Join host Frankie Picasso and me for the next edition of Movies with Meaning on The Good Media Network’s Frankiesense & More broadcast, today, December 13, at 1 pm ET. We’ll discuss a number of new movie releases, as well as preview some awards season contenders getting ready for release during the upcoming holidays. For the video version, tune in on Facebook Live by clicking here. And, for the audio only podcast edition, check out The Good Media Network’s home page by clicking here. Join us for a Santa’s bag full of fun movie chat!
“The Favourite” (2018). Cast: Olivia Colman, Emma Stone, Rachel Weisz, Nicholas Hoult, James Smith, Joe Alwyn, Mark Gatiss. Director: Yorgos Lanthimos. Screenplay: Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara. Web site. Trailer.
We all love to get our way. It’s fulfilling when we see our wishes come to fruition, often leaving us with a warm, satisfied glow inside. But how we get there can be challenging, especially if we find ourselves pushing too hard to see the desired result realized. So it is with a beleaguered monarch and her two closest but contentious advisors in the new period piece dark comedy, “The Favourite.”
In 18th Century England, Queen Anne (Olivia Colman) rules – or attempts to rule – her empire in the face of many public and personal challenges. Officially speaking, the capricious, tempestuous monarch is charged with overseeing the country’s war efforts against pesky continentals (most notably the French), although she’s often clueless as to the status of the conflict. She’s also responsible for figuring out how to pay for the military campaign, a quandary that frequently embroils her in the midst of an ongoing battle between opposing forces in Parliament pitting the ruling Tories, led by Lord Godolphin (James Smith), against the power-seeking Whigs, under the stewardship of Lord Harley (Nicholas Hoult). And she must contend with the ire of the land-owning gentry, who rail at attempts to raise taxes to raise revenue for the war effort. It’s a lot to handle for someone who’s easily befuddled and more interested in indulging her self-indulgent whims than addressing the affairs of state.
Personally, the Queen has more than a full plate of issues. Her health is failing in many ways, a problem that has been unfolding both physically and psychologically for years. She’s also lonesome, given that she’s been widowed and has suffered the deaths of 17 children lost through miscarriages, stillbirths and various forms of early demise. And, when she doesn’t get her way, even in the simplest of matters, she often flies into a hysterical, uncontrollable rage, followed by bouts of prolonged, inconsolable whimpering.
Fortunately, Her Majesty is not without sources of comfort. Her doting, ever-attendant companion, Lady Sarah (Rachel Weisz), is constantly by her side, offering reassurance and guidance, even if providing such comfort means being less than truthful. In return for such “kindness,” the Queen rewards her confidante handsomely, both in her personal affairs and the public agendas she clandestinely seeks to promote (or, more precisely, seeks to skillfully manipulate into being). And, most of the time, the Queen falls for her companion’s carefully orchestrated schemes.
Things begin to change, however, with the arrival of a young woman seeking employment at the palace, Abigail (Emma Stone). As a distant relative of Lady Sarah, Abigail hopes her connection will help her land a position in the royal household. Abigail believes that such a new station will help her restore the aristocratic standing she held before her father “lost her” on a bet, an event that thrust her into a life of servitude and degradation. Fortunately, her connection to Lady Sarah helps her secure a position, though, as part of the kitchen help, it’s far from what she had hoped for. But, despite this setback, Abigail is not ready to give up just yet.
When the Queen becomes ill with painful leg sores, Abigail draws upon her knowledge of healing remedies to help out. She takes it upon herself to collect herbs from the nearby forest to make a balm that she applies to the monarch’s lesions while she sleeps. Although her actions are seen as somewhat presumptive by Lady Sarah, Abigail’s initiative pleases the Queen, something that gets the new arrival promoted to the position of the monarch’s personal maid. As Anne and Abigail get to know one another, the servant becomes a confidante whose influence rivals that of Lady Sarah, something that notably perturbs the advisor who believes she has exclusive access to Her Majesty’s ear. And, quite understandably, she resents it, her anger seething ever more with each passing day.
Of course, Abigail’s newfound standing carries a cost. With her influence with the Queen rising, Lord Harley seeks to take advantage of this development by recruiting Abigail into his ranks. He strong-arms her into using her clout to spy on and curry favor with Her Majesty, specifically when it comes to his legislative agenda. At the same time, though, Abigail wants something in return. She seeks to further the restoration of her standing by courting an available suitor, an influential military man, Samuel Masham (Joe Alwyn), a romance that both Lord Harley and the Queen help to facilitate. And, the more Abigail’s star rises, the more it grinds away at Lady Sarah, who helplessly stands by and watches her influence wane. By now the game is clearly afoot as both Lady Sarah and Abigail each seek to be crowned “the favourite.”
So, with everyone conniving to get his or her way, who will come out on top? Well, under most circumstances like this, and at the risk of playing spoiler, the answer typically would be no one. That’s because virtually everyone concerned here is running afoul of one of the key principles of the conscious creation process, the philosophy that maintains we manifest the reality we experience through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents in partnership with our divine collaborator.
Specifically, all of the leading and supporting players in this story are attempting to get their way by pushing the Universe, a practice for which there’s no need. In fact, doing so could actually end up doing more harm than good. As those who are well versed in conscious creation know, our divine collaborator – the Universe, God, Goddess, All That Is or whatever other term best suits you – naturally leans in our direction. Our manifestation partner innately wants to see us succeed and does what it needs to do to help make that possible, even if it doesn’t always seem so. It’s not uncommon, for example, to experience confusing or frustrating setbacks on our way to getting what we want. When such situations arise, we might look at them utterly perplexed, wondering why these seemingly inexplicable detours have occurred. After all, we’ve probably convinced ourselves that we’ve been clear in stating our intents and forming beliefs to make them possible, so why aren’t they materializing? What accounts for these unexpected diversions?
There could actually be many reasons. For instance, in helping to facilitate the manifestation of one of our intents, the Universe may need to arrange for the occurrence of a particularly fortuitous synchronicity that will enable the fulfillment of our sought-after goal. Getting to the destination in this case may seem like it involves going the long way around, but the Universe knows which route will best enable reaching the desired outcome, and we should allow it to do its job. After all, as our partner in creation, it inherently has our best interests at heart, so why would it steer us wrong?
But how many of us are willing to cut our materialization collaborator the necessary slack to see such outcomes realized? We may grow impatient, or we may not be able to peer through the flotsam to see the process as it works itself out. Frustration can set in, and we may try to take matters into our own hands by forcing the situation into being. But this is pushing the Universe, and the results of such endeavors are often disappointing, resulting in delays, distortions or denials of what we hoped would materialize.
The principals in “The Favourite,” sadly, are all pushing the Universe to one degree or another. Whether they resort to bullying and berating one another or brewing secret potions or drawing upon their sexual wiles, they all employ these assorted tactics to push their agendas when things don’t transpire as hoped for, either in terms of time frame or the nature of their circumstances. Instead of trusting the Universe, they try to manhandle their existence into being by wrestling their divine collaborator into submission in hopes that such duress will somehow grant them their wishes.
However, as they all come to discover, their beliefs and actions carry consequences – potentially serious ones – especially when their creations don’t live up to their expectations or when they’re imbued with unanticipated qualities. There’s even a sort of karmic element to what manifests, as what goes around clearly comes around.
When we focus our beliefs and attention exclusively on results with no consideration for the consequences, we unwittingly engage in acts of un-conscious creation or creation by default. This is a perilous course for manifesting our reality, for it can pervert what we’re looking for; it might provide us with what we seek but simultaneously saddle us with all kinds of unintended side effects. Similarly, it may delay or completely deny us what we’re attempting to create, leaving us more frustrated than ever. Examples of each of these outcomes can be seen in the experiences of the Queen and her two confidantes.
So how does one overcome the potential pitfalls of this course of conduct? In nearly all instances, it can be counteracted by an act of faith, an affirmation of the trust we place in our divine collaborator’s backing to help fulfill our goals. It should be noted, though, that this is a belief in its own right, one that’s just as easily supported, or thwarted, as any other we hold. That undercutting typically results when we embrace beliefs based on fear, doubt or contradiction, all of which tend to impede the Universe’s ability to carry out the acts of cooperation we expect it to. Thus, if we think we’re placing our faith in our collaborator’s ability but still don’t see results, we need to take a step back and reassess the nature of our faith-based beliefs – and whether any other intents are at odds with them.
For their part, Queen Anne, Lady Sarah, Abigail and all of their various cronies clearly have issues when it comes to these matters, which is why their plans often go awry or run into a myriad of complications. Because of that, their experiences serve as powerful cautionary tales about what not to do when it comes to conscious creation practices. However, as frustrating as it can be to watch these train wrecks unfold, they often teach us a great deal about what to do by showing us what not to do. And, to be sure, there’s plenty of that going on here.
None of this is meant to suggest that this picture is a depressing tragedy. To the contrary, “The Favourite” is a hilarious romp from start to finish. This wickedly dark, smug period piece comedy is sure to leave viewers routinely agasp at its outrageous humor, which marvelously mixes understatement with in-your-face bawdiness. The three protagonists, brilliantly portrayed by Colman, Stone and Weisz, never disappoint, with each at the top of their game. The film’s smartly written script is crisp and snappy throughout, even if it takes liberties with history and occasionally falls back on director Yorgos Lanthimos’s signature penchant for needless ambiguity. Not everyone will go for this one, though; if you’re easily offended by raucous, ribald humor, this offering is not for you. But, if you enjoy such material, you’ll love this release. Think of it as a mix of the cattiest moments from Dynasty dressed up in 18th Century trappings, and you’ve got an idea what “The Favourite” is all about.
This film is hauling in a boatload of recognition in this year’s awards competitions. In the upcoming Golden Globe Awards contest, “The Favourite” earned five nominations, including best comedy film, best screenplay and acting nods for all three protagonists (Colman in the lead category and Stone and Weisz for their supporting roles), all of whom also earned corresponding recognition in the Screen Actors Guild’s awards program. Among the Independent Spirit Award nominees, the picture earned a nod for best international film. And, in the Critics Choice Awards, the film took in a whopping 14 nominations, including nods for best picture, comedy, director, original screenplay, acting ensemble, and the performances of Colman, Stone and Weisz. There are sure to be more accolades to come where this film is concerned.
When our plans go awry, there may be a natural tendency to throw a tantrum or take the bull by the horns to get what we want. But, as good as such venting might feel in the moment, does it really bring us any closer to attaining what we seek? That’s certainly debatable, and the experiences of those in this film would see to bear that out. So have faith that the Universe will lean in our direction at some point or another. And giddily relish the results when they make their presence felt.
“The Front Runner” (2018). Cast: Hugh Jackman, Vera Farmiga, J.K. Simmons, Alfred Molina, Sara Paxton, Kaitlyn Dever, Mamoudou Athie, Steve Zissis, Mark O’Brien, Chris Coy, Molly Ephraim, Alex Karpovsky, Oliver Cooper, Ari Graynor, John Bedford Lloyd, Spencer Garrett, Bill Burr, Kevin Pollak, Nyasha Hatendi. Archive Footage: Walter Mondale, Tom Brokaw, Jane Pauley, Johnny Carson, Ted Koppel. Director: Jason Reitman. Screenplay: Matt Bai, Jay Caron and Jason Reitman. Book: Matt Bai, All the Truth Is Out. Web site. Trailer.
Realizing our best intentions is a noble goal that many of us would like to see happen. Being able to be of service to others can be both uplifting and fulfilling. But, in carrying out such plans (particularly those that will thrust us into the public spotlight), we had better have our ducks in a row. Loose ends, unresolved issues and poorly conceived indiscretions can all serve to undermine our efforts and thwart us from reaching our objectives, lessons learned the hard way by a once-promising politician in the new historical drama, “The Front Runner.”
Having been out of the White House since 1980, the Democratic Party was committed to recapturing the presidency in 1988. In the wake of candidate Walter Mondale’s sweeping defeat in 1984, the party was anxious to find a strong prospect, and, as the upcoming election approached, Democrats believed they found such a contender in Colorado Senator Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman). After coming close to winning the Democrats’ presidential nomination four years earlier, the young, idealistic legislator resolved to win the party’s mandate. And, as campaign season began, Hart was the clear front runner, significantly outpacing both Republican and Democratic rivals.
Hart was a breath of fresh air in a political system that had grown old and stale. His ideas were innovative and sought to implement progressive reforms that many saw as important to the country’s future. As a senator from Colorado, he represented the frontier spirit of the American West, a land of new opportunities and audacious thinking. He seemed to be just what the Democrats – and America – wanted. And, given his lead in the polls, it seemed as though there would be no stopping him. But, as events played out, his campaign lasted a mere three weeks.
What went wrong? That’s what this film seeks to identify, and the answers are not as simple and clear-cut as many have come to believe. In part, Hart’s failure came down to personal shortcomings. In part, his downfall can be attributed to the failings of the American political system. And, in part, it was linked to radical (and unfortunate) shifts in the practices of the mainstream media. Regardless of whichever element one gives the greatest weight, though, the bottom line in this is that they all collaborated to derail the candidacy of a politician who may have actually been able to bring meaningful change to a political system in need of reform, alterations that may have caused the course of history to follow a different path in the ensuing years.
Where Hart himself is concerned, he became involved in a personal scandal that proved to be his undoing. Rumors of marital problems with his wife, Lee (Vera Farmiga), had been circulating for some time. Whispers about infidelity made the rounds, too, though hard evidence was absent. In response, the senator always downplayed and deflected these issues, claiming that his marriage was fine. As a staunch privacy advocate, he also asserted that his personal life was no one else’s business. But, as a public figure in general, and a presidential candidate in particular, he was now in a very visible fishbowl, and his belief that he could somehow keep the two aspects of his life separate was naïve at best.
While on a weekend break from his campaign, Hart made a trip to Miami for some R&R. And, while attending a party on a yacht ironically named Monkey Business, he met a beautiful young woman named Donna Rice (Sara Paxton) with whom he became romantically linked. Hart believed he was being discreet about this affair, but, with the press on his heels, it was difficult for him to conceal his actions. He even went so far in insisting that nothing was going on that he dared the media to put a tail on him. So, when reporters from The Miami Herald (Steve Zissis, Bill Burr, Nyasha Hatendi) did just that, and when others, such as those from The Washington Post (Mamoudou Athie), began asking hard questions, they came up with evidence of the senator’s indiscretions. And, when they revealed their findings (sloppy though some of the reporting was), the world pounced on the front runner.
Hart was blindsided by the oppressive attention, dumbstruck that anyone would be so interested in his personal life. He tried to disavow the allegations and to turn the conversation back to campaign issues, while his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) sought to spin the message to repair his candidate’s image. But, no matter how hard he and his team tried to change the subject, journalists and Hart’s political rivals kept pressuring him about the Rice affair. Voters began to doubt his judgment and his ethics, and the ideals he claimed to stand for came into question. Such relentless harassment and burgeoning skepticism prompted Hart’s poll numbers to quickly plummet, and, after less than a month, he suspended his campaign, bringing to an abrupt end the promise he brought to the race only weeks earlier.
One could argue that Hart’s actions were his own undoing, that he engaged in an act of political self-sabotage. But a case could also be made that he was partly done in by a cynical political system that mercilessly pounced on a side issue that, in many regards, had nothing to do with how he would perform in office. Such tactics have become standard operating procedure ever since, a practice that’s highly questionable and, regrettably, entrenched.
Similar accusations could be made against a rabid media establishment so hungry for a juicy story that it gave little thought to the implications of what satisfying that appetite would do the country generally and to the candidate personally. The incessant hounding about a matter that had little bearing on Hart’s policies (and did nothing to inform the public about his platform) marked the beginning of a disturbing change in the nature of American media – the tabloidization of the press, which has since then increasingly skewed its perspective into the realm of irrelevancies and a loss of objectivity.
The failure of Hart’s campaign represents a tragic lost opportunity in the country’s history, setting us on a course that we have not been able to shake in the years since then. It’s also somewhat sadly ironic that the senator’s indiscretions at the time were seen as such an unforgivably immense moral failure, actions that, compared to the kinds of transgressions that have occurred in the decades since, seem almost tame in contrast. Would accusations like those leveled against Hart have the same implications today? Probably not. And, in some ways, it’s unfortunate that they were allowed to have such an impact when they did. Imagine what might have happened if the senator’s personal life indeed had been left to be his own business and that he had been successfully elected. If he had been allowed to assume office, one can’t help but wonder if we would we have the kind of America we have now.
So how did all this come to pass? That’s where the conscious creation process comes into play, the philosophy that maintains we manifest the reality we experience through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents. In this case, though, it’s more precisely attributable to the un-conscious creation process, where our existence unfolds from beliefs of which we’re unaware or don’t fully understand, especially where the consequences are concerned.
Take, for instance, Hart’s personal situation. On the one hand, he wanted to be President. On the other hand, he wanted to indulge his romantic impulses. Considering that, it’s hard to fathom that there wouldn’t be any fallout for the first intended creation stemming from the fulfillment of the second. This is because, at his core, he apparently wanted to believe that he could have his cake and eat it, too, that he could continue to lead the unscrutinized life of a private citizen while in a high-profile, highly visible public position. His beliefs in creating both of these scenarios were based on un-conscious creation principles, undertakings focused on the results and not on whatever attendant outcomes may accompany them. Essentially he was faced with consequences that were incompatible with one another. And, in light of that, is it any wonder that he experienced the disappointing end game that he did, both in his political and private lives? The result is, sadly, self-sabotage, even though it arose unknowingly.
The same basic un-conscious creation principles that the senator tapped into individually were also accessed collectively by those in the political and media establishments. These acts of co-creation by default were collectively implemented to bring about the results they ushered in. Hart’s rivals for the presidency, for example, worked together to pounce on the candidate, using tactics that assured his demise, not realizing the long-term impact that such actions would have on the political landscape of the future. They helped to create – and establish – a form of politicking that has become the standard ever since. Did they intend to ruin Gary Hart alone, or did this practice represent a permanent change to be put into place? Even if it were only the former, the latter has been the result, something that they likely didn’t see coming. And, because of that, we now have the smear campaign electioneering that has become the norm.
Likewise, the methods employed by the media arose from reporters acting like pack animals seeking the fresh meat at any cost. Did they “just want the story,” or did they genuinely intend through their actions (and underlying un-conscious creation beliefs) to transform their profession into the tabloidized state it’s now in? Again, even if they didn’t seek the latter, that’s what we’ve now got thanks to how they brought this reality into existence.
In light of the foregoing, “The Front Runner” encourages us to take a look at these matters not only from a historical perspective, but also in contemporary terms, and, in both instances, we’re being asked to examine their underlying roots. Do we really want to continue dealing with the kinds of conditions in politics and the media that got their start during the Gary Hart campaign? What would it mean to get back to where things were prior to that turning point? In that sense, this film seeks to take on issues larger than just documenting the story of the senator from Colorado, and that’s certainly substantive food for thought.
However, as ambitions and well-intentioned as director Jason Reitman’s latest effort is, it struggles somewhat to pull it all together. Finding the right balance in both telling Hart’s story and addressing these big picture issues is a tricky undertaking, to say the least. The mix never quite gels as effectively as it could, and this lack of focus might leave some viewers wondering exactly what this movie is supposed to be all about. To its credit, the picture features fine performances by Jackman as the conflicted politician, Farmiga as the emotionally damaged wife and Simmons as the beleaguered campaign manager trying to salvage a lost cause that began with such hopeful optimism. It’s too bad that this release doesn’t quite live up to its hype – or its potential – given that, if handled more skillfully, it could have served as noteworthy social commentary that’s just as relevant today as it was about the period in question.
Shooting ourselves in the foot can carry many ramifications. In addition to being personally embarrassing or devastatingly hurtful, we run the risk of letting down others, ruining our expectations and theirs. Such acts of self-sabotage can be disastrous beyond what we can imagine, with implications that can have impact that’s both wide ranging and long tenured. This raises the importance of living up to our personal responsibility, making sure that we prepare for its implementation, as well as seeing it through. To do less runs the risk of regret, and, once that makes its presence felt, there may be little we can do to go back and rectify it. And what a terrible shame that would be.
Reviews of “Green Book,” “At Eternity’s Gate” and “The Front Runner,” as well as a radio show preview, are all in the latest Movies with Meaning post on the web site of The Good Media Network, available by clicking here.
“At Eternity’s Gate” (2018). Cast: Willem Dafoe, Rupert Friend, Oscar Isaac, Mads Mikkelsen, Mathieu Amalric, Stella Schnabel, Vladimir Consigny, Emmanuelle Seigner, Lolita Chammah, Niels Arestrup, Anne Consigny, Amira Casar. Director: Julian Schnabel. Screenplay: Jean-Claude Carrière, Louise Kugelberg and Julian Schnabel. Web site. Trailer.
The power of creation is truly magnificent. Seeing intangible concepts materialize into tangible manifestations is a miraculous sight to behold. And it’s especially impressive when we consider the infinite range of possibilities that can be made real. However, for those of us who bring such outcomes into being, appreciating the range of what we can create can be overwhelming, perhaps even more than we can realistically handle. Getting a grip on such boundless possibilities could prove maddening, a challenge that confounded an accomplished painter who fought to bring his vision into being, a struggle chronicled in the new historical character study, “At Eternity’s Gate.”
Dutch post-impressionist painter Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890) (Willem Dafoe) led a difficult life. The expansively minded artist envisioned forms of expression that truly pushed boundaries of what was believed possible to achieve on canvas. He was able to conceive of images and styles never before dreamed of or attempted. And, with the encouragement of contemporaries like Paul Gauguin (Oscar Isaac), he earnestly sought to follow through on his vision.
However, van Gogh’s cutting-edge artistry was not well received, even in a supposedly progressive artistic mecca like Paris. His works were seen as too radical, even “disturbing,” and not even ardent supporters like Vincent’s brother, Theo (Rupert Friend), an art dealer, were able to successfully promote (or sell) his paintings. Consequently, at Gauguin’s urging, the misunderstood and underappreciated painter decided to pursue a fresh start in rural Arles in the south of France. This move was an attempt at providing him with ample sources of inspiration and new subject matter, a locale where he believed he could give life to his mission.
Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh (Willem Dafoe) moves from Paris to rural Arles in the south of France to seek new sources of subject matter and inspiration in director Julian Schnabel’s “At Eternity’s Gate.” Photo by Lily Gavin, courtesy of CBS Pictures.
Van Gogh’s relocation proved valuable when it came to providing him what he sought artistically; the sources of inspiration were everywhere in the people and landscapes. But, at the same time, the conservative, close-minded sensibilities of the locals caused him constant consternation. Not only was he criticized for his work, but he was also treated with open hostility for his unconventional creations, circumstances that made his struggle to fulfill his artistic vision ever more difficult. The situation improved for a time when Gauguin paid him a visit, but, when his peer announced plans to return to Paris, van Gogh descended into a form of madness, one that led him to inexplicably sever his ear.
Upon the recommendation of a compassionate physician (Vladimir Consigny), van Gogh entered treatment at a local mental institution. His time in confinement was meant to help him stabilize psychologically, particularly where defining his artistic sensibilities was concerned. He was allowed to paint during this time, and it was a period that proved to be quite prolific. But, in many ways, his tenure in the facility raised more questions than answering the ones he already had. With time to think under such controlled circumstances, he pondered theories of creativity, especially in terms of how they relate to the divine, the ultimate source of creation. And, even though he appeared calmer for having spent time in treatment, he was more perplexed than ever in terms of defining his vision and his relation to it.
Van Gogh’s thoughts on this subject were the topic of a profound conversation he had with a priest (Mads Mikkelsen) charged with deciding the painter’s fate. It was through this dialogue that the depth of Vincent’s feelings and insights became readily apparent. The thoughtfulness and profundity of his wisdom on these matters surfaced during their talk, his level of understanding on these matters effectively outshining that of his religious counterpart. Clearly there was much more going on in the mind of this artist than just figuring out how to apply pigment to canvas.
As for the source of Vincent’s troubles, it’s uncertain exactly what caused them. There are numerous suggestions that he suffered from some form of mental illness. It’s also been said that he drank too much and didn’t take proper care of his health. Or perhaps he was one of those visionaries who was ahead of his time and simply didn’t have the means to put his thoughts and ideas into an understandable form of expression. Whatever the cause, though, he found it perpetually frustrating to come up with an answer that suitably satisfied his hunger to create in ways that defined his outlook and sufficiently incorporated the breadth of his vision.
Painter Paul Gauguin (Oscar Isaac, left), a colleague of Dutch artist Vincent van Gogh, offers friendship and guidance to his misunderstood peer in the new historical character study, “At Eternity’s Gate.” Photo by Lily Gavin, courtesy of CBS Pictures.
Accomplishing such a task can be a tall order. We may very well lack the insights to connect the dots associated with this, or we may be deficient in our conscious wherewithal to sufficiently carry out this mission. That’s where it certainly helps to have an awareness of, and proficiency in, the conscious creation process, the philosophy that maintains we manifest the reality we experience through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents in conjunction with our divine collaborator. Van Gogh almost certainly never heard of this concept, but, based on what he struggled to understand, he obviously had a familiarity with its rudiments; he merely lacked the means to fully grasp or describe it. However, based on the works he created, he was obviously on the path to figuring it out, and, in doing so, he let his paintings do the talking for him.
To his credit, van Gogh clearly knew that there was a connection between what we create and the divine source that provides inspiration and makes the materialized outcome possible. And, because divine capabilities are so much more extensive than what most of us are able to envision, even capturing fleeting glimpses of the range of such possibilities can be overwhelming. Putting an awareness of this into words is like trying to express the nature of being in a sentence of 10 words or less, and the more one tries to do so, the more frustrating it can become, especially if we become obsessed at attempting it.
This would appear to have been van Gogh’s plight – he simply lacked the definition in his beliefs to ably express the limitless possibilities he intrinsically understood in a much more limited, finite context, no matter how creative he was. And it drove him mad. The feelings of “inadequacy” that he must have felt under such circumstances had to have been debilitating and eminently disappointing. It’s as if he was on the precipice of understanding everything but couldn’t sufficiently encapsulate its meaning. But, then, given the magnitude of what he was attempting to deal with, that was an inherently impossible task, at least to accomplish through conventional means.
After a bout of madness that resulted in him severing his ear, painter Vincent van Gogh (Willem Dafoe) seeks to find peace of mind through his art in “At Eternity’s Gate.” Photo by Lily Gavin, courtesy of CBS Pictures.
To compensate for such matters, one could attempt to overcome them by formulating different and more all-encompassing beliefs. But, again, given the scale of what van Gogh was trying to express, even this would likely be insufficient. So, given the challenge of a task like this, what is one to do? That’s where finding a new means of expression – and formulating the beliefs capable of supporting it – comes into play. And, for Vincent, that’s where his paintings took center stage.
It’s unfortunate that van Gogh’s art wasn’t appreciated by his contemporaries. However, those who create works on the cutting edge are seldom understood or taken seriously during their own lifetimes. Their creations are typically meant for generations yet unborn, for those who are subsequently able to look past conventional thinking and embrace a broader vision. In such instances, the creators of these pieces may no longer be around, but their works are, and, at such a time, these masterpieces can thus do what they were intended to accomplish in the first place – expand our collective outlook and urge us to think about art and existence in ways that our forerunners were incapable of envisioning or appreciating.
In that sense, van Gogh devised the beliefs and means to make such an outcome possible. For instance, he painted quickly, a skill that proved invaluable to someone who wanted to produce a prolific body of work during an unusually short life-span. He may not have consciously been aware of his early demise, but on some level he may have sensed the need for urgency in getting his work done during the time frame that he had available.
The speed and immediacy with which Vincent painted also suggests an innate understanding of the importance of creating in the moment, the only time over which we have any meaningful control over what we manifest. Capturing the essence of our beliefs in such fleeting instances is crucial to do them justice, something we mustn’t squander if we want our creations to authentically embody what we think, believe and feel about them in such a transitory time frame. Again, on some level, van Gogh grasped this and imbued himself with the skills necessary to make this possible.
Those who have ever been on the verge of breakthrough insights but have not been able to fully grasp or express their meanings can probably appreciate, at least approximately, what van Gogh went through. This film shows what it means to possess a special wisdom that struggles to be birthed into existence, one that’s difficult to put into words (or any other art form for that matter). The frustration in this can be exasperating, but, then, maybe the knowledge that’s meant to be imparted in these situations isn’t supposed to be chronicled in conventional terms. Perhaps van Gogh had trouble explaining himself and his vision through words because it wasn’t meant to be portrayed through that medium, that it was supposed to come through the paintings he created instead. Maybe he couldn’t appreciate this notion for himself, even though he could envision the finished products through which such wisdom was meant to be given life. Either way, we should be grateful for the gift of enduring beauty that he left us.
Despite some artistic self-indulgence, the inclusion of some sequences that feel unnecessarily padded and occasionally inexplicable choppy editing, this beautifully filmed paean from director Julian Schnabel is a fitting homage to the artistic genius. The filmmaker’s latest doesn’t follow the typical film biography format but, instead, examines the thoughts, beliefs and outlooks of the artist as depicted through the most significant events during the last years of his life, incidents based on van Gogh’s own writings and those of people who knew him. This exploration of the creative process as seen through the eyes of someone overwhelmed by its infinite and divinely inspired possibilities is a moving and thoughtful work that transcends the mere mechanics associated with the craft of painting (or any other art form for that matter). Dafoe gives a masterful, award-worthy performance as the tormented painter, effectively bringing to life the brilliance (and the madness) of this immensely talented, and immensely misunderstood, soul. It’s a portrayal that has already earned him a Golden Globe Award nomination for best actor in a drama, one of many that are sure to come. “At Eternity’s Gate” certainly isn’t for everyone, but, for those who appreciate cinema that attempts to push boundaries and get below the surface of someone’s worldly persona, this offering does as fine a job as any in seeking to fulfill these goals.
The brush strokes we lay down on our personal canvases, whether or not such an act actually involves painting, provide us with an opportunity to give heartfelt expression to our respective creative visions. While it would be ideal that we understand what they mean, sometimes we can’t fully grasp them or the intent behind them. Perhaps, as van Gogh speculated, such creations aren’t meant for those of one’s time, that they’re intended for a future generation and that our role is to merely serve as the messenger for bringing them into being. What’s most important, though, is that we follow through on our mission, for what we manifest may have implications whose impact extends far beyond us and our stay on the planet. That was certainly true of van Gogh, and we should forever be grateful for the gifts he has given to the world.
“Green Book” (2018). Cast: Viggo Mortensen, Mahershala Ali, Linda Cardellini, Sebastian Moniscalco, Dimiter D. Marinov, Mike Hatton, Von Lewis, Hudson Galloway, Gavin Foley, Rodolfo Vallelonga, Louis Venere, Johnny Williams, Iqbal Theba, Tom Virtue, Dane Rhodes, Brian Stepanek, Ninja Devoe. Director: Peter Farrelly. Screenplay: Nick Vallelonga, Brian Hayes Currie and Peter Farrelly. Web site. Trailer.
There’s nothing like a good friend. The value of associating with someone who cares deeply for you, and who has your back at times when it really counts, can’t be overestimated. And it can be especially satisfying when that friendship arises from an unexpected companion. So it is with a seemingly mismatched duo in the new, fact-based road trip buddy movie, “Green Book.”
Tony “Lip” Vallelonga (Viggo Mortensen) needs a job. The married father is put out of work when the New York nightclub where he works as a dapper bouncer announces plans to close for two months to undergo renovation. Unsure of what to do, Tony weighs his options, but there aren’t many viable work opportunities for an unemployed (and largely unskilled) job seeker looking to earn what it takes to support his wife, Dolores (Linda Cardellini), and his two sons, Nick (Hudson Galloway) and Frankie (Gavin Foley). And given that one can only rely on gambling and other dubious money-making schemes for so long, Tony has to find something to hold him over until the Copacabana reopens.
Italian-American chauffeur Tony “Lip” Vallelonga (Viggo Mortensen, foreground) is hired to drive African-American pianist Dr. Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali, background) on a concert tour of the Deep South in 1962 in the excellent new biopic, “Green Book.” Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures, Participant Media and DreamWorks.
With few prospects looming, Tony receives a call out of the blue about an opening for a job as a driver, something at which he’s relatively experienced. But the assignment turns out to be far from what he expects. Instead of making deliveries or chauffeuring passengers around town, he’s asked to be the driver for an accomplished African-American pianist, Dr. Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali), who’s about to embark on a concert tour of the American South. Tony would be responsible for transporting his passenger to his various concert dates, as well as a number of other miscellaneous tasks. And, given that he would be driving a Black passenger through this still-segregated region – an inescapable fact of life in 1962 – he would also be responsible for providing whatever “muscle” is called for to protect the accomplished virtuoso from the assorted rednecks and bigots they might encounter along the way. It’s a job duty that’s not specifically spelled out, but, considering that Tony’s a street-smart Italian-American from The Bronx, it’s assumed that this is something he’ll have no trouble handling.
At their first meeting, Tony and Dr. Shirley (whom Tony calls “Doc”) come across as an unlikely duo. Tony is earthy, unpretentious and a little salty. Doc, by contrast, is highbrow, erudite, persnickety and quick witted. But they also have traits in common – they’re both no-nonsense, demanding and clear about what they want. They also have their own “deficiencies” – Tony is often tactless and ill-mannered, while Doc is so aloof that he’s frequently clueless to the ways of the everyday world. And, given that Tony comes from a community not exactly known for its tolerance and open-mindedness at the time, it’s unclear how well he’ll get along with someone from a background for which he’s long harbored a less-than-subtle prejudice.
Bouncer Tony “Lip” Vallelonga (Viggo Mortensen) needs to find a new job when the nightclub where he works closes for renovation, as seen in the new fact-based comedy-drama, “Green Book.” Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures, Participant Media and DreamWorks.
Tony’s also concerned about being away from his family for eight weeks. He worries that he’ll miss Dolores and the kids, and he’s uneasy that he might not be back home in time for Christmas. However, the promise of steady work for the entire term of his layoff, coupled with good money, proves to be too good to pass up. And so, in no time, Tony and Doc, along with fellow musicians Oleg (Dimiter D. Marinov) and George (Mike Hatton), hit the road for an odyssey that turns out to be quite eye-opening for all concerned.
To help them navigate their way through such unfamiliar territory, a representative of Doc’s record label gives the duo a copy of a special guide, The Green Book. This handbook contains listings of safe lodging, dining and business options for African-Americans in the age of Jim Crow laws, directing its readers to places where they will not be refused service, humiliated or threatened with violence. It’s a document that will come in quite handy for those times when Tony and Doc are forced to stay at different hotels or eat at different restaurants, a common practice during the age of segregation.
As he readies to embark on a concert tour of the Deep South in 1962, pianist Dr. Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali) needs a driver to take him to his performance dates, as chronicled in the new, fact-based biopic, “Green Book.” Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures, Participant Media and DreamWorks.
Given the social and racial conditions of the time, Tony and Doc routinely encounter instances of the kinds of prejudices one would expect when traveling through the Deep South, incidents that get handled in various ways and resolved with varying degrees of success. But there are also a number of unexpected developments to come out of the trip, such as Doc bringing culture to someone who had never been exposed to it. Likewise, Tony gives his passenger an education in streetwise ways, as well as an introduction to many of the ways of everyday African-American life, something that the well-educated (but obviously sheltered) Doc had never experienced firsthand. It’s an exchange that proves to be quite enlightening for each of them – and that helps to forge a strikingly strong bond (and genuine friendship) between them, especially when each of them has to rely on the other for support and guidance through tricky or trying circumstances. And, based on how things started out, who would have thought that such an outcome would be possible?
Driver Tony “Lip” Vallelonga (Viggo Mortensen, right) bids a tearful farewell to his wife, Dolores (Linda Cardellini, left), as he embarks on an eight-week road trip in the new comedy-drama, “Green Book.” Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures, Participant Media and DreamWorks.
But, then, pushing past preconceived limitations is one of the results made possible by the conscious creation process, the philosophy that maintains we manifest the reality we experience through the power of our thoughts, beliefs and intents. It’s unclear if Tony or Dr. Shirley ever heard of this notion, but, based on how events transpired in their lives and relationship, it’s clear to see how it can work.
That’s especially true in light of where each of them started when their odyssey together began. Tony and Doc were, in many ways, worlds apart from one another, and their pairing for an eight-week road trip seemed questionable from the outset. However, as they interacted with one another and saw how each could benefit from the other’s presence, they formed that fast friendship that made their relationship work.
Such successful collaborative efforts are the basis of co-creation, where we pool our energies and efforts to forge beliefs that work symbiotically for mutual benefit. This can be seen in how Doc helped Tony “class up his act,” as it were. For instance, while on the road, Doc guided Tony in helping him write heartfelt love letters to Dolores, a practice that gave him a warm feeling inside and touched his lonely spouse deeply.
Driver Tony “Lip” Vallelonga (Viggo Mortnesen, right) looks after the needs of pianist Dr. Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali, left) and fellow musicians Oleg (Dimiter D. Marinov, second from left) and George (Mike Hatton, second from right) while on a concert tour of the Deep South in 1962 in “Green Book.” Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures, Participant Media and DreamWorks.
In returning the favor, Tony introduced Doc to down-to-earth pleasures he never experienced, especially those of mainstream African-American culture. He also showed the often-uptight artist how to loosen up and enjoy life, something Doc had considerable difficulty with before meeting his plainspoken, unassuming companion.
However, perhaps their greatest contribution to one another was having each other’s back. Whenever Doc was confronted with the bad intentions of assorted crackers or racist cops, Tony stepped in as a gallant protector. And, when Tony was faced with legal issues of his own, Doc tapped the considerable clout he had amassed with those in positions of power and influence. But, then, such outcomes were easy to come by because of the sincere bond that had formed between the two of them. They joined forces to help one another, and the results spoke for themselves. The power of beliefs is indeed impressive, capable of yielding tremendous creations. But the magnified power of jointly held beliefs is even more extraordinary, making possible truly magnificent results, true friendship being one of the most beautiful among them.
Concert pianist Dr. Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali, seated) loosens up and learns the ways of mainstream African-American culture while on a road trip of the Deep South in the new, fact-based biopic, “Green Book.” Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures, Participant Media and DreamWorks.
This superb fact-based offering hits all the right notes without belaboring its message while effectively capturing the bond that grows between the film’s two protagonists. Director Peter Farrelly has taken a big step up with this release, revealing abilities not readily apparent in many of his previous works, most of which were nauseatingly silly comedies. The excellent performances by Mortensen and Ali are punctuated by a script that’s full of laughs, poignancy and heart without hitting viewers over the head. In many ways, this film feels reminiscent of “Hidden Figures” (2016), but that shouldn’t come as a surprise, given that one of this picture’s executive producers, Octavia Spencer, was also one of the protagonists of that release (which also starred Ali). If you liked that offering, you’ll love this one.
“Green Book” hasn’t particularly caught fire with viewers just yet, but I believe that’s about to change. This underrated gem deserves high marks and well-earned honors, which are now beginning to roll in. The film was recently named best picture by the prestigious National Board of Review, and Mortensen was named the organization’s recipient of its best actor award. In addition, the film picked up five Golden Globe Award nominations for best comedy, best director, best screenplay, best comedy actor (Mortensen) and best supporting actor (Ali). The picture has also come up a winner at numerous film festivals. Look for it to pick up more accolades as awards season progresses.
Those who scoff at possibilities that don’t seem probable at first glance can learn a lot from relationships like those between Tony and Doc. Their eight weeks on the road together turned into a lifelong friendship, showing that what we often think of as unlikely can indeed become wholly possible thanks to the power of our beliefs. All we need do is open ourselves up to the idea – and then just let it happen.
“A Private War” (2018). Cast: Rosamind Pike, Jamie Dornan, Stanley Tucci, Tom Hollander, Faye Marsay, Greg Wise, Corey Johnson, Nikki Amuka-Bird, Alexandra Moen, Fady Elsayed, Raad Rawi, Amanda Drew, Jérémie Lahuerte. Director: Matthew Heineman. Screenplay: Arash Amel. Story Source: Marie Brenner, “Marie Colvin’s Private War,” Vanity Fair magazine. Web site. Trailer.
Getting at the truth under trying circumstances can be challenging, to say the least. But imagine what that undertaking might be like with the added dangers of bullets whizzing overhead and unseen land mines potentially lurking in the path of our every step. Such a pursuit takes someone genuinely committed and eminently earnest about arduous tasks like these, the kind of individual profiled in the gripping new biopic, “A Private War.”
London Times war correspondent Marie Colvin (Rosamund Pike) was never one to back off from a challenge. In years of covering conflicts in the world’s hotspots, she frequently took risks to get the story, even if it meant placing her own personal safety in jeopardy. Through her forays into Sri Lanka, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, she often followed her own path to the truth, even when it meant costing her most of the use of one eye. But her work was truly astounding, earning her major professional accolades for her reporting.
London Times war correspondent Marie Colvin (Rosamund Pike) scans the map to learn about her next assignment in the gripping biopic, “A Private War.” Photo by Paul Conroy, courtesy of Aviron Pictures.
With the aid of photographer Paul Conroy (Jamie Dornan), Colvin made a particular effort to address the “human” side of inflamed conflicts. Headlines were one thing, but letting the world know about the high personal cost of war thrust upon those unwittingly caught in the crossfire was equally, if not more, important. She endeavored to reveal the suffering inflicted upon the innocents – the wives, mothers and children – who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. This was particularly true during her reporting from Syria, where she made front page news and informed the world of the horrific carnage occurring around her.
Such devotion, however, took its toll on Marie herself. Her personal life was virtually nonexistent – no family and only scant romantic involvements with men who were unfaithful (Greg Wise) or for whom she never seemed to find enough time (Stanley Tucci). Her few friends (Nikki Amuka-Bird, Amanda Drew) worried dearly about her. And even her editor, Sean Ryan (Tom Hollander), who stalwartly supported her efforts, had doubts at times about her judgment when it came to the approaches she took to her assignments. These concerns became particularly troubling through Marie’s steadily increasing drinking, placing her on the precipice of becoming an alcoholic, and a bout of PTSD that she suffered after her stint in Iraq and that landed her in a special treatment facility.
Still, despite these pitfalls, Colvin would not back off. Over time she came to recognize that she was personally torn about her calling. She abhorred the misery and strife of war zones, yet she also couldn’t keep herself away from them. As long as there were those who were suffering, she felt compelled to bring their stories to light for the world to see. This became, as the film’s title suggests, her own “private war,” one that was chronicled in a Vanity Fair magazine article that inspired this picture.
London Times war correspondent Marie Colvin (Rosamund Pike, left), accompanied by photographer Paul Conroy (Jamie Dornan, right), endeavors to get stories from the frontlines in such hotspots as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, as seen in the intense new film biography, “A Private War.” Photo courtesy of Aviron Pictures.
Colvin’s experience exposes the turmoil that can occur when we maintain beliefs that are in conflict with one another, one of the pitfalls that can arise with the conscious creation process, the philosophy that maintains we employ our thoughts, beliefs and intents to manifest our existence. Try as we might to identify, clarify and implement these metaphysical building blocks as effectively and efficiently as possible, even those of us who are practiced in this process may suffer the ill effects of giving rein to contradictory notions.
In some cases, this may result from a lack of awareness of a belief conflict. In others, we may recognize the quandary but are unable to resolve it, either because we can’t envision workable solutions or can’t see past seemingly insurmountable limitations. And, in still others, strange as it might sound, such belief opposition may actually satisfy some kind of need, goal or desire, one whose underlying nature may take some digging to identify, understand and reconcile.
Given Colvin’s drive to tell the stories of those unable to speak for themselves, it’s understandable how she would feel compelled to keep at her work, regardless of the inherent dangers and drawbacks associated with it. As repulsed as she was by the wartime atrocities going on around her, and as readily as she came to recognize this fact, she still couldn’t drag herself away from these difficult circumstances, continually forging ahead to fulfill her mission.
With occasional companion Tony Shaw (Stanley Tucci, left), London Times war correspondent Marie Colvin (Rosamund Pike, right) accepts one of many honors she received during her prestigious career as seen in “A Private War.” Photo by Paul Conroy, courtesy of Aviron Pictures.
That kind of dedication doesn’t happen without focused, determined beliefs underlying it. That, consequently, also illustrates the intrinsic power of our beliefs. If they can keep us plugging away at undertakings that we find questionable or rash, there’s something to be said for what they can impel into being. That can be tremendously moving, informative and persuasive, even under trying conditions. It also reveals the tremendous compassion underpinning such efforts, something we could use more of, especially in an age of an increasingly cynical and self-serving media establishment.
But the power of our beliefs need not be limited to situations where we feel obligated, if not burdened, to expose a nasty truth or to shake a sleeping public out of its complacency. Imagine what the power of our intentions might help us accomplish if it were to be employed for beneficial and beautiful endeavors, especially those we truly enjoy. This is where the magnificence of our beliefs, and the conscious creation process through which they’re employed, can really shine.
No matter how those beliefs are used, though, when they’re employed in ways where they help to bring about the betterment of ourselves and of our fellow man, they activate the conscious creation concept of value fulfillment. This could include anything from creating great works of art to providing care to the needy to writing about the truth of the horrors of war. In her own way, Marie Colvin understood this and made it her value fulfillment mission, despite the tremendously high personal cost that came with it.
Ever challenged for her credentials when present in war zones, London Times correspondent Marie Colvin (Rosamund Pike) faces incessant uncertainty when seeking to get the story in “A Private War.” Photo by Keith Bernstein, courtesy of Aviron Pictures.
Those who have never worked as journalists may find such compulsive attitudes difficult to fathom. However, having once worked in the field myself (though admittedly not on a scale anywhere near that of the protagonist), I understand what it means to feel drawn to uncovering the truth of a story and to make it known to an awaiting audience. When the stakes are especially high, as they were in the conflicts Colvin covered, the need to fulfill that mission becomes particularly strong, no matter what it takes to get it done. Were it not for intrepid reporters like her, stories like this might not otherwise see the light of day.
Although at times a little weak on back story, this otherwise-gripping biopic about the protagonist’s dogged determination to get the story sizzles with bold intensity, especially in its uncompromising depictions of the horrors she witnessed firsthand and in the personal toll such events took on her physically and emotionally. Pike’s stellar performance is certainly award-worthy, showing the many sides of a complex character who frequently straddled the line between bravery and recklessness. Be forewarned, however, that the graphic nature of this offering makes it a questionable choice for sensitive and squeamish viewers. But, for those who like their heroic tales larger than life and rooted in truth, this one is definitely for you.
Like another recent release about the lives of war correspondents, “Viper Club”, this film poignantly reveals the sacrifices these individuals are willing to endure and the risks they’re willing to take in making sure the truth is known. Some might see them as brave, gallant souls, while others may view them as foolhardy and careless. The belief conflicts that they wrestle with alone are a substantial burden to take on. Nevertheless, no matter how these individuals are viewed, what they accomplish in the end is what’s most important, efforts for which they deserve every recognition possible. Were it not for this kind of determination, as well as the compassion that goes along with it, we might all be kept in a darkness that would ultimately be even more frightening than any war we might live through.
Join host Frankie Picasso and me for the next edition of Movies with Meaning on The Good Media Network’s Frankiesense & More broadcast this Thursday, November 29, at 1 pm ET. We’ll discuss a number of new movie releases, as well as preview some of this awards season’s contending offerings. For the video version, tune in on Facebook Live by clicking here. And, for the audio only podcast edition, check out The Good Media Network’s home page by clicking here. Join us for some fun movie chat!