Tag

Amanda Peet

Explorations of Intent

Sisters Rebecca (Rebecca Hall, left) and Mary (Amanda Peet, right) wrestle with their feelings toward friends, relatives and one another in the recently released comedy-drama, “Please Give.” Photo by Piotr Redlinski, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.

“Please Give” (2010). Cast: Catherine Keener, Oliver Platt, Rebecca Hall, Amanda Peet, Ann Guilbert, Sarah Steele, Lois Smith, Thomas Ian Nicholas, Josh Pais, Rebecca Budig. Director: Nicole Holofcener. Screenplay: Nicole Holofcener. www.sonyclassics.com/pleasegive

Behind every consciously created materialization in our lives lies an intent. It’s something that, at least superficially, takes on one appearance but often reveals itself to be something entirely different, especially once the interactions of others become involved in it. As esoteric as that might sound, that premise provides the basis of the story line of the new comedy-drama, “Please Give.”

Upscale furniture dealers Kate (Catherine Keener, left) and Alex (Oliver Platt, right) grapple with questions of intent in the new comedy-drama, “Please Give.” Photo by Piotr Redlinski, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.

Kate (Catherine Keener) and Alex (Oliver Platt) run a trendy Manhattan furniture showroom that resells well-kept retro pieces acquired from estate sales. Their acquisition tactics are a bit questionable, though; they prey on the clueless, grieving survivors of deceased seniors who have no idea how much the merchandise is worth, snatching up the goods for a pittance and reselling them for exorbitant prices to upscale Gothamites. It’s a practice that’s earned them a pretty cushy existence, too, enough so that they and their teenage daughter, Abby (Sarah Steele), can live a comfortable city lifestyle. In fact, they’ve done well enough to purchase the apartment unit of their curmudgeonly next-door neighbor, Andra (Ann Guilbert), whose ailing health has put her near the top of the list in God’s waiting room.

But the couple’s ethics also carry a price, at least for Kate. She often feels guilty about the affluence she and her husband have amassed. To alleviate these feelings, Kate regularly engages in spontaneous acts of selflessness, such as handing out money to New York’s homeless, a practice that seldom works out as intended (and never really gives her the relief she seeks). Kate also feels uneasy each time she sees Andra, wondering what her real feelings are toward her elderly neighbor: Are they those of someone who genuinely cares about a senior citizen’s well-being, or are they those of someone who can’t wait for the old lady to kick off so that she can grab her apartment? On top of all this, Kate often wonders what kind of example she and Alex are setting for Abby. All combined, these circumstances force Kate to come to terms with her innermost intentions, rightly or wrongly, for better or worse, and with or without the encumbrance of guilt.

Cantankerous senior Andra (Ann Guilbert, left) struggles to understand the ways of today’s youth, represented here by self-centered teen Abby in strange camouflage (Sarah Steele, right), in the new release, “Please Give.” Photo by Piotr Redlinski, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.

But Kate’s intentions aren’t the only ones probed in this picture. We also see Andra’s granddaughters, Rebecca (Rebecca Hall) and Mary (Amanda Peet), wrestling with their intentions when it comes to caring, or not caring, respectively, for the welfare of their elder relation. Rebecca, in particular, also grapples with her intents underlying other issues, such as unraveling her feelings about grandma’s neighbors and trying to understand the often-selfish ways of her self-absorbed sister. And speaking of self-absorption, we see plenty of that with Alex and Abby as well; their self-centeredness is routinely expressed without hesitation, remorse, an awareness of what drives it or even its very existence.

The effects of questionable intents weigh heavily on the mind of Kate (Catherine Keener, right) in raising her self-absorbed daughter Abby (Sarah Steele, left) in director Nicole Holofcener’s new film, “Please Give.” Photo by Piotr Redlinski, courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics.

“Please Give” skillfully examines the subject of intent from a variety of angles and through a host of intricate interactions among characters. When all the threads of this colorful tapestry are interwoven, viewers are treated to a thoughtful exploration of the topic, one that provides much food for thought in helping us understand what’s behind our creations and the realities in which they arise. But what I like most about this film’s narrative is its restraint in judging the characters’ intentions. While there certainly are suggestions about which types of intentions might be most preferable, given the current state of the world, the film is also careful not to slam those that might be considered less desirable. I believe that’s because the creators of this picture recognize that, as human beings, we’re all here to learn different life lessons and that all options are equally valid as part of that learning curve. The path to enlightenment has many stops along the way, and we need to visit them all to get to our destination.

Bearing that in mind, some of the intentions explored might seem surprising. For instance, is Kate’s altruism always the proper course for her to follow? Most of us would probably answer “yes” without a second thought. But what if her actions and intentions impeded someone learning a life lesson in something like ingratitude, as is the case with Andra, for example? Her well-meaning intent in such a case might unduly interfere with the experience the other individual is attempting to obtain, and she thus shouldn’t be surprised when her gestures of generosity and thoughtfulness are rebuffed. Now, that’s not to suggest that Kate’s intentions should be shelved; it just means that she needs to redirect her efforts to where they’re genuinely most appreciated, which may be toward someone whom she thinks is undeserving. Clearly, intentions have a wide range of expression, and sooner or later we need to experience them all, no matter how improbable they might initially appear.

In true conscious creation/law of attraction fashion, the practice of examining our intentions once again brings us back to the question of getting clear with ourselves about our beliefs, the driving force behind our intents and, ultimately, the realities we create. Nearly all the characters in this film are in need of doing that, and so, in that regard, the picture provides an in-depth look at how to go about that through the eyes of those searching to understand themselves.

“Please Give” is an enjoyable piece of cinema, neither raucously funny nor tragically dramatic, but a nice way to spend a quiet afternoon at the movies (especially if you’re looking for something other than the typical summertime fare). The performances are all wonderful, but Guilbert is a real stand-out (here’s hoping she’s not forgotten during the awards season). The writing is generally solid, though some elements of the picture seem oddly out of place, such as the opening credits sequence.

Intentions can seem like funny things at times, but the better we understand them, the better off we’ll be in the long run. “Please Give” does a lot to help start us down the right path with that.

PHOTO CAPTIONS:

June 2, 2010 2 comments

•-Feature Arts & Entertainment

An Unmitigated Disaster

written by Brent Marchant

The late great City of Los Angeles takes its final bow as it slowly slides into the ocean in the new action adventure, “2012.” Photo courtesy of Columbia TriStar Marketing Group, Inc.

“2012” (2009). Cast: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, Danny Glover, Oliver Platt, Woody Harrelson, Tom McCarthy, Liam James, Morgan Lily, Zlatko Buric, Beatrice Rosen, Alexandre Haussman, Philippe Haussman, Johann Urb, John Billingsley, Chin Han, Osric Chau, Cheng Tsang, Lisa Lu, Blu Mankuma, George Segal, Stephen McHattie, Jimi Mistry, Henry O. Director: Roland Emmerich. Screenplay: Roland Emmerich and Harald Kloser. www.whowillsurvive2012.com.

As one who writes about movies from a specific perspective—how they reflect law of attraction principles—I focus my efforts on reviewing films that effectively depict these metaphysical concepts rather than simply scrutinizing whatever happens to be current. Because of that, I tend to review only pictures that I like, those that I believe are helpful in portraying these notions for viewers (why write about movies that don’t work?). But every so often, a film comes along that, because of its hype (and its implied metaphysical connotations), simply can’t go ignored (or unreviewed). Such is the case with the blockbuster “2012,” a movie that I hoped would shed some light on this potentially significant temporal (and spiritual) phenomenon. Sadly, however, it’s an unmitigated disaster—both in its story and as a finished product.

There’s not much going on here. Essentially, the earth is falling apart, and mankind is racing against time to save something of itself before the special effects budget runs out. Sequence after sequence depicts the obliteration of familiar landmarks and global capitals as a result of earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis. It’s like watching every Irwin Allen movie ever made, all rolled up into one big episodically linked, computer-generated package of mayhem and destruction.

John Cusack (left) and Woody Harrelson await the eruption of the Yellowstone Park super-caldera, one of a string of disasters that make up the story line of the recently released blockbuster, “2012.” Photo courtesy of Columbia TriStar Marketing Group, Inc.

People are needed to carry the narrative, of course, so the film wisely incorporates some bona fide humans to accomplish this. Viewers thus get to watch Armageddon play out from various perspectives, including those of a down-and-out writer (John Cusack), his estranged wife (Amana Peet) and her new love interest (Tom McCarthy), all of whom always happen to be in the right place at the right time (they’ve obviously mastered the art of synchronicity, if nothing else); a team of intrepid scientists (Chiwetel Ejiofor, John Billingsley, Jimi Mistry) struggling to save the planet against impossible odds (maybe now they’d wished they’d paid more attention in religion class); a U.S. President (Danny Glover) trying to hold things together in trying times, aided by an ambitious political advisor (Oliver Platt) (some things never change); and a gonzo alternative journalist (Woody Harrelson) who broadcasts from his ramshackle RV (and who resembles a cross between Art Bell and Robin Williams).

Since the special effects are the real star of this story, however, the actors knew enough not to outshine their CGI counterparts, and so they accommodated accordingly by turning in performances so subdued that they might as well have phoned them in. But even the high-gloss special effects have issues, often portraying scenes in cartoonish, laughably implausible ways. It’s amazing, for example, how a capsizing aircraft carrier can ride the crest of a massive tsunami with its planes still on deck and apparently intact (and who says Americans can’t build things the way they used to?).

What’s most distressing, however, is how shabbily the film treats the 2012 Mayan calendar prophecy material. In fact, it’s barely given lip service, reducing it to passing references that amount to little more than “oh, and by the way, the Mayans predicted all this” (which, as most Mayans and Mayan scholars would contend, is largely inaccurate, too). Virtually nothing is said of the promise that could await us when a new era is ushered in with the Mayan calendar’s ending on December 21, 2012. It’s as if this material was used as nothing more than a convenient coat hook on which to hang the premise for an otherwise-unrelated tale of apocalyptic abomination.

Presidential advisor Oliver Platt (left) and geologist Chiwetel Ejiofor debate the future of humanity in the apocalyptic tale, “2012.” Photo courtesy of Columbia TriStar Marketing Group, Inc.

It’s unfortunate so many film and television producers are taking such a dim view of 2012, for they’re painting a bleak picture that many viewers are buying into, which could have significant metaphysical consequences, particularly where the law of attraction is concerned. Since this philosophy maintains that we each draw to us the existence we seek through our beliefs and intents, it means we always have an endless range of possibilities available to us. And making the right choices in this regard is arguably becoming increasingly critical, especially now that we’re approaching a time that’s seen as so significant by so many.

So, given the foregoing, I can’t help but ask, why would we want to model our future on a possibility like the one depicted in this movie? Even if we see a need to cleanse the planet of its many ills, must we really destroy Tokyo, Rio and Paducah to do so? I’d like to hope we consider other options before unleashing a firestorm of natural disasters and social collapse to achieve that end, especially since mass event creations can manifest as potent materializations (for better or worse) when energized by the power of the human collective. I’d like to hope we end up agreeing with 2012 scholar John Major Jenkins, who, in a recent Coast to Coast AM radio interview, said of works like this film, “Maybe we need [them] to purge [such ideas] out of ourselves.”

As I noted at the outset, I rarely write negative reviews. But unless you’re someone who really enjoys watching things blow up for 2½ hours (destroying the world takes time apparently), there’s not much to recommend here. It’s a shame that those behind this film chose to tell a story about 2012 in this way, selling short what could be a miraculous time in the history of humanity and the planet. Such a missed opportunity, regrettably, is a bigger disaster than any of the calamities depicted on screen.

Featured Contributor

A lifelong movie fan and longtime student of metaphysics (with an emphasis in law of attraction/conscious creation principles), free-lance writer/editor Brent Marchant is the author of Get the Picture: Conscious Creation Goes to the Movies (Moment Point Press, www.momentpoint.com). His additional writing credits include contributions to www.beliefnet.com and to Divine Revolution, Sethnet Journal and Reality Change magazines. Brent also maintains an ongoing blog about metaphysical cinema at www.getthepicturebrentmarchant.blogspot.com. He holds a B.A. in magazine journalism from Syracuse University and resides in Chicago. You can email him at brentmarchant@momentpoint.com.

December 2, 2009 1 comment