Review: Sessions—laugh, cry (and it’s also the truth)

November 10, 2012 by

SUZY FARBMAN is the author of the newly released God Signs: Health, Hope and Miracles, My Journey to Recovery, one of the main books featured in our new WeAreCaregivers website. She reviewed the new film starrring John Hawkes, Helen Hunt and William H. Macy.

Review:
The Sessions

By SUZY FARBMAN

I love a movie that makes me laugh and cry. The Sessions does both. I especially love a movie that makes me laugh and cry and is based on a true story.

The basic plot sounds off-putting: Mark O ‘Brien (John Hawkes) is a man in his late thirties who survived polio in childhood but spends most of his life in an iron lung. His muscles below his neck don’t work. A poet and journalist, Mark receives an assignment to write about sex among the disabled. He decides to try sex for the first time. Mark may be seriously disabled, but he is no victim.

A devout Catholic, Mark meets the new priest of his church, Father Brendan (William H. Macy) and asks his advice. The priest advises that sex is reserved for married people. Mark protests that he has tried but been unable to find a woman to marry him. In one of many moments that made me chuckle and reach for the paper napkin accompanying my popcorn, the priest studies the wooden crucifix hanging above them, then says, “I think He will cut you a pass on this one.”

Cheryl (Helen Hunt) is a sexual surrogate who works with disabled people. She is comfortable with nudity and manages to bring charm and dignity to her work. She teaches Mark what he ‘s capable of—physically and emotionally.

I have loved Helen Hunt since she played the irreverent waitress to Jack Nicholson’s self-centered novelist in As Good As It Gets, the 1997 movie that won her an Oscar. I have loved William H. Macy after seeing him as Bill Porter, an irrepressible salesman with cerebral palsy in the 2002 film, Door To Door. John Hawkes is new to me but shows all the insecurity, humor and courage of the real life Mark O’Brien.

Two of the female characters played in the film are listed among the credits, which may help explain the authentic ring of this sensitive, touching and insightful film. The Sessions won the Audience Award at Sundance. See it. And see why.

Review by author Suzy Farbman

Originally published at readthespirit.com, an online magazine covering religion and cultural diversity.

Review: Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln

November 10, 2012 by

EDWARD MCNULTY’S books on faith and film are used in congregations nationwide. Earlier, he reviewed Clint Eastwood’s Trouble with the Curve. In 2013, ReadTheSpirit will publish his new book, Blessed Are the Filmmakers. In the following review of the film LINCOLN, McNulty shows how to spark discussion in your small group. After the main review, he provides questions you can share with others.

Review:
Steven Spielberg’s
Lincoln

By EDWARD MCNULTY

We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to God’s purpose.
Romans 8:28

STEVEN SPIELBERG’S new film might better have been called The Thirteenth Amendment. The film is really about the passage of the constitutional amendment that forever abolished slavery. Rather than dealing with Abraham Lincoln’s life from his youth through his White House years, it covers just the last four months of his life: January 1 to April 19, 1865.

Daniel Day-Lewis’s incredibly moving depiction of the 16th president will no doubt be noticed at Oscar time. His portrayal of Lincoln is so masterful that it is bound to be the way that Americans will picture him for many years to come—speaking in a high and gentle voice, moving with a slightly stooped posture, his hands dangling down at his sides and so large that he rejects the tight gloves that his servant tells him Mrs. Lincoln wants him to wear. Superbly on display is Lincoln’s skill as a storyteller, honed from the days of his youth through his years in Illinois as a lawyer. Of course, that style is so irritating to his impatient Secretary of War Edwin Stanton (Bruce McGill) that Stanton leaves the room during one tense moment.

Sally Field is excellent as Mary Todd, ably showing by her shaking hands and her strident voice the inner turmoil Mary Todd often could not control. Her acidic put down of Sen. Thaddeus Stevens, who led the Congressional investigation of her extravagant expenditures using the public purse, is a delightful set piece. This and her volcanic argument with her husband are bound to lead to an Oscar nomination.

Two other actors should be singled out of the excellent cast, beginning with David Strathairn as Secretary of State William Seward. Once a rival for the presidency, the former New York governor is now Lincoln’s loyal confidante, to whom is entrusted the seemingly impossible task of rounding up the votes for passage of the amendment in the U.S. House of Representatives. The other actor, one who consistently steals scenes, is Tommy Lee Jones as the staunch abolitionist and radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens. He was often called the Dictator of Congress because he chaired the all-powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Stevens works with the man he once despised as too weak in his opposition to slavery. Now both of them are committed to ridding the nation of slavery forever. The scenes of Stevens’s floor fights with his opponents, especially with the pro-slavery Democrat Fernando Wood (Lee Pace) are priceless.

STEVEN SPIELBERG’S LINCOLN: A CAREFULLY CRAFTED STORY

The film begins with a mercifully brief battle scene of soldiers stabbing, hacking, shooting, and even drowning one another in the mud. Then it moves to an almost worshipful scene as two black soldiers converse with the president, soon joined by two white soldiers. The latter are in awe that they are actually talking with the author of the Gettysburg Address—which it soon appears, all four have committed to memory. This is the first of several such scenes in which Spielberg adopts the Mt. Rushmore view of Lincoln, reminding us that this is The Great Man. Fortunately, there are also episodes of his humanity, such as when, wearing his house slippers, he lies down on the floor where his son Tad has fallen asleep. Tad wakes up, crawls onto his father’s back, and Lincoln slowly rises to take his son to bed. The camera stays focused on the ragged-looking slippers.

Early in the picture we learn that Mary Todd is urging her husband not to attempt to get the anti-slavery amendment passed. It has passed the Republican-dominated Senate, but the lame duck Congress has too many Democrats for the Republicans to reach the required two-thirds majority—they had already blocked one attempt the year before. His wife urges Lincoln “not to expend” his political capital gained from his re-election in such a hopeless cause. Lincoln presses on anyway.

It is urgent that the amendment be passed because the Emancipation Proclamation was a wartime act, questioned by many as possibly unconstitutional and bound to expire when the war ended.

Although the credits state that Tony Kushner (Angels in America) based his script on Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, the film’s story of the struggle over the 13th Amendment is covered in just four pages in her book (pp. 686-690). And indeed, some of the details of the scenes at the climax of the ratification process are historically questionable, perhaps exaggerated for dramatic effect. Nevertheless, I cannot commend this film enough.

STEVEN SPIELBERG’S LINCOLN: THROUGH A LENSE OF FAITH

Of most interest to people of faith are the moral dilemmas faced by Lincoln and Stevens and the concept of Providence, evident in both Lincoln’s masterful Second Inaugural Address and in the strange and unlikely events of his life that unexpectedly led to his becoming president.

There are many moral, spiritual and ethical conflicts to discuss. For example, we usually say that “the end does not justify the means,” but this moral dictum is put to the test in this story. The stakes—the freedom of an entire people in the nation—are extremely high. Both Lincoln and Stevens forsake their ethical principles in order to bestow this great blessing upon the nation.

In sparking a discussion about the film, there are many scenes to highlight. Many facets of Lincoln’s character are shown in memorable sequences. There is one tender scene in which Lincoln reads through a stack of court martial documents in which the president tries to find some reason for over-ruling the death sentence. Through Lincoln’s struggles to escape his frontier ignorance and poverty, and his bitter disappointments when Steven Douglas defeated him twice—God fashioned a man of perseverance who insisted that the Union be saved at all costs, and then, when the war was almost won, who refused to take the advice of almost everyone else that he should not try to get the 13th Amendment ratified.

My hope is that church groups view the film and then gather to discuss its issues. Also, the film might send viewers to the library or to their computers to seek out more information on this amazing man.

STEVEN SPIELBERG’S LINCOLN: QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

What do you think of the juxtaposition of the opening battle scene with the quiet one of Lincoln talking with the four soldiers? (Or, select another thought-provoking scene to start your discussion.)

Talk about the overwhelming consensus—from Mary Todd to members of Lincoln’s cabinet—against Lincoln’s efforts on behalf of the 13th Amendment. What kept Lincoln on course? Are there other instances you can recall, beyond the Civil War, when “everyone” seemed to be arguing against the pursuit of justice?

Consider the Lincoln marriage. Do you think that the term “love-hate relationship” applies to the Lincoln marriage?  The film shows Lincoln primarily focusing his life on the needs of others—while Mary Todd focuses mainly on herself. What seems to cause this fundamental difference in their personalities?

What do you think of Lincoln’s storytelling? How do we see it relieving tension or making people think? How must humor have been absolutely essential for Lincoln to stand up to so much pressure? How important is storytelling in sharing faith and connecting lives today?

What portrait does this movie paint of Lincoln’s racial views? Talk about how you view Lincoln’s assumptions after seeing this movie. Assuming the film is historically accurate, how do we see this man transform into an unflinching opponent of slavery?

What do we learn of Lincoln’s faith in the film? There are few explicit references to religion, but what seems to be his view of God? How does Lincoln’s life bear out Paul’s theology in Romans 8?

MORE ON LINCOLN AND RELIGION …

Ed McNulty also has written a thought-provoking overview of Abraham Lincoln’s religious life. Various books and websites explore this issue, a source of ongoing debate among historians. Read McNulty’s overview for fascinating details about Lincoln’s pastors, through the years, and some of Lincoln’s own words on the subject of faith to Quaker visitors.

Care to read more from Edward McNulty?

Review: Free Men, a Holocaust story you’ve never seen

October 5, 2012 by

CLLICK THE COVER TO VISIT THE FILM’S AMAZON PAGE.Review:
Free Men

By ReadTheSpirit Editor
David Crumm

As a journalist covering religion and diversity, I’ve reported for many years on the rise of Holocaust awareness in popular media. The event that set off this wave was the debut of the 1978 TV melodrama The Holocaust with Meryl Streep. The subsequent explosion of public interest in capturing Holocaust memories on video eventually was championed by Steven Spielberg. Now there are more hours of Holocaust video, counting Spielberg’s vast library of Shoah Foundation videos, than a single person could watch in a lifetime.

WHY ANOTHER HOLOCAUST VIDEO?

At ReadTheSpirit, we’re always looking for that exceptional, unusual Holocaust resource that you’d likely miss without our help. We’re looking for accuracy. We’re looking for top-quality production. And we’re looking for compelling films and books that will hold an audience. All of those things are true of Ismael Ferroukhi’s gripping drama, Free Men, now available on DVD from Amazon thanks to the folks at Film Movement.

MUSLIMS HELPING JEWS IN THE HOLOCAUST???

Since the release of Free Men last year, the film’s storyline has been controversial. For the most part, Muslim and Arab leaders across Africa and the Middle East during World War II were not helpful to Jews trying to avoid the Holocaust. Visit Yad Vashem in Israel and this point is driven home in the historical galleries about the Shoah. However, there were indeed some notable cases of Muslims risking their lives to save Jews—and one of the most poignant stories happened in the heart of Paris at the historic central mosque involving a world-class musician, Salim Halali.

Salim Halali, a one-man beacon of diversity

FROM THE MOVIE, FREE MEN: The film’s fictional main character, at left, talks with the singer Salim Halali to warn him about a new Nazi crackdown.If you’ve never heard of Salim Halali, you’re certainly not alone! Try to find him on Wikipedia or in any standard Holocaust history book and you’ll come away scratching your head. I know, because I tried after watching this impressive drama—and was on the verge of concluding that Halali was some kind of fictional figure. Then, I found quite a number of French-language websites and magazines that have profiled the famous musician. After using Google-Translate on these compiled clippings and comparing the facts—this true story emerges:

In 1920, Salim Halali was born into a Jewish family, originally from Souk Ahras, Algeria. In the 1930s, he was working mainly in France as a successful Arabic-language flamenco singer in Parisian nightclubs. He also toured Europe and North Africa, until the German occupation. As a Jew, he was at risk in Nazi sweeps of Paris, but the rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, Si Kaddour Ben Ghabrit, decided to save his life. The rector managed the mosque, but he also was a musician and scholar and loved Halali’s genre of Arab-Andalusian music. Under the rector’s direction, Halali was given forged papers and protected through an elaborate charade that included the creation of a headstone etched with the name of his father that was placed in the Muslim cemetery in Paris.

CLICK THE CD COVER TO VISIT ITS AMAZON PAGE.After the war, Halali founded the Oriental Folies Ismailia, a club that was the toast of Paris in the late 1940s. Later, he moved to Morocco and opened a club in Casablanca that drew rich and famous guests in the 1950s. Halali toured the world performing his distinctive genre for his fans. He retired in the 1990s and died in 2005.

Both the Halali character in the movie and the rector of the mosque look remarkably like the original historical figures. Vintage photos on some French-language websites confirm the visual accuracy of both men. What’s more? As it turns out—you still can order a CD collection of Halali’s melodies via Amazon and, among the offerings, I recommend the collection called: Jewish-Arab Song Treasures.

Verdict on accuracy in Free Men

First and foremost, the basic story about Halali, the rector of the Paris mosque and the elaborate deception is accurate. Beyond that, the film’s handsome young hero, shown on the cover of the DVD, is a fictional composite of Muslims who must have interacted with Halali and the rector during the Nazi crackdowns in Paris. That’s how filmmaker Ismael Ferroukhi describes the creation of his fictional “main character” and it makes sense—this is a suspenseful drama and this young French “everyman” can connect the dots between historical events. In addition, the filmmakers say that they have historical documentation about two little Jewish girls who the Muslim characters also try to save. Overall? This movie is far closer to the accurate history than a lot of movies supposedly “based on a true story,” these days. This verdict matches the conclusions of a lengthy story analyzing the movie in the Jewish Daily Forward by Benjamin Ivry.

Care to read more about this true story? It’s a chapter in the book Interfaith Heroes 2, which is available to read online.

Support culturally diverse cinema!

In the cut-throat competition to provide home access to feature films, major media companies are slashing their way to the cheapest forms of distribution. This also means that countless films with valuable stories are being lost to American viewers. Fewer and fewer feature-length DVDs are being released and sold, especially foreign-language films. We want to encourage distributors like Film Movement to keep doing what they do so well. Earlier this year, we recommended the superb Film Movement feature, Foreign Letters, about an Israeli girl and her Asian friend. You also may want to learn about Film Movement’s monthly DVD series for home viewing. Or, if you are a librarian or are interested in a group showing of Film Movement movies in your part of the country, click here to learn about Film Movements various options for “Non-theatrical Screenings.”

Please help us to reach a wider audience

We welcome your Emails at [email protected]
We’re also reachable on Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Huffington Post, YouTube and other social-networking sites. You also can Subscribe to our articles via Email or RSS feed.
Plus, there’s a free Monday morning Planner newsletter you may enjoy.

Originally published at readthespirit.com, an online magazine covering religion and cultural diversity.

Review: Sayles’ Amigo on a war that Twain opposed

September 23, 2012 by

Books by faith-and-film author Edward McNulty are used in congregations nationwide. He is working on a new book, Blessed Are the Filmmakers, about peacemaking themes in major movies that is coming from ReadTheSpirit Books in early 2013. He also has a new column about Clint Eastwood’s new movie.
Here is his latest movie review …

Review: John Sayles’ Amigo on a war
that even Mark Twain opposed

By EDWARD McNULTY

If you see in a province the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and right, do not be amazed at the matter; for the high official is watched by a higher, and there are yet higher ones over them.

Ecclesiastes 5:8

Amigo, John Sayles 17th film that he both writes and directs, is a fictional account of real events during a war that few Americans know about, what some call “The Forgotten War.”

The Philippine-American War took place between 1899 and 1902, a period when the U.S. had taken control of the islands from Spain—but, instead, a native Filipino movement arose seeking independence. This touched off a war in which the U.S. asserted its own control over the islands. In Sayles’ film, it becomes clear why the Philippine–American War has been “forgotten,” because in this the American troops were the invaders determined to suppress the movement for independence. US soldiers in this film are the ones whose ignorance of both the natives and the reason for the war proves fatal for those they claim to be protecting.

Sayles’ film is that rare one in which we root for the enemy, and not for our side, unless we are bereft of any sense of justice. Yet, despite the filmmaker’s obvious sympathy for the cause of the Filipinos, he steers clear of demonizing the Americans, instead bringing out their human, and often humane, qualities.

The war was controversial, because of the tragic loss of life in savagery that shocked the nation. Mark Twain opposed the war. So did newspapers like the New York Journal, where a 1902 political cartoon showed U.S. Gen. Jacob Smith’s actual order to his troops to “Kill everyone over 10,” at one point in the war. The caption describes the boys about to die: “Criminals Because They Were Born Ten Years Before We Took the Philippines.”The film’s title comes from the village mayor Rafael (Joel Torre) who, when asked his name by the newly arrived platoon led by Lt. Compton (Garret Dillahunt), replies, “Amigo.” The guerillas, led by Rafael’s brother Simon (Ronnie Lazaro), have just pulled out and retreated to a jungle hideout. Rafael tries to walk the thin, wavy line between protecting his people and dealing with the enemy. His teenaged son grows so frustrated with his father that he runs off to join his uncle and the insurgents. Rafael will learn that in war no one in between the warring sides is considered a friend.

At first, there are amusing misunderstandings between occupiers, largely young Protestant Southerners, and the villagers, Catholic peasants who have never been able to choose their leaders. The villagers express their puzzlement over the latrine holes they are ordered to dig; the villagers cannot understand why the Americans would waste their excrement by depositing it all in one place, rather than spreading it over the fields to fertilize the crops.

Lt. Compton tries to be gentle and fair with the villagers, sincerely believing that they are there to teach the villagers about democracy and voting. However, his superior officer Col. Hardacre (Chris Cooper), more than lives up to his name. Hardacre orders the lieutenant to switch from carrot to stick when the insurgents all over the islands refuse to give up their fight for independence. Village cattle are slaughtered, fields and crops laid waste, and curfews put in place, with the warning that anyone caught aiding the enemy will be executed. Hardacre is also not above using torture to extract information.

The famous cartoonist Winsor McCay also lampooned Uncle Sam for getting entangled with rope around a tree labeled “Imperialism” while trying to subdue a bucking mule labeled “Philippines.”Viewers will have no trouble seeing modern parallels, and I suspect reactions to the film will differ according to one’s views on the Iraq and Afghan Wars. If it weren’t so anachronistic, Sayles might have used Bob Dylan’s anti-Vietnam War song “With God on Our Side.” Back at the time of the events of this film a wave of imperialist fervor had spread through America, with most people agreeing that we were superior to “our little brown brothers” who must not be allowed to govern themselves until they “are ready.”

However, even in that era, a good many Americans resisted this with Mark Twain in the forefront. The world-famous author spoke out against some of the massacres perpetrated by American troops. His infamous “War Prayer,” which he would not publish in his lifetime because it was so scathing, was written against this war. (See Mark Twain’s War Prayer on this page in ReadTheSpirit.)

Again we are indebted to independent filmmaker John Sayles for a fascinating look at our history—and again thankful for home video that enables us to see a film that most local theater owners passed over because it was not ”commercial.”

This film is rated R and runs 2 hours 8 minutes.

Where can you see this film? As of this publication, Amigo is not yet available on DVD from Netflix—but it is available for instant viewing if you stream films from the service. Amazon also is featuring Amigo as a recommended choice for streaming to your TV or handheld digital device.

Care to read more from Edward McNulty?

Review: Clint Eastwood’s The Trouble with the Curve

September 21, 2012 by

Faith-and-film author Edward McNulty is read in congregations nationwide. Today, we also are publishing his overview of Eastwood’s career. Here is his movie review of Eastwood’s latest film …

Review: Trouble with the Curve

By Edward McNulty

In a rare appearance in a film that he did not direct Clint Eastwood plays a grizzled character similar to his retired autoworker Walt Kowalski in Gran Torino. This time he is a vision-challenged baseball scout named Gus Lobel who is near the end of his career working for the Atlanta Braves. Long widowed, he has issues with his career-driven daughter Mickey, played by Amy Adams, who resents his sending her off to live with a relative when she was a little girl.

This is both a baseball and a father-daughter film, with Justin Timberlake thrown in (as Johnny, a young scout for the Red Sox) added for the sake of romance.

Eastwood has no empty chairs to talk to, but there is a coffee table in his living room that he stumbles over because of his poor vision. He curses it as if it were alive and actively blocking his path. And the script does call for the actor to talk to his gravestone and his penis, as well. Perhaps those scenes were in Eastwood’s mind when he stood on the stage at the Republican National Convention and saw the aide holding forth the now famous chair.

In Trouble with the Curve, Gus has just arisen from bed and, like so many men of his advanced age, finds it difficult to urinate first thing in the morning, hence his coaxing his appendage to perform. He keeps up his pleading until at last he gets relief. The gravestone marks his wife’s spot in the cemetery and reveals to us that she was just 39 when she died. That was some 28 years ago, but Gus still visits the site and converses with her, telling her how much he misses her. He haltingly sings what must have been a song they both enjoyed, “You Are My Sunshine.” Later, this song also becomes a connection point with his daughter Mickey.

Gus is of the old school of scouting, relying on sight, sound, and instincts sharpened by years of watching bush leaguers play in fields and small ball parks. His rival at the Atlanta home office believes that computers and their ability to analyze a player’s statistics offer more than Gus and his ilk can provide. Thus this film could be seen as a traditionalist’s answer to the film Moneyball.

Pete Klein (John Goodman), best friend of Gus and colleague at the Braves’ office, guards his friend’s back against those who want to put Gus out to pasture. Worried about how Gus has been behaving, Pete convinces Mickey to fly over to North Carolina where her father is scouting a hot new prospect. Although she is preparing for a big presentation that could lead to her becoming a partner at her law firm, she reluctantly agrees to go. Gus, of course, does not feel he needs any help, even though in several POV shots we see that his sight is deteriorating. His doctor has warned that he urgently needs to take a break and have an operation.

It is while following the talented slugger Bo Gentry (Joe Massingil) and his team The Grizzilies from small park to small park that we learn why Mickey and Gus have become so estranged.

Johnny, once an ace pitcher scouted and recruited by Gus, is also following Bo around as a hot prospect for his team. A victim of throwing too hard too often so that his shoulder and arm have given out, he aspires to move up from scouting to becoming a game announcer. He becomes as interested in Mickey as in Bo. What happens to the three of them is predictable, but great fun, all three thespians thoroughly convincing in their parts.

Bo Gentry, chubby but a great slugger, is headed for some kind of a comeuppance, we can guess because he is arrogant, basking in the glow of groupies who sense that he is headed for the majors. He enjoys signing autographs far too much, even though his fame reaches no further than the bush leagues. In one brief shot he yells at a vendor selling bags of peanuts in the stand, “Hey Peanut boy!” and the Hispanic young man (Jay Galloway) hurls a bag at him with the force of a cannon shot. With the sense of entitlement of a member of the superior class, Bo turns away without paying for them. Remember the young man’s face, as you will see it again in a satisfying climax to the film.  

Trouble with the Curve isn’t in the same league as The Natural or Bull Durham, but for first-time director Robert Lorenz, we might say that compared to their home runs, this film is at least a double, maybe even a triple. This is also scriptwriter Randy Brown’s first film, and he inserts numerous moments of humor. I won’t spoil the amusing scenes by describing them—but you will chuckle along the way.

In the end, it doesn’t matter that the basic plot is somewhat predictable (except maybe for a neat twist at the end). The film’s considerable pleasure lies is seeing a cast of excellent actors strut their stuff and make us care deeply about what happens to them. The audience at the screening I attended certainly felt this way, cheering at one point and applauding the film as the end credits rolled. I think you will too.

Once more an Eastwood film made my day. Just as Unforgiven made me forgive Clint Eastwood for the violence-affirming Dirty Harry, so this one helps erase from my mind the empty-chair vulgarity of the Tampa convention.

The movie is rated PG-13 and runs 1 hour 50 minutes.

Care to read more from Edward McNulty?

Is Clint Eastwood a Partisan or a Peacemaker?

September 21, 2012 by

Books by faith-and-film author Edward McNulty are used in congregations nationwide. He is working on a new book, Blessed Are the Filmmakers, about peacemaking themes in major movies. You can learn more about Ed’s work at the end of this story, including a link to his review of Trouble with the Curve.
Here is his latest thought-provoking column …

In the End, Is Clint Eastwood
a Partisan or a Peacemaker?

By EDWARD MCNULTY

The debut of Trouble with the Curve this week poses a problem for Americans who are questioning Clint Eastwood’s Empty-Chair-Meets-Dirty-Harry performance at the Republican National Convention. Some film fans may even be contemplating a boycott of Eastwood’s movies.

Does that sound extreme? Consider the number of conservatives who, to this day, hate Jane Fonda for her anti-Vietnam War activism. You may think that “hate” is too strong a word, but I still meet Fonda haters as I travel. Despite my recommendations, they would never watch such superb films as On Golden Pond or Georgia Rule. They can’t separate Fonda’s politics from her films. Will progressive Americans respond the same way as Trouble with the Curve opens?

I write as a long-time pastor and peacemaker. Now retired from parish ministry, my life was shaped by my own early years, when I traveled to the South and served as a volunteer in the civil rights movement. To this day, I reject Eastwood’s early screen persona as the violent vigilante Dirty Harry. I was repelled by Eastwood’s performance that berated the President as if he were seated in an empty chair.

You may find yourself in my circle of experience and viewpoints—or you may regard yourself as part of a conservative circle, even a group that enjoyed the empty chair. You may be in no particular circle at all. But, we all are aware of Eastwood’s empty-chair performance. This weekend, all of us are seeing the advertisements for Eastwood’s new movie. Here’s the question we share this week: Is Clint Eastwood a partisan or a peacemaker?

A FAN OF J. EDGAR AND UNFORGIVEN

I remain a fan of a number of the films Clint Eastwood has directed, including his most recent one, J. Edgar, a complex production that undercuts the idea that Eastwood’s political performance was the rambling of a befuddled 82-year-old man. A man very much in command of his considerable talents and faculties directed this 2011 film about FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

What I have appreciated about most of Eastwood’s films since 1992’s Unforgiven is that, as a director and an actor, he has advanced beyond the values of Dirty Harry. Indeed, when Unforgiven came out, I wrote the following in my film-and-faith column, Visual Parables:

I have always had conflicting feelings about his body of work—from revulsion at his Dirty Harry violence-extolling series, to admiration for such films as Bird and Sudden Impact, with their more complex characterizations. Unforgiven actually plays against the conventions of the traditional Western. Eastwood seems to be reflecting upon the violence of the characters whom he has played over the years with such relish, and—if not repentant of their violent ways—he seems at least less comfortable with them. The otherwise dead-serious story is told with a nice touch of humor: William Munny (Eastwood’s character) can no longer shoot straight, and he can barely mount a horse any more, a debility that could prove fatal during a fast getaway.

Today, reflecting further on Unforgiven, I also would point to the insightful exchange between the would-be gunfighter, the Schofield Kid, and Eastwood’s retired killer, after the youth has killed a man for the first time:

THE KID: It don’t seem real—how he ain’t gonna never breathe again, ever—how he’s dead. And the other one too. All on account of pulling a trigger.
MUNNY: It’s a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he’s got and all he’s ever gonna have.
THE KID: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.
MUNNY: We all got it coming, kid.
I cannot imagine Eastwood’s earlier character Dirty Harry saying that!

In Million Dollar Baby (2004) Eastwood handles the controversial theme of euthanasia with tact and tenderness, something that few of his political peers would countenance. He plays gym owner Frankie Dunn, reluctantly coaching Hillary Swank’s Maggie Fitzgerald, who as the story progresses becomes a replacement for the daughter from whom he has been estranged. When Maggie seems about to score a victory in a crucial fight, her opponent viciously hits her from behind, knocking her head into a post. She is paralyzed from the neck down. In the hospital she suffers constant pain. She pleads for him to euthanize her. He refuses, but when her leg has to be amputated and she is in continual agony during her waking moments, he gives in. Now, try to sell that premise from the platform at the Republican convention!

IWO JIMA: PUTTING A HUMAN FACE ON THE ENEMY

He directed two World War II films incredibly in a single year, 2006—Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. In directing that pair of films, he showed the horrors of the battlefield and eschewed the false heroics of such older John Wayne films as Sands of Iwo Jima. It’s neither the U.S. flag nor some Hollywood summation of democracy that motivates the grunts scrambling to prevail on that rocky island; it is the welfare of their buddies and themselves that drives them through the agonizing terror of Iwo Jima. In the second film, focusing on the lives of the Japanese soldiers, Eastwood fulfills the difficult task of putting a human face on the enemy—an even more powerful accomplishment, in this case, because the Japanese army of the World War II era represents a notorious enemy trying to kill our soldiers. Far from cheering the Japanese deaths, as in older war films, we are left with a sense of loss and regret. And that second film is largely told through subtitles! Talk about a gutsy American director!

As a Presbyterian, I love Eastwood’s 2008 film Changeling because one of its main characters was a real-life crusading Los Angeles Presbyterian clergyman, the Rev. Gustav Briegleb who came to the aid of the mother of a kidnapped boy. The corrupt Los Angeles police were trying to send her to a mental institution because she would not accept the boy they had found and returned to her. As the movie unfolds, she insists that he is not her son. The captain in charge of the investigation does not want his department publicly embarrassed, hence his plot to put her away. It turns out that she is not alone! A number of women had incurred the police department’s displeasure in that era. Had it not been for the courageous clergyman, this grief-stricken mother would have languished in an institution until the end of her life. (If you’re intrigued by the real-life clergyman, you may want to read an earlier story I reported for the Presbyterian News Service about Briegleb.)

GRAN TORINO: Infused with Cardinal Virtues

Gran Torino, his next film, also released in 2008, is infused with cardinal virtues embraced by political progressives: tolerance and the exposure of prejudice. Eastwood directed the film and appears in the role of Walt Kowalski, a crusty Detroit auto plant retiree upset that a Hmong family has moved in next door. He rants about the deterioration of his once all-white neighborhood that he believes such immigrants have caused. Then, when a series of events bring him into contact with the Hmong family’s teenaged son, his prejudices slowly dissolve and he becomes a mentor of the boy and protector of the family. There is a huge price to be paid for that friendship when a vicious gang threatens the family. The film’s climax is one in which Kowalski makes the supreme sacrifice for the Hmong family’s welfare, an act that he could not have even imagined at the beginning of the film.

His 2009 film, Invictus, now is dear to the hearts of the millions of men and women around the world who opposed the apartheid regime in South Africa. Depicting the early challenges facing Nelson Mandela as he became the country’s first black leader, the movie tells the remarkable story of his using the national football team to overcome racism on both sides of the divide. I suspect that some American viewers who may have cheered Eastwood’s performance with the empty chair may not have understood that Eastwood’s real range of passions is better expressed in this epic rebuke of racism in South Africa and around the world.

That brings us to 2011’s J. Edgar, a biopic about the long-time director of the FBI, beginning with the Red Scare that followed World War I. The film shows Hoover’s paranoia and his hatred of anything and anyone to the left of Attila the Hun. We see vividly how this becomes embedded in his mind at an early age and we watch as he turns his considerable organizational and scientific insights into analyzing crime-scene evidence. Hollywood has shown Hoover as both villain and saint through the years, but this film steers a middle course. In his direction, Eastwood did not flinch from showing Hoover’s vindictiveness and jealous lust for power as well as his homosexuality and homophobia—nor did Eastwood ignore Hoover’s important contributions in promoting advanced crime-fighting procedures and building a modern FBI. In this film, Americans at both ends of the political spectrum could find elements to appreciate.

Despite his mean-spirited act with the chair at the Republican convention this year, I will always appreciate—and watch again and again—these movies I have saluted as well as many other Eastwood films I have not mentioned. It is possible to separate Clint Eastwood the partisan from Clint Eastwood, a genuine national treasure as a director and actor. Thus I went to see Clint Eastwood’s newest film, The Trouble With the Curve, in a hopeful frame of mind.

Read Edward McNulty’s movie review of The Trouble with the Curve.

 

Care to read more from Edward McNulty?

Jewish Threads: Stitching our Spiritual Intentions

September 16, 2012 by

We’re in the heart of the Jewish holiday season, which continues with the festival of Sukkot in October. In the midst of family gatherings, Americans think of—crafts. More than half of American homes include a crafter, according to industry groups who track these trends. Drawing and scrapbooking are the first and second most popular crafts in the U.S., but that’s because various forms of needlework are shown as separate market segments. Collectively, needleworkers dominate all other forms of crafts.

ReadTheSpirit asked author Debra Darvick to review a new book from Jewish Lights Publishing about needlecrafts that embody Jewish themes. You may recognize Debra’s name from national magazines, including Good Housekeeping. This autumn, ReadTheSpirit will publish a newly expanded version of Debra’s popular book, This Jewish Life: Stories of Discovery, Connection and Joy. You can follow Debra’s regular columns at her website: www.DebraDarvick.com.

Stitching with Jewish Soul

REVIEW by DEBRA DARVICK

Click the cover to visit the book’s page at Jewish Lights.The subtitle of Diana Drew’s Jewish Threads, A Hands–On Guide to Stitching Spiritual Intention into Jewish Fabric Crafts distinguishes this inspiring book of creative projects from many other such collections. With Jewish Threads in hand, you’re not just making what is useful and decorative, but reaching back into Jewish life and tradition, creating contemporary ritual objects, and reserving a place for yourself, or at least your artistic handiwork, well into the future.

Each of Drew’s chapters begins with a story, ably written by her husband Robert Grayson introducing us to the women and one man from across the country who contributed the designs for each of the 30 projects. For some contributors, creating Jewish art was the flame that ignited their commitment to Jewish observance. For others, creating ritual objects for use during the holidays or Jewish life cycle events was an extension of their already firm Jewish identity and practice. The chapter Celebrating Holidays, in addition to offering more than a dozen ideas for crafts, includes brief but thorough explanations of the holidays linked to each project.

The book’s four chapters are organized around the themes of home, synagogue, Jewish holidays and Jewish life cycles. In addition to patterns for four beautiful wall hangings—quilted, needle pointed or appliquéd—the chapter At Home, also features Barbara’s Felted Grape Purse. Not only does the grape motif hearken back to biblical times, but the craft of felting, we are told, dates back to 6300 BC.E. 

From the chapter In the Synagogue, Lois’s Sefer Placekeepers (bookmarks to be used in a prayerbook) make a novel and fun gift idea, although the process seems quite complicated for so simple an object. Experienced crafters looking to create unique gifts for the holiday gifts or for new baby, Bar/Bat Mitzvah and wedding gifts will have a field day exploring the related chapters. From challah covers to Chanukah wall hangings to beautiful zippered bags to hold a tallit (prayer shawl) and kippah (skullcap) the author offers a wide range of projects for varying levels of skill.

The techniques drawn upon in Jewish Threads include quilting, embroidery, needlepoint, cross stitch, crochet, knitting felting and needle felting and readers would be advised to have at least some skill before attempting any of the projects. This is not a book for absolute beginners. But for those looking for meaningful and satisfying projects that will resonate with Jewish soul—this is the book for you.

Originally published at readthespirit.com, an online magazine covering religion and cultural diversity.