Donnelly (Maggie Smith) needs hip replacement surgery but faces a six-month wait unless she’s willing to try something a little more radical – not an easy decision for someone very set in her ways and her outlooks.

* Bored with his career and his life, Judge Graham Dashwood (Tom Wilkinson) can no longer continue with an existence that leaves him unsatisfied and longing for something more fulfilling. His search for genuine happiness clearly requires more than what his current routine can provide.

* Career civil servants Jean and Douglas Ainslie (Penelope Wilton, Bill Nighy) approach retirement community living with mixed feelings. Jean believes she deserves something better than what’s on offer and doesn’t hesitate to make her dissatisfaction known. Douglas, meanwhile, tries to assuage her, agreeing to pursue other options if doing so will help keep the peace in their increasingly precarious relationship.

* Spunky skirt-chaser Norman Cousins (Ronald Pickup) feels like a spry 40-something, even if his chronological odometer indicates otherwise. Nevertheless, how he feels, and how others react to his advances, such as the actual 40-somethings he tries to court, are two entirely different matters. Maybe it’s time for Norman to turn his attention elsewhere.

* Madge Hardcastle (Celia Imrie) loves her family, but she tires of the demands they regularly place on her time, such as frequent requests for babysitting her young grandchildren. As someone who wants to enjoy life more in her remaining years, she yearns to take off and be a free spirit while she can – something she just might do.

Given their prevailing circumstances, the retirees each decide they need to pursue alternate paths. In doing so, they all stumble upon advertising for what seems to be the perfect solution to their respective situations – the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel for the Elderly and Beautiful. The ads for this affordable but luxurious facility promise its guests grand accommodations in a classic setting in the lively, colorful Indian city of Jaipur. Everyone jumps at the opportunity, making reservations to move into this elegant pleasure palace. But there’s just one catch: the hotel is nothing like what’s in its promotional materials. In fact, the decrepit structure is not far from collapsing, its walls propped up by assorted forms of jerry-rigging and the infectious, if sometimes-unrealistic enthusiasm of hotelier Sonny Kapoor (Dev Patel).

Sonny struggles incessantly to keep his faltering business afloat. He does all he can to appease his disgruntled guests, many of whom are ready to turn back upon arrival, and his overbearing mother (Lillette Dubey), who constantly criticizes Sonny, forever flaunting his brothers’ success in his face. He also strives to please his girlfriend, Sunaina (Tena Desae), an educated, upwardly mobile young woman whom he worries will leave him for someone more financially stable. It’s quite a full plate for the wily young entrepreneur.

But, thanks to a hefty dose of Sonny’s charm and the newfound friendships that spring up among the recent arrivals, the guests decide to stay. They thus embark on new journeys of personal discovery, some on their own and some by way of interactions with the hotel staff, the locals or each other. Their individual odysseys end up offering them possibilities for fresh starts unlike anything they could have possibly imagined before they left England.

At some point in our lives, fresh starts are welcome developments in the wake of unrelenting sameness, though, admittedly, embracing such changes can become more difficult for many of us as we age. As we allow the beliefs that shape our realities through the conscious creation process to settle in and become comfortable, we’re more likely to look askance at possible upheavals in our routines, summarily rejecting them even before examining what they have to offer. We might even try justifying our resistance with arguments like “we’re too old for this sort of thing.” But are fresh starts only meant to be the provenance of the young?

The very emergence of such manifestations indicates that there’s some part of us deep down inside that wants to usher change into our lives, no matter how old or young we are, but the more we resist those impulses, the more imposing, even threatening, they’re likely to appear in subsequent iterations. They may ultimately give rise to circumstances that appear as if change is being foisted upon us, with unwanted consequences and overwrought drama coming along for the ride.

Is this really how we want change to take hold in our lives? Must we become so dissatisfied with our situations that we allow ourselves to become ill, jaded or burned out before we’ll even consider making alterations to our existence? Do we truly want change crammed down our throats?

In many ways, this is where the guests of the Marigold Hotel find themselves at the film’s outset. They’re at the point where they’ve put off making change for so long that they now find themselves, metaphorically speaking, with their backs up against the proverbial wall. Their inner selves are telling them that change is imperative and that the only real decision they need to make is to choose how to react to the impending circumstances.

Many of us have come to fear change, that the disappearance of the familiar will leave us sad, disoriented or less well off than we’ve grown accustomed to being. But it need not be that way at all. Change just means doing something differently, and it doesn’t automatically equate to things being worse than they have been; it could indeed be the start of something far better than we could have possibly imagined but that we have not previously permitted to materialize. Allowing change of an especially positive nature can be truly life affirming, especially for those nearing the ends of their corporeal journeys. After all, as many of us have no doubt experienced, basking in the illuminated brilliance of sunny autumn days can be some of the most rewarding times of the year. The residents of the Marigold Hotel come to see this for themselves, once they’re willing to allow it to happen.

Conscious creation theorists like author Jane Roberts, speaking through her noncorporeal channeled entity, Seth, maintain that our lives are all about being in “a constant state of becoming.” Our lives, like those of the Marigold Hotel guests, truly are journeys, explorations of discovery and becoming who we were genuinely meant to be. To make the most of that experience, we would be wise to leave ourselves open to maximize the scope of our personal adventures, especially in the waning days of those expeditions. Let us hope that we all have the wisdom to make that possible for ourselves, to discover the joy that Evelyn, Muriel, Graham, Douglas, Jean, Norman and Madge find for themselves in their own respective adventures.

“The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” is a charming release, full of life, vibrancy and gentle humor. Its exquisite cinematography and mesmerizing soundtrack combine to paint a lush portrait of an exotic land in all its beauty and all its challenges. The excellent ensemble cast blends well together, though the writing sometimes fails them when it comes to the degree of interaction the principal characters have with one another (even though they’re each following their own paths, it would have been nice to see those paths cross one another a little more than they do). The script also falls prey to a certain degree of predictability, but then that’s compensated for by an equal measure of surprise, offsetting that minor shortcoming.

The picture is already getting some Oscar buzz, though, realistically, I think it’s being released far too early in the year to be remembered by Academy voters later on. Nevertheless, if 2012 proves to be another weak year for movies, it could be a contender in some of the technical categories, as well as for some of the performances, particularly those turned in by Wilkinson, Nighy and, of course, Dench.

This picture serves as a valuable reminder that time passes in this life far faster than most of us often realize and that, because of that, we’d better make the most of it while we can, especially when the hourglass is running out. In life as in the movies, I’ve found that some of the most rewarding moments come toward the end of the picture. And to get the most out of them, it’s up to us to savor those times before the credits roll.

Copyright © 2012, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

Technorati Tags: "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel", age, autumn of one's life, babysitting, Bill Nighy, Brent Marchant, Celia Imrie, Change, charm, civil servant, comedy, conscious creation, consequences, constant state of becoming, Dev Patel, dignity, drama, England, enthusiasm, entrepreneur, expedition, Film, free spirit, fresh start, friendship, gentle humor, golden years, Happiness, hip replacement surgery, hotelier, hourglass, housekeeper, housewife, impulse, independence, india, Jaipur, Jane Roberts, Journey, judge, Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, movie, Oscar, Penelope Wilton, personal discovery, pleasure palace, resistance, retiree, retirement, retirement community living, Ronald Pickup, Senior, Seth, skirt-chaser, surprise, survival, Tom Wilkinson, upheaval, vibrancy, wisdom

READ: Spiritual assumptions challenged in ‘We Have a Pope’

“We Have a Pope” (“Habemus Papam”) (2011). Cast: Michel Piccoli, Nanni Moretti, Margherita Buy, Jerzy Stuhr, Gianluca Gobbi. Director: Nanni Moretti. Screenplay: Nanni Moretti, Francesco Piccolo and Federica Pontremoli. www.ifcfilms.com/films/we-have-a-pope

Many of us probably like to think we have a pretty good handle on our spiritual beliefs. But do we? What if we were faced with circumstances that caused us to question the nature of those supposedly rock-solid truths? Such is the challenge faced by the protagonist in the new Italian comedy-drama, “We Have a Pope.”

Upon the passing of the Pope, the College of Cardinals convenes a Vatican conclave to select the new worldwide leader of the Roman Catholic Church. It’s a solemn occasion (the Holy Father has just died, after all), but it’s also one that’s seemingly full of hope and promise with the selection of a new shepherd at hand. In light of that, outside observers might be tempted to think that it’s an auspicious occasion, especially for those candidates who are considered leading contenders to ascend to the papacy. But, in this instance, when viewers are let in on the internal musings of the cardinals, one finds them full of dread, praying fervently not to be selected by their peers. As a group of mostly stodgy old men, they’re generally content with the status they’ve attained and have little interest in being saddled with the formidable responsibilities of managing one of the globe’s largest religious institutions during the waning years of their lives.

Through several rounds of voting, no candidate receives a mandate. Speculation abounds in the press and in the assembled crowds in St. Peter’s Square about what’s transpiring, but no news is forthcoming from this secret proceeding. According to protocol, the cardinals must conduct their work in strict privacy and remain sequestered until a new Pope is selected and introduced to the public. Finally, after several attempts at making a selection, the cardinals choose a successor, and he’s not one of the favorites. A reserved, little-known member of the College, Cardinal Melville (Michel Piccoli), is chosen as the new leader of the Church, an unexpected development that takes everyone – including the soft-spoken cardinal – by surprise.

With the new Pope selected, the cardinals prepare to introduce him to the public. But just before the new pontiff is about to make his first appearance on the balcony above St. Peter’s Square, he flees in panic, claiming he cannot carry out his new responsibilities. He aimlessly wanders about the Vatican, desperately trying to figure out what to do. Meanwhile, the Vatican’s handlers, especially its chief spokesperson (Jerzy Stuhr), frantically go into damage control mode to save face, saying that the Pope has secluded himself in his apartment to pray for guidance. It’s an unprecedented situation for an organization that’s accustomed to everything proceeding with clockwork precision.

To help the new Pope cope with his circumstances, the Vatican calls upon an eminent psychiatrist (Nanni Moretti) to offer counsel. He’s of little help, though, because he’s not allowed to conduct his therapy sessions in private, and the pontiff is reluctant to open up about himself when encircled by a band of inquisitive cardinals hanging on his every word. It also doesn’t help that the counselor is an atheist, his background not having been vetted by the Pope’s handlers before being called upon to assist the Holy Father. What’s more, even though the counseling sessions don’t work out, the good doctor is told that, due to the confidential nature of his assignment, he must remain sequestered inside the Vatican with all of the cardinals until the new Pope has been officially introduced to the world. Anxiety thus begins to set in for more than just the new pontiff and his staff.

With the crisis dragging on for days, the Pope’s handlers decide to try a more radical strategy. They plan to smuggle the pontiff out of the Vatican to see another psychiatrist (Margherita Buy) – who just happens to be the estranged wife of the counselor who tried treating him initially – hoping that getting him away from everything will put him more at ease, allowing him to engage in meaningful therapy sessions. The staff tells no one of the plan, informing the press and the increasingly anxious cardinals that the Pope remains secluded in his apartment, continuing to pray for guidance.

Everything initially seems to go according to plan – that is, until the Pope decides to flee his handlers, escaping into the streets of Rome. He wanders about in anonymity, attempting to sort out his thoughts. Along the way he meets with an assortment of people who help him unravel his anxiety. He seems especially taken with a troupe of actors, who ultimately help him uncover the source of his trepidation. But, even with this question answered, he must still decide whether he wants to go back to the Vatican to assume the mantel that awaits him there, raising the all-important question, will he do it?

Challenging assumptions related to our spiritual beliefs can be daunting, to be sure. We often consider such truths as unquestionable givens. Yet there are times when we think we know what we want when, in fact, we don’t. And, when circumstances arise that put such issues to the test, we’re often ill-equipped to handle them. When matters of head and heart, intellect and intuition, thought and feeling, don’t match up in spiritual matters, the result is often a crisis of faith.

Under these circumstances, at the very least, we may feel disoriented, and, at worst, we can experience a full-fledged meltdown. In such instances, fear is nearly always the first reaction, but once that initial fright passes, we’re still left with the conundrum of what to do. In many cases, we usually gravitate to one of two options: (1) we stay locked in place, keeping our beliefs at bay, desperately trying to maintain appearances and denying our true selves, or (2) we move forward and evolve, allowing our inner feelings to come into alignment with our outer reality, a truly liberating experience if ever there were one. All of the principals in this film must come to grips with this choice, but the most important concern for each of them is, what will they do?

The new Pope clearly feels unprepared for his new calling, and he’s aware of the inherent disconnect between how he feels on the inside and the time-honored, highly institutionalized mission he’s expected to carry out. He’s unable to reconcile the discrepancy and doesn’t know what to do about it. His wandering through the streets of Rome aptly reflects his internal soul-searching and the pursuit of an answer that ever seems to elude him.

Of course, the Pope isn’t the only one who’s conflicted. The other cardinals, for example, are clearly torn at the film’s outset when they desperately pray to God not to be selected to serve the institution that they supposedly so ardently represent. And the psychiatrist has his own quandary, too, as becomes apparent when he, as an avowed atheist, quotes from the Bible to justify his contentions to his religious detractors.

The Pope’s breakthrough comes when he encounters the acting troupe. At one point he confesses that he had wanted to be an actor when he was younger but that he failed at it because he wasn’t talented enough. So is it any wonder, then, that he feels fundamentally incapable of taking on the responsibility of leading an institution so concerned with keeping up proper appearances? He knows he can’t do that, because he’s simply not that good an actor.

And keeping up appearances is indeed important to the Church, something that impacts not only the papacy but also everyone and everything that the institution touches. In fact, the Vatican handlers are so desperate to convey the impression that everything is under control that they enlist one of the Swiss guards (Gianluca Gobbi) to take up residence in the Pope’s apartment to periodically give onlookers a vague, veiled impression that the pontiff is indeed secluded inside. (It’s enough to make viewers – and the faithful – wonder what other kinds of appearances the Church might be trying to keep up as well.)

The cardinals come to question their circumstances, too, thanks to the assistance of their involuntarily sequestered companion, the psychiatrist, who unwittingly assumes the role of an impromptu activities director. To alleviate the frustration of enforced seclusion, the good doctor plays cards with his religious cohorts and even organizes an ecclesiastical volleyball tournament. The once-rigid cardinals, who probably never would have thought of engaging in such uninhibited secular activities, relish their newfound freedom, experiencing more genuine fun than they likely have in years. With the shackles of their self-imposed limitations removed, they allow their joy of living to shine through, something that emerges in stark contrast to the highly regimented lives that they’ve been living for ages.

Of course, liberation need not always be quite so dramatic or deliberate in nature. Sometimes simple acts, like walking away from an intractable situation, may be the most effective response to one’s circumstances. It may also have the greatest impact, too, provided its significance is recognized for what it truly is.

“We Have a Pope” is a surprisingly substantive film on many levels. Its treatment of the subject matter is deftly handled, subtly yet effectively depicting the parallels between the Pope’s personal struggles and those of an institution increasingly struggling with its own identity, and it does so without ever becoming crass or taking cheap shots. It also features a lot of good humor, providing an effective counterbalance to the picture’s more dramatic material. Admittedly, some of the jokes go on a little too long, but most are genuinely inspired. The writing and acting are crisp, too, even if the pacing is a bit uneven at times, particularly in the film’s first 30 minutes. Overall, however, this is a very entertaining, thought-provoking film that’s well worth your time.

Taking time to take stock of our core beliefs (especially those of a spiritual nature) can be a worthwhile practice, particularly if we’ve allowed outmoded, inflexible assumptions to take hold over us. Even if we decide not to change anything after such an exercise, at least it affords us the opportunity to reaffirm what we do believe and to boost the joy of living that such beliefs give rise to.

Copyright © 2012, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

Technorati Tags: "We Have a Pope", acting troupe, activities director, actor, anxiety, appearances, assumptions, atheist, balcony, Bible, Breakthrough, Brent Marchant, calling, cardinal, cheap shot, College of Cardinals, core belief, crisis of faith, damage control, Faith, fear, God, good humor, Guidance, handler, head and heart, Holy Father, identity, inherent disconnect, institution, intellect and intuition, joy of living, liberating experience, liberation, Michel Piccoli, mission, Nanni Moretti, outer reality, papacy, personal struggle, pontiff, Pope, pray, prayer, psychiatrist, religious institution, responsibility, Roman Catholic Church, Rome, secret proceeding, self-imposed limitation, sequester, shepherd, Soul Searching, spiritual beliefs, St. Peter's Square, Swiss guard, therapy, thought and feeling, Vatican, Vatican conclave, volleyball

READ: Hopes, fears probed in ‘The Hunger Games’ by Brent Marchant

“The Hunger Games” (2012). Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci, Donald Sutherland, Wes Bentley, Lenny Kravitz, Toby Jones, Elizabeth Banks, Liam Hemsworth, Paula Malcolmson, Willow Shields, Amandla Stenberg, Dayo Okeniyi, Leven Rambin, Alexander Ludwig, Isabelle Fuhrman, Jacqueline Emerson, Jack Quaid, Amber Chaney. Director: Gary Ross. Screenplay: Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray. Book: Suzanne Collins. www.thehungergamesmovie.com

It can be easy to let our fears get the best of us. And it can be even harder to shake them once we allow them to settle in and become comfortable. But rising above these self-imposed limitations is crucial if ever we hope to get by in life, even under the most trying of circumstances, a notion explored in the new cinematic blockbuster, “The Hunger Games.”

Life is full of stark contrasts in Panem, a dystopian future version of North America that consists of a grandiose Capitol and 12 impoverished outlying districts whose principal reason for being seems to be supplying the opulence and ostentation of its principal metropolis and the government of President Snow (Donald Sutherland). Having come into being as a result of a prolonged bloody conflict, this Roman-esque empire portrays itself as benevolent but never hesitates to resort to authoritarian tactics to keep the provinces in line. Its principal means of controlling the population is through a brutal spectacle known as the Hunger Games, a “competition” in which two teenage “tributes” (one male, one female) are selected via compulsory lottery from each of the districts to do battle with one another until only one is left standing, all of it broadcast with much fanfare on TV. It’s “entertainment” akin to the Christians being thrown to the lions, only with more elaborate production values.

When the contestant selection process begins for the 74th annual edition of the Games, young Primrose Everdeen (Willow Shields) is eligible to represent District 12 for the first time, a prospect that frightens her terribly – especially when her name is called. In an act of supreme self-sacrifice, Prim’s older sister, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), volunteers to take the place of her younger sibling. Upon her acceptance as a stand-in, Katniss and fellow District 12 tribute Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) are transported to the Capitol for their date with destiny, an odyssey that will bring them more than they ever could have expected.

In preparation for the Games, Katniss and Peeta are trained by former champion Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), and their public personas are packaged and promoted by a team of image handlers, including Cinna (Lenny Kravitz) and Effie (Elizabeth Banks). They’re also paraded – literally – before eager audiences of fanatic spectators in a variety of pre-competition festivities, culminating in appearances on a wildly popular talk show hosted by flamboyant emcee Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci).

Despite her initial contempt for the entire proceeding, Katniss’s icy veneer slowly thaws, unwittingly charming fans and potential “sponsors,” benefactors capable of providing valuable assistance during the Games. But, despite Katniss’s big splash with spectators, Peeta makes an equally huge impression when he publicly declares his longstanding unrequited love for his fellow tribute, providing an additional twist on the already-overhyped spectacle, a revelation that’s news even to Katniss. It’s also an unexpected distraction for the unlikely heroine, piling on more stress at a time when it’s needed least.

With the advance festivities complete, the Games get under way in a forested arena fitted with cleverly camouflaged cameras and state-of-the-art playing field modification equipment, all controlled by broadcast director Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley), who’s frequently called upon to script the competition in accordance with President Snow’s wishes. And so the fight to survive begins, an ordeal that includes elements of deception, manipulation, alliance, romance, unexpected rule changes, District pride, defiance, ingenuity, fear and hope, a volatile combination of ingredients that keeps viewers – both on- and off-screen – riveted.

Given the savage nature of the picture’s principal event, anyone with an ounce of civility probably can’t help but wonder why the population of Panem would so willingly tolerate this grotesque abomination. But then, considering the character of the empire’s culture, with its pervasive mantra of rule by fear, I suppose it’s understandable that the citizens have been scared into state-sanctioned compliance. But must they be?

Fear, for what it’s worth, can be a tremendous motivator to compel a person (or a population) into a desired form of behavior. However, regrettable as that might be, this wouldn’t happen if those being targeted didn’t buy into these circumstances in the first place. For better or worse, the targets’ beliefs materialize the reality they experience – even if they aren’t aware of them – through the conscious creation process, and they must, consequently, live with the fallout of that manifestation – that is, until they decide to change the beliefs driving their creations.

In light of that, explorations of fear-based beliefs contribute significantly to the unfolding of the picture’s narrative and its underlying themes. It’s perhaps most prevalent in the film’s depiction of the behavior of Panem’s population. Given the protracted history of conflict that existed prior to the empire’s establishment, a war-weary citizenry was so desperate for peace that it was willing to do whatever was necessary to achieve it, even if that meant embracing strong-arm tactics that required trading individual liberty for personal security. The culture of fear that grew out of those circumstances gradually came to be accepted as a necessary evil, a belief that was perpetually reinforced by the state’s practices and the population’s capitulation. (Does any of this sound remotely familiar?)

Omnipresent armed peacekeepers, fenced-in district borders and hovering observation vehicles are all employed to keep citizens in line. But the Games are perhaps the most effective means of control, especially among the young, thanks to the ever-present threat of being selected as a contestant. The fear that this spectacle engenders keeps the population subdued and malleable, with those who go unselected being eternally grateful for the odds having fallen in their favor. Such circumstances serve to chill any thoughts of rising up, questioning authority and asserting individuality. And the state knows this, doing all it can to encourage it.

Of course, the population need not be perpetually saddled these conditions. Change is always possible as long as beliefs allowing it are brought into play. And that’s where our heroine and hero come in; they embody the notion of overcoming their fears, not only as a means to promote their own survival but also to provide an inspiring example to the viewers of their ordeal, showing them that they need not remain under the thumb of imperial authoritarianism.

Getting past one’s fears and moving on to live heroically is an aspect of conscious creation philosophy that’s often undervalued, yet it’s crucial to forward movement. Without it, personal growth and development sputters, stifles and stagnates, keeping us from reaching our true potential. As I have often said, those who stay stuck in fear stay stuck in place.

Thankfully, Katniss and Peeta help show their constituents the way forward. In doing so, they also help to show that change is possible for anyone, not just a select few who are at the helm of power. However, achieving this, like overcoming fear, is only possible when one believes it to be true. Through their actions – some of which are highly unconventional – the protagonists set an example, not only for their fellow citizens but also for those of us on the other side of the screen.

The protagonists’ most effective weapon against these circumstances is the hope they inspire, a force whose power even the President recognizes. He’s even willing to allow a little of it to keep the spirit of viewing audiences from becoming totally atrophied (but not enough, of course, to elicit unwanted beliefs and actions). Imagine what’s possible, however, when hope-based beliefs are unleashed in sufficient strength on a population craving to shed their shackles and undermine the tactics of the fear mongers. Now that’s a game changer.

While “The Hunger Games” does an excellent job of conveying its main themes, it has its shortcomings, too. The story line, for example, is a bit predictable and derivative, combining elements from a variety of sources we’ve seen before, including “Rollerball” (1975), “The Truman Show” (1998), “Brave New World” (1998) and the reality series Survivor (this may be due to the nature of the source material, but it’s present in the screen version nevertheless). The pacing is also uneven at times, especially in the first half, and some of the production values, like costume design and makeup, are a bit over the top (think “A Clockwork Orange” (1971) meets “The Fifth Element” (1997) meets RuPaul’s Drag Race). And since the book that this is based on is part of a trilogy, sequels are already in the works, leaving viewers of this installment with a somewhat unsatisfying conclusion that’s both somewhat ambivalent and full of unanswered questions.

Despite this, however, the film holds one’s attention well. Even though it’s easy to see how the story will play out, the route it takes to get there is full of suspenseful twists and turns. Its excellent cinematography, visual effects and fine performances (especially by Lawrence, Harrelson and Tucci) make for entertaining viewing. I was also pleased that the picture was not overly gratuitous; given the nature of the narrative, the film easily could have become a nauseating gore-fest, but, thankfully, the filmmakers resisted this temptation, keeping the imagery appropriately in context without becoming visually assaulting.

When faced with the impending loss of a loved one a number of years ago, I was fearful of what was about to come. The attending physician could see this and pulled me aside, saying “when there’s life, there’s hope.” And even though we both knew what the outcome of this situation was going to be, his words helped me conquer my fears to face the ordeal. So it is also with a downtrodden people beset by many perils who become inspired by the actions of a courageous few who give them the hope to press on. “The Hunger Games” delivers on that point, and one can only hope that audiences are paying attention.

Copyright © 2012, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

Technorati Tags: "A Clockwork Orange", "Brave New World". Survivor, "Rollerball", "The Fifth Element", "The Truman Show", “The Hunger Games”, alliance, authoritarian tactics, beliefs, Brent Marchant, Change, conscious creation, deception, defiance, District 12, Donald Sutherland, dystopian future, Elizabeth Banks, fear, Film, Gary Ross, hero, heroine, hope, individual liberty, ingenuity, Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Katniss Everdeen, Lenny Kravitz, Liam Hemsworth, manipulation, movie, necessary evil, odds, Panem, Peeta Mellark, Personal Growth, personal security, pride, romance, rule by fear, rule changes, RuPaul's Drag Race, self-sacrifice, Stanley Tucci, Suzanne Collins, talk show, Toby Jones, tribute, unrequited love, Wes Bentley, Woody Harrelson

READ: Conscious creation films fare well at Oscars

Movies with conscious creation-related themes fared well once again at this year’s Oscars ceremony in Hollywood on Sunday night. There weren’t many surprises, however, with front-running nominees taking home most of the awards as expected.

“The Artist,” a silent, black-and-white comedy-drama about Hollywood’s transition from the age of silent films to talkies, came up the big winner of the evening, capturing five Academy Awards, including best picture, best director (Michel Hazanavicius) and best actor (Jean Dujardin), as well as honors for best costume design and best musical score. The film, which deals with the theme of the need to evolve, a key principle of conscious creation theory, was the favorite heading into the evening, taking home half of the awards for which the picture was nominated. The movie had previously been honored in numerous awards season competitions, having won multiple statues at the Critics Choice Awards, the Golden Globe Awards and the Independent Spirit Awards, as well as best actor honors at the Cannes Film Festival and in the Screen Actors Guild Awards competition.

Another film that paid homage to the silent movie era, “Hugo,” tied “The Artist” with the most wins, taking home five Oscars in technical categories, including best cinematography, best art direction, best sound editing, best sound mixing and best visual effects. The film, which addressed the magic we create in our lives – an everyday occurrence in the practice of conscious creation – led all pictures with 11 nominations and had previously earned the Critics Choice Award for best art direction and the Golden Globe Award for best director (Martin Scorsese).

One of the few surprises of the evening was Meryl Streep’s win as best actress for her portrayal of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in “The Iron Lady.” The controversial film explored the notion that “what we think, we become,” the core of conscious creation philosophy. Streep’s win for her magnificent performance was a bit of a surprise, given that the momentum going into the evening appeared to have been with Viola Davis for her stellar portrayal in “The Help” (even though Streep had previously earned the Golden Globe Award for best actress in a drama). Streep’s victory was her third on a record 17 nominations and her first win since “Sophie’s Choice” in 1982. “The Iron Lady” also picked up the Oscar for best makeup, and deservedly so, primarily for its use of aging facial prosthetics that, for once, actually looked real.

There was no surprise in the best supporting actor category, however, with 82-year-old Christopher Plummer winning his first Oscar (on only his second nomination) for his portrayal of a geriatric widower who comes out of the closet in the comedy-drama “Beginners.” The picture, which examines that it’s never too late to change one’s life as long as one is willing to embrace beliefs that make such adjustments possible, was something of a sleeper at the box office, although it has garnered considerable attention since its release with Plummer’s victories in the Critics Choice, Golden Globe, Screen Actors Guild and Independent Spirit Awards competitions. Plummer goes into the Oscar record books with this win, too, as the eldest award recipient in this category.

There was also little surprise in the best supporting actress category, with Octavia Spencer taking home a richly deserved award for her performance in “The Help.” While I did not have an opportunity to review this picture prior to the Oscars, it, too, is replete with significant conscious creation themes, such as facing fears and embracing change. This film also illustrates why the Oscars need to establish a new category for best acting ensemble, because, as good as Spencer was in her part, any number of her co-stars could have just as easily captured awards for their performances in this picture. Spencer had previously won accolades for her performance in the Critics Choice, Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild Awards competitions.

Films with conscious creation-related themes also won awards in the script categories. Woody Allen earned his third writing Oscar for his original screenplay of “Midnight in Paris,” the charming tale of an author who changes his life by exploring changes in temporal probabilities. In the adapted screenplay category, Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash took top honors for “The Descendants,” the comedy-drama about a successful Hawaii real estate lawyer struggling with challenges in his life and how he addresses them by looking within and seeking simpler solutions.

While I was generally pleased with the outcomes in most of the categories (actress, supporting actress, original screenplay, technical awards), I would have rather seen alternate winners in several others. As much as I enjoyed “The Artist” as a pleasant afternoon diversion, I have to question its wins in the best picture, director and actor categories. I would have preferred to see “Hugo” take best picture and director honors, and I believe George Clooney would have made a better best actor selection for his performance in “The Descendants.” However, despite my preference of Clooney’s performance in “The Descendants,” I must admit that I was disappointed with the picture’s adapted screenplay award, an honor that I would have bestowed upon either “Hugo” or “The Ides of March,” both of which were more focused than their rambling Hawaiian counterpart. And, as much as I enjoyed Plummer’s performance in “Beginners,” I felt the best supporting actor award would have been better given to Kenneth Branagh for his tour-de-force portrayal of acting legend Sir Laurence Olivier in “My Week with Marilyn.”

It will be interesting to see what 2012 holds in store for movie audiences. Overall, 2011 was a rather weak year, producing a number of good, but not great, films, and a number of pictures that deserved wider recognition (“The Adjustment Bureau,” “The Debt” and “Higher Ground,” for example) failed to receive their due. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that Hollywood and independent filmmakers continue to release pictures with conscious creation themes, since these vehicles continue to provide us with some of the most enlightening and entertaining tools for conveying these messages in this very important time of change.

Copyright © 2012, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

Technorati Tags: "Beginners", "Higher Ground", "Hugo", "Midnight in Paris", "My Week with Marilyn", "Sophie's Choice", "The Adjustment Bureau", "The Debt", "The Descendants", "The Help", "The Ides of March", "The Iron Lady", “The Artist”, Academy Award, acting ensemble, Alexander Payne, black-and-white, Brent Marchant, British Prime Minister, Cannes Film Festival, Christopher Plummer, conscious creation, Critics Choice Award, embracing change, evolve, facial prosthetics, facing fears, Film, George Clooney, geriatric widower, Golden Globe Award, Hawaii, Hollywood, independent filmmaker, Independent Spirit Award, Jean Dujardin, Kenneth Branagh, magic, Margaret Thatcher, Martin Scorsese, Meryl Streep, Michael Hazanavicius, Movies, Octavia Spencer, Oscar, out of the closet, probabilities, real estate lawyer, Screen Actors Guild Award, silent film, talkies, Viola Davis, Woody Allen

READ: ‘Margin Call’ dissects the financial meltdown with keen precision

“Margin Call” (2011). Cast: Zachary Quinto, Kevin Spacey, Paul Bettany, Jeremy Irons, Stanley Tucci, Demi Moore, Mary McDonnell, Simon Baker, Penn Badgley, Aasif Mandvi. Director: J.C. Chandor. Screenplay: J.C. Chandor. http://margincallmovie.com/

The economy has been on everyone’s mind for several years now, and many have justifiably pondered how we got ourselves into this mess. But, as is becoming increasingly clear, the causes go beyond economics, having as much to do with human nature and what we create as it does with money. These questions are examined in meticulous detail in the Wall Street drama, “Margin Call,” now available on DVD.

In 2008, with the economy on the brink of a largely unforeseen meltdown, Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto), a junior financial risk analyst for a major investment bank, unwittingly makes an ominous discovery that has staggering implications for his company. Having been assigned the risk analysis work of his recently laid-off senior colleague, Eric Dale (Stanley Tucci), Peter concludes that the firm is overextended and on the verge of collapse. Upon making this discovery, Peter calls in the firm’s higher-ups (Paul Bettany, Kevin Spacey, Simon Baker, Demi Moore, Jeremy Irons), who concur with his findings and begin assessing what to do (and who to blame). Management is ultimately faced with making some difficult choices, namely, (1) taking drastic measures to save the company, even if that potentially means shafting investors and staff in the process, or (2) failure. Over the course of the next day, the powers-that-be debate the options of how to proceed – and how to live with their decisions. This becomes especially difficult, too, when the one person they need most to help sort out matters – Eric Dale – is nowhere to be found.

The economic crisis of the past several years (and its prelude, as presented in this film) is a prime example of what conscious creation practitioners call a “mass event,” one in which each of us contributes to its manifestation. And, in scenarios like this, as Shakespeare observed, we each play our respective parts on the global stage, fleshing out the probabilities we have each chosen to examine as part of our exploration into physical existence. We each choose to delve into different aspects of that grand drama; some of us look at “success” and others probe “failure,” some of us examine the ethics of our actions and others disregard them completely, some of us consider the well-being of everyone while others only look out for themselves, and we all do this within the context of a bigger picture that deals with a common theme.

To that end, “Margin Call” does an excellent job of depicting the foregoing as it applies to the world of finance (and its impact on all other areas of life). The audience is presented with all points of view, treating them more or less equally, without judgment, showing that each has its own degree of legitimacy, whether or not one would personally agree (or disagree) with any particular outlook. While it’s clear that director J.C. Chandor has a viewpoint of his own in telling this story, he’s also very careful to present everyone’s outlook fairly, showing the inherent validity of each of those views, regardless of whether he (or others) are likely to dispute them, for understanding the thinking behind those differences in outlooks is crucial if we ever hope to reconcile them.

These viewpoints are reflected in the personas of the key players, providing the audience with symbolic representations of the various lines of probability each chooses to explore. For example, for Peter’s boss, Sam Rogers (Spacey), the ethical implications of how the company plans to resolve its problems are almost more than he can handle. At the same time, for Sam’s boss, John Tuld (Irons), doing whatever is “necessary” is seen merely as part of what it takes to survive in the market – and what anyone (or any entity) concerned with its continued viability would do if its existence were threatened. As for Peter, who stumbles upon the issue triggering the crisis, it’s one thing to be shocked at the ramifications of what’s about to unfold, but that doesn’t mean one’s outrage can’t be set aside when personal survival is on the line, an attitude that he quietly maintains but isn’t afraid to tap when the need arises.

Tied up in this are several other significant conscious creation themes, such as the principle I refer to as “un-conscious creation” or “creation by default,” wherein the manifestation process is allowed to unfold without any sense of personal awareness and/or without any concern for the consequences. For instance, it’s apparent on a number of occasions that those at the highest ranks of management, such as Jared Cohen (Baker) and Tuld, have little understanding of what’s really going on. They often request that technical explanations of what’s transpiring be put into “plain English,” clearly revealing their incompetence about the areas over which they’re supposed to have oversight. That’s a scary prospect to consider, especially if the lack of economic expertise in the management of just this one fictional firm is any indication of what prevails in the real-world financial marketplace. Indeed, if this depiction is accurate, it really shouldn’t come as any surprise why the financial industry is in the mess it’s in. With economic creation by default allowed to run amok, chaos shouldn’t be seen as an unexpected result.

So why did things go so terribly wrong? In large part, it seems that the firm placed too much reliance on exotic financial formulas, letting the numbers do the work, rather than requiring engaged human beings to be personally involved in the wealth creation process. However, when the numbers are left to their own devices and don’t perform as expected, trouble ensues. Dale apparently tried warning management of this problem before his dismissal and before the issue got out of hand, but, since they either didn’t understand the explanations (see above) or were too unconcerned to pay attention to them, the warnings went unheeded. This thus points to another intrinsic quality of creation by default, the abrogation of responsibility. And that’s significant, for without the tempering influence of responsibility, conscious creation can get out of hand. It’s like a garden hose turned on full blast with no one gripping the nozzle; the outflow sprays all over everything, making a mess of all it touches.

Of course, when things go wrong like this, practitioners of un-conscious creation naturally look for scapegoats, and that’s certainly the case here. The top brass certainly has no intention of taking the fall, so they proceed to review the list of vulnerable candidates. Dale probably would have made the “ideal” choice, but since he’s already been let go, someone else needs to take the hit. Fellow analyst Sarah Robertson (Moore) seems like a possible candidate, given that she didn’t see the problem coming, as does Cohen, mainly because he’s caught in the middle, and that’s always a good place to cut when financial straits become dire. Or perhaps both of them should go; after all, they’re both pointing fingers at one another, which makes it plausible that they each may have had a role in the onset of this catastrophe. No matter how things shake out, though, this is more evidence of the abrogation of responsibility and creation by default allowed to run out of control.

The most damaging fallout from all this, though, is on those who didn’t see any of this coming, namely, the investors and the firm’s employees. Those who had the least involvement in the creation process bear the greatest brunt in terms of financial losses and pink slips. This illustrates the inherent connectedness involved in the conscious creation process, something we should all bear in mind as we go about manifesting the reality around us. Even if it seems like our participation in the process is limited, we’re nevertheless still part of it, just by virtue of our inherent connectedness to the overall whole. We might not be the ones holding the nozzle of the garden hose, but that doesn’t mean we still can’t get wet from it.

So must we settle for these circumstances? Or can we create something different? In one of his more impassioned observations, Tuld “explains things” to Sam: “It’s just money; it’s made up. Pieces of paper with pictures on it so we don’t have to kill each other just to get something to eat. It’s not wrong. And it’s certainly no different today than it’s ever been. … And you and I can’t control it, or stop it, or even slow it. Or even ever so slightly alter it. We just react. And we make a lot of money if we get it right. And we get left by the side of the road if we get it wrong. … Yeah, there may be more of us today than there’s ever been. But the percentages – they stay exactly the same.”

But this viewpoint speaks to a mindset that is increasingly losing support. With the rise of activist movements like Occupy Wall Street, things do seem different this time. It seems there’s a possibility for real change going forward, especially now that more people have become wise to what has been going on all along and are employing a heightened sense of awareness to the manifestation process. Even though Tuld and his real-world peers may have believed that the downturn that began in 2008 would be no different from those that periodically occurred as far back as 1637, they hadn’t counted on a change in the mass consciousness in proclaiming their assessments, and that component just might make the difference this time. After all, as Albert Einstein observed, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them,” but now that new thinking is entering the equation, those who have been stumping for the status quo just might find themselves surprised this time, and in large part thanks to conscious creation.

“Margin Call” didn’t draw much attention when it was first released last fall, but its profile has risen of late with several award nominations, including an Academy Award nod for best original screenplay and Independent Spirit Award nominations for best first feature and best first screenplay, as well as the ISA Robert Altman Award for best casting and performing ensemble. Filmmaker J.C. Chandor has done an excellent job writing and directing this debut release, getting great performances out of each of his cast members. The script has a slight tendency to get talky at times, but its detail, balance and authenticity save the day, taking a complicated and potentially dry subject and making it engaging.

Mark Twain noted that history seldom repeats itself, but it often rhymes, an observation especially applicable in the world of finances. This likely has more to do with what we create than with the forces of the market, something of which we’re beginning to become increasingly aware. Movies like “Margin Call” help to alert us to these conditions, and one can only hope that we heed its message to truly make a difference, not only in what we reap, but also in what we sow.

Copyright © 2012, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.

 

Technorati Tags: “Margin Call”, Academy Award, activist movement, Albert Einstein, Brent Marchant, collapse, connectedness, conscious creation, creation by default, Demi Moore, DVD, economics, Ethics, existence, exotic financial formula, failure, Film, financial risk analyst, garden hose, human nature, incompetence, Independent Spirit Award, investment bank, investor, J.C. Chandor, Jeremy Irons, judgment, Kevin Spacey, lines of probability, Mark Twain, Mary McDonnell, mass consciousness, mass event, meltdown, movie, Occupy Wall Street, Paul Bettany, pink slip, plain English, powers-that-be, responsibility, Robert Altman, scapegoat, Shakespeare, Simon Baker, Stanley Tucci, Success, The economy, the market, the numbers, top brass, un-conscious creation, Wall Street, wealth creation, well being, Zachary Quinto

Next Page »