Category Archives: Fundamentals in Film

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Update

Posted on by
3



I’m trying to get up to speed again on this weekly film series after my trip. I had ordered a couple of movies from Netflix based on recommendations from some of you and I watched these but they weren’t right for the series. They were a couple of WWII movies, The Longest Day and A Bridge Too Far.



This series is about finding examples of strong character and to demonstrate character. War movies, with their crucibles of courage, sacrifice and heroism, can be a rich source of material (as well as providing examples of less than admirable behavior as well). These two movies are acknowledged as classics but they left me flat. It took me a little while to put my finger on it, but watching them close together helped. Both take the “grand spectacle” approach to filming a war movie with casts of thousands and dozens of big stars. Additionally, both take an almost reverent view of these historical moments. This is justified, but in these movies “reverent” means “slow.” Both drag on ponderously (especially the aptly named Longest Day) while the big name stars make their brief cameo appearances. There’s very little chance to examine a particular character, or small group of characters, or identify with them.



In contrast, a war movie such as Saving Private Ryan or Glory brings you up close to the men. For my purposes, this is essential because you have to see and relate to them being tested, not only by outside forces but from within. War movie or otherwise, this will be a key factor I’ll look for when considering including a film that’s new to me.



You might recall that we currently have a “second front” (to stretch the war analogy) going on with this series. A couple of months ago I started going through these movies again with a new group of boys, this time accompanied by their fathers. Initially the boys were kind of silly when it came to the discussion part after the first movie (High Noon) , but they started to get into the rhythm and purpose of it as we went through Zulu and The Tin Star.



In fact, we watched the latter right before I left on our trip and we had a very good discussion on motives, behavior, the nature of a bully, and how to use your brain before you use a gun. One of the questions I always ask with this movie is, “Who do you think the best man in the movie was?” We went around the room with boys and their dads saying either “Ben” or “Morg”; to my delight, however, one of the dads said, “Dr. Joe.” This was what I was looking for because the elderly doctor displays a lot of good qualities that can easily be overlooked in a movie like this because he’s “old” or doesn’t carry a gun. It was a good class.



After the trip hiatus though we had a “technical difficulty” and the boys also seemed to revert a bit to the silliness of our first get-together. The technical difficulty was in getting a copy of the movie I wanted to watch, the Gary Cooper classic, “Sergeant York.” This film is not available on DVD yet, and the Hollywood and Blockbuster stores near me (where I had originally rented this a few years ago) no longer carried it in their stock. I may have to buy a VHS copy from Amazon, but on short notice I pulled my copy of John Wayne’s The Quiet Man from my shelf and went with that. It’s a good story with a great fight scene at the end, but it’s also “mushy” and mainly a love story (including Director John Ford’s love of Ireland) so I may have lost the lads a bit. It was harder to keep them on focus during the discussion, but they were all interested in hearing what the next movie will be. I’ll either get a copy of Sergeant York or go with Glory.



There might also be a chance to move this class in a third direction. Our church has been approached about hosting a Boy Scout “lock-in” this summer, and it’s been suggested that I put on one or two of these movies during that. We’ll see how it goes. At any rate, next week I’ll be back in this space either with a new film in the series or a report from the next group gathering.

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Boys’ night out #2

Posted on by
Reply

The boys and their dads reconvened for the second movie, drawn by the smell of the large pan of fried chicken I’d set out and my promise that this week’s movie would have a higher body count than the first movie we watched, High Noon. As we ate, however, I went back to the first movie to once again highlight how Marshall Kane’s sense of duty and honor led him to go back and deal with the trouble that was coming because here were similar elements in this week’s movie, Zulu.

With that I started the movie and used the handy DVD “skip to the next scene” feature to jump from the end of the first scene, where a Zulu warrior picks up a rifle from the British column they’ve just wiped out, to the beginning of the third scene where a Zulu runner interrupts a village wedding dance to bring word of the victory to the Zulu chief. This strategic use of the remote control meant we could skip the bit with the topless, dancing Zulu women without losing much of the pre-battle exposition. (I don’t know how much of this movie the boys will remember, but if they only remember one thing I didn’t want it to be dancing girls.)

The group appeared to enjoy the movie, especially the fighting scenes where I heard a few “whoa’s” and “ahh’s” at different times when the action was particularly intense. I also heard a couple of giggles from one young man when he found some deaths kind of funny. I may ask his father to check his son’s bedroom for carcasses of wingless flies. Anyway, it was later in the evening when the film finished and some of the guys were clearly tired so we tried to step through the discussion questions quickly.

This week there a lot fewer silly comments or attempts to veer off into side topics. Part of it may have been because of the hour, but it was also because the guys were more involved in this story. I found, however, that I got better responses and discussion if I made a statement about, for example, the value of discipline and training, rather than asking a leading question as a way to get the young men to reach the answer themselves. A high point, though, was when I asked why Lt. Bromhead had said he wished at that moment that he wasn’t “an officer and a gentleman.” A couple of the boys grasped right away it was because he would have liked to have run away but knew that he couldn’t because of his family history and sense of duty. This discussion gave me the chance to tie this concept back to High Noon and this time I think I saw a couple of light bulbs go on over some heads.

It was also gratifying that as we finished up the guys were asking what movie we were going to see next and not what we were going to have for dinner!

Friday Fundamentals in Film: To Kill a Mockingbird

Posted on by
Reply

Courage and integrity aren’t always demonstrated in the heat of battle or proved by some dramatic, attention-getting act. Often the best examples are those of quiet resolution by people who wouldn’t even grasp what all the fuss is about when their actions are honored. An excellent example is the 1962 classic film To Kill a Mockingbird starring Gregory Peck in the memorable role of Atticus Finch. (The role of Finch was voted as the greatest film hero of all time by the American Film Institute).

Most people know the story of the local lawyer who sometimes takes hickory nuts and collard greens in return for his services in the small, southern town of Maycomb during the Depression. Atticus is a widower with two young children, Jem, 10, and Jean Louise (called Scout), 6, who is asked to defend a black man accused of raping a white woman. The story is narrated as a flashback by the adult Scout and despite the town’s sleepy demeanor and the polite and respectful way most people addressed each other, there is an underlying creepiness that gradually builds the drama and suspense.

Despite having known tragedy in his life Atticus is a steady, unflappable man who tells his children, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view; until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” When the local judge asks him to take the case of Tom Robinson, does so even though he knows that many in the town will be angry if he gives Robinson the defense he deserves and is entitled to by law. When confronted early on by the father of the alleged victim he holds his ground, telling the man, “I’ve been appointed to defend Tom Robinson. Now that he’s charged that’s what I intend to do.”

In the ensuing months leading up to the trial the pressure mounts both for Atticus and his family. Scout, quick to defend what’s right, gets into fights at school with children who criticize her father. When she asks Atticus why he can’t or won’t quit the case or let someone else handle it he tells her that he has to do it because, “If I didn’t, I couldn’t hold my head up in town. I couldn’t tell you and Jem not to do something again.” Ultimately he has to tell Jem, “There’s a lot of ugly things in this world, son. I wish I could keep them away from you. But that’s never possible.”

Some, such as his children, mistake his quiet demeanor as a sign of weakness, not realizing that it is the earmark of a man who knows he doesn’t have anything to prove to himself and unconcerned with what others may think about him (his earlier comment to Scout about being able to hold his head up in town had more to do with being ashamed of himself rather than ashamed of what others would say). He is resolute in doing what needs to be done, whether it’s defending Tom or shooting a rabid dog threatening the street where his children play. When he shoots the dog, in fact, he does so dispassionately and with a bit of regret. He reacts in much the same way later when he sits up at night on the steps of the jail, unarmed, to face down a lynch mob determined to drag Tom out and kill him before the trial can even start.

For those who haven’t seen the movie I won’t give away the ending, but suffice to say there are many challenges and suspenseful episodes with help late in the movie coming from an unlikely source. It’s a good message for a family, but perhaps too intense for younger members.

Questions to answer:

  1. Why do you think the judge asked Atticus to be Tom Robinson’s public defender? Why did he come to his house to ask him in person?

  2. Why did Atticus feel that if he didn’t defend Tom that he wouldn’t be able to ever tell Scout and Jem, “not to do something again”?

  3. Was there anything in common between the way Atticus dealt with the rabid dog and the way he defended Tom? (hint: think of what both had to do with his children).

  4. What did Atticus hope to accomplish (and how) when he went to the jail to gaurd Tom from the lynch mob?


Points to Ponder:

  • Though the story is set in the Depression-era south, do the same challenges exist today? What are they?

  • How are these alike and how are they different from what Atticus faced in the movie?

  • What role do men (and women) like Atticus play in our culture? What is the cost to them?

Great Quotes:
“Miss Jean Louise, stand up. Your father’s passing.”

“There are some men in this world who are born to do our unpleasant jobs for us. Your father’s one of them.”

About Fundamentals in Film: this series began as a class I taught to junior high and high school boys as a way to use the entertainment media to explore concepts of honor, honesty, duty and accountability. The movies were selected to demonstrate these themes and as a contrast to television that typically either portrays men as Homer Simpsons or professional wrestlers, with little in between those extremes. I wrote questions and points to ponder for each movie to stimulate discussion and to get the boys to articulate their thoughts and reactions to each movie. I offer this series here on this blog for the benefit of parents or others looking for a fun but challenging way to reinforce these concepts in their own families or groups. As the list of films grows each week, feel free to use these guides and to mix and match movies according to your interests or those of your group. I’m also always open to suggestions for other movies that can be added to the series. You can browse the entire series by clicking on the “Fundamentals in Film” category in the right sidebar of this blog.

Friday Fundamentals in Film: A new class starts

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve restarted this series with a new group of boys and we’ll mainly be following the original course outline since those movies were arranged in a certain order with a purpose in mind. The difference this time is that I have more movies to choose from and less of a time constraint — and I’ve invited the fathers as well.

Our first meeting was Thursday night and we’ll continue every other Thursday until we finish the original series or until the group wants to stop. I’ll continue to feature new movies in this space while the class is going on, but only on weeks when the group doesn’t get together. On those weeks, such as this one, this regular feature will focus on the discussion that followed the movie of the week. This week’s movie was the Gary Cooper classic, High Noon (see my original study guide and discussion questions for this movie here).

The group currently consists of six boys between the ages of 12 and 15, and three fathers plus myself. Another father and son will join us when they get back from vacation and another young man may join us as his schedule permits. The boys all started the evening pretty excited about doing something new and with anticipation for the huge pizza and and box of cheesy bread we’d ordered. So, bouyed by the food and inspired by the slam-bang ending of the movie, the boys were bubbling over with questions and comments about the movie afterwards, right?

I did say these guys are 12 to 15 years old, didn’t I?

First question: What did you think of the movie?

General response: “Borrrrring!”

When I asked why it was boring there were comments about it moving so slowly, with too much talking and not enough shooting and explosions. I continued to ask questions (from the study guide and others than occured to me based on the boys’ reactions), however, about what was being said (and meant) during those long talking parts. I tried to draw them out on the key lessons of the movie regarding personal honor and integrity and the importance of defending the rule of law even at great personal cost.

I was not surprised or disappointed that most of the questions or leading comments I made seemed to be going over their heads. The movie is slow and “talky” at times, especially for young men who don’t have a perspective on the things that were important to Marshall Kane and what he was risking and defending. The important thing to me at this stage was that the boys were talking and responding, even if they were going out of their way to be silly (talking about how the Marshall should have had an AK-47 or made some bombs, for example).

The big thing was they were talking and not sitting quietly waiting for it to be over (well, maybe a couple were). I know that even at this age the guys don’t want to come off as if they’re paying too much attention or care too much about what’s going on and that they will try to establish their own control of the discussion by seeing if they can veer off into other topics. I, with help from the dads, managed to keep pulling them back to question at hand and even got a couple of fairly insightful responses from the boys in spite of themselves. Whenever a lightbulb would go on over one of their heads, however, the lad was quick to try and throw a hat over it.

It’s a beginning, and similar to what happened the first time I did this. As we go on I expect the young guys will stop trying so hard to be funny (or studiously aloof) and will begin to engage with the issues and character qualities implicit in the films I’ve selected. After all, if I had expected that they already had an understanding of the concepts of duty, self-respect and self-sacrifice for the greater good then I wouldn’t have seen the need to offer the class again. As I said, some good answers did start to come out, even if they were offered somewhat uncertainly, and this should become more common as the comfort level increases in the coming weeks (plus I have a couple of sure-fire incentives in mind that I might apply as needed).

One thing that I got out of this viewing of this classic this time came from the scene in the church where Kane tries to rally the good men to his cause. The sentiments expressed by the townspeople on both sides were so much like the words bandied back in forth in Congress today about America’s foreign policy that it will almost make you laugh — if it doesn’t make you cry.

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Apollo 13

Posted on by
4
“From now on we live in a world where man has walked on the moon. It wasn’t a miracle. We just decided to go.” Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks) spoke those words early on in Apollo 13, setting a tone of both hubris and awesome pluck and ingenuity. This is an inspiring movie and quite unlike others in this Fundamentals in Film series in that the men in the movie weren’t in a

battle between good and evil, or facing conventional conflict against an enemy, but were struggling, literally, against time and space. All the while, however, they also had to draw deeply from their own reserves of character and resolve.

The movie starts with the landing of Apollo 11 and Neil Armstrong’s walk on the moon (something my parents got me out of bed to watch on tv) and then focuses on the true story of the men of Apollo 13 and their families as they prepared for what would have been the third moonwalk and instead turned into a harrowing fight for survival after an explosion while in space knocks out most of their ship’s power, fuel and oxygen. Forced from their Odyssey capsule the three astronauts (Lovell, Fred Haise, Jack Swigert) squeeze into the still attached lunar module (LEM) designed for two men. While the astronauts take steps and make calculations to survive, an initially frantic ground crew in Houston under the direction of Gene Kranz (Ed Harris) works around the clock to find a way to bring the men home safely.

There weren’t any scary monsters in the movie to leap out and eat someone, or bad guys with fiendish plots, but the suspense and tension are constant and intensifying as you watch the astronauts and Houston deal with problem after problem. The character study in the movie comes from watching the men control their emotions and fears in order to focus on the incredibly complex and even unfair obstacles facing them, taking them on one by one and ingeniously improvising new uses for their available equipment. Another key factor in successfully returning the men to earth was the quality of leadership exhibited by Lovell and Kranz; without their examples the men under their respective commands could have quickly fallen prey to panic and fault-finding. Apollo 13 is an excellent example of leadership under great stress.

It is also an interesting contrast to see how rudimentary the technology was in many ways. The astronauts, for example, perform complex mathematical calculations with paper and pencil while engineers in Houston were still using slide rules. It kind of makes you wonder about how well today’s students or engineers could perform under stress and without battery power.

Discussion Questions:

 

    1. How did the training the astronauts and the technicians received affect the way each was able to respond? Give examples.

 

    1. Lovell had to chose between bumping his pilot, Ken Mattingly, from the flight at almost the last minute or replacing the entire crew for the mission. Why do you think he chose to tell Mattingly his decision face to face and to accept the responsibility for a decision that was forced on him? What other ways could he have handled this?

 

    1. Emotionally, hHow did Lovell and Kranz react to the crisis, and what affect do you think this had on the men around them and the outcome of the mission?

 

    1. In what ways did Lovell encourage his fellow astronauts at different times during the crisis?

Points to ponder:

 

    • How much do we rely on our technology, and how can we cope without it in an emergency?

 

    • How important was it for Gene Kranz to say, “Failure is not an option”? What affect did this have?

 

Great quotes:

“Houston, we have a problem.” (Jim Lovell)

“Failure is not an option.” (Gene Kranz)

NASA Director: “This could be the greatest disaster NASA’s ever experienced.”
Kranz: “With all due respect, sir, I believe this is going to be our finest hour.”

About Fundamentals in Film: this series began as a class I taught to junior high and high school boys as a way to use the entertainment media to explore concepts of honor, honesty, duty and accountability. The movies were selected to demonstrate these themes and as a contrast to television that typically either portrays men as Homer Simpsons or professional wrestlers, with little in between those extremes. I wrote questions and points to ponder for each movie to stimulate discussion and to get the boys to articulate their thoughts and reactions to each movie. I offer this series here on this blog for the benefit of parents or others looking for a fun but challenging way to reinforce these concepts in their own families or groups. As the list of films grows each week, feel free to use these guides and to mix and match movies according to your interests or those of your group. I’m also always open to suggestions for other movies that can be added to the series. You can browse the entire series by clicking on the “Fundamentals in Film” category in the right sidebar of this blog.

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Luther

Posted on by
3

This week’s movie might be controversial for some since it looks at the events leading up to the Protestant Reformation by dramatizing the life of Martin Luther. Though I’m not Lutheran or Catholic the interpretation I got from Luther is that it was about a man trying to save his faith, not start a new one. Even without the spiritual context, however, this is a compelling story of a basically timid and politically naive man trying to stand up for what he thought was right against incredible pressure and then trying to come to grips with the consequences of his actions.

It is also a very well made movie featuring an all-star cast that includes Joseph Fiennes, Peter Ustinov in his final movie, Alfred Molina and Bruno Ganz (who I loved in “Wings of Desire”, the German movie that was the basis for the Nicholas Cage/Meg Ryan “City of Angels” movie.) The movie is briskly paced (sometimes too briskly as you might miss the significance of some statments and political explanations) with evocative scenery and settings that really communicate the era.

As the movie was about Martin Luther you can expect that Pope Leo and the cardinals don’t fare well or have much chance to present their positions sympathetically, but the movie appears to take pains to present Luther’s conflict as being with the leadership of the church and not with the faith itself. Indeed, just as the early Jews who followed Christ still considered themselves Jews, not Christians, it occurred to me that Luther and his followers would still have thought of themselves as Catholic (or at least catholic). From my experience and observation, the faithful of every religion and denomination have to constantly be on guard against elevating the traditions (and “wisdom”) of man over the word of God, and the compelling part of this story for me wasn’t Luther resisting the Catholic hierarchy but resisting his own inner fears and self-doubts so that he could later rise against his physical fears and doubts.

Luther is an inspiring and thought-provoking movie that will stay in your mind for days after you see it.

Questions to answer:

  1. What was the stumbling block for Luther in his understanding of God at the beginning of the movie? How and when did this begin to change?

  2. Fr. Johann von Staupltz was Luther’s “spiritual father”. What do you think his purpose was in sending Luther first to Rome and then to Wittenberg?

  3. What was Luther’s original intent when he reported the practice of selling indulgences to the Pope? What led him to believe the practice was wrong?

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

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

  6. Who said, “Before I let anyone take from me the word of God and ask me to deny my belief I will kneel and let him strike off my head,” and what was the significance of that statement at that time?

Points to ponder:
Consider the turmoil and violence in Germany after Luther left Worms. What, if any, similar schisms do you see in today’s world? Are the differences spiritual or political at their core? Why do you think so?

Great Quotes:

  • “Those who see God as angry do not see him rightly, but look upon a curtain as if a dark storm cloud has been drawn across his face. If we truly believe Christ is our Savior, then we have a God of love and to see God in faith is to look upon his friendly heart. So when the devil throws your sin in your face and says you deserve death say, ‘I admit I deserve death and hell, what of it? For I know one who suffered and made satisfaction in my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, son of God. Where He is, there I shall be also.'”
  • “I am Yours. Save me.”

Friday Fundamentals in Film: The Quiet Man

Posted on by
5

I can’t believe I missed the opportunity last Friday, St. Patrick’s Day, to feature John Ford’s The Quiet Man, a classic Irish tale and my favorite John Wayne film. Oh well, like the train to Castletown, better late than never.

This is a delightful and beautifully photographed movie with great performances by Wayne, Maureen O’Hara, Ward Bond and the quirky Irish cast. The depiction of the Irish as colorful but short-tempered folk much given to drinking and fighting is perhaps a bit politically incorrect in this day and age, but very entertaining and as it is Ford’s tribute to his homeland, though I’m not Irish, it gets a pass from me (not unlike Tim Story’s effort with Barbershop – stereotypes can be effective). Definitely not politically correct is the bit where a woman hands Wayne a stick “to beat the lovely lady” but it’s played for humor and within the context of the story.

The interesting contrast for me between this film and others in the series is that in other movies the main character doesn’t quite know what he is capable of and is unsure of what may happen when pushed to the brink. In this movie, Wayne (as Sean Thornton) is fully aware of what he is capable of and fears that it might happen again. He plays an American prizefighter who has killed an opponent in the ring and since retired and immigrated back to Ireland to buy the cottage where seven generations of his family lived. He is resolved to control himself and live quietly — even to the point of allowing people to think he’s a coward — but his pursuit of the cottage and the lovely and fiery-tempered Mary Kate Danaher (O’Hara) sets him on an inevitable collision course with Mary Kate’s brother, Will Danaher, the biggest, roughest and richest man in the county.

Sean’s patience and self-control in the face of the offenses and goads of the Danahers is admirable, but hardly to be seen in his courting of Mary Kate where he is more than a little forward. No doubt the script was written this way to accentuate the cultural differences between America and Ireland, but it does open the door for discussion with young viewers on proper behavior. The story also reminded me of some of the things my wife and I learned recently about why the Bible emphasizes that a husband love his wife but that a wife respect her husband. In this story Sean loves Mary Kate despite her temper and faults but fails to understand how important her things and dowery are to her. Mary Kate on the other hand loves her husband but struggles to respect him, at one point even leaving Sean, telling Michaleen Oge Flynn, “I love him too much to go on living with a man I’m ashamed of,” as he drives her to Castletown to catch the Dublin train. Both, however, come to understand each other and make a formidable team.

Despite the personal tensions and strife in the movie it is mainly a comedy and when the inevitable fight comes at the end of the movie the release is thoroughly enjoyable. All in all it is a very fun movie with some excellent performances and more than a few good points to make.

Questions to answer:

  1. Why were Mary Kate’s possessions and dowry so important to her? Was it a matter of greed or something else? What was the significance of these things, given the place of women in that culture?

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

  3. Describe the differences between Sean’s American ways of courting and the Irish customs. What purpose do you think the Irish ways served, and do they have value today?

Great Quotes:
Michaleen: “What do they feed Irishmen in Pittsburgh to make them so big?”
Sean: “Steel, Micheleen, and pig iron in furnaces so hot a man forgets his fear of hell. And when you’re hard enough, and strong enough, other things.”

Mary Kate: “What manner of man have I married?”
Friend: “A better one than I think you know, Mary Kate.”

About Fundamentals in Film: this series began as a class I taught to junior high and high school boys as a way to use the entertainment media to explore concepts of honor, honesty, duty and accountability. The movies were selected to demonstrate these themes and as a contrast to television that typically either portrays men as Homer Simpsons or professional wrestlers, with little in between those extremes. I wrote questions and points to ponder for each movie to stimulate discussion and to get the boys to articulate their thoughts and reactions to each movie. I offer this series here on this blog for the benefit of parents or others looking for a fun but challenging way to reinforce these concepts in their own families or groups. As the list of films grows each week, feel free to use these guides and to mix and match movies according to your interests or those of your group. I’m also always open to suggestions for other movies that can be added to the series. You can browse the entire series by clicking on the “Fundamentals in Film” category in the right sidebar of this blog.

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Key Largo

Posted on by
Reply

If you like your good guys and bad guys in black and white with effective shades of gray then Key Largo is for you, and there’s a lot of star power to boot. The film was directed by John Huston and featured Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Edward G. Robinson, Lionel Barrymore and Claire Trevor (who won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress). There’s even a cameo by Jay Silverheels, TV’s Tonto from the Lone Ranger.

While the movie is described as a film noir thriller it’s not that noir-ish, and while there’s plenty of action it isn’t as suspenseful as you might expect. Still, it’s a very entertaining drama, well-acted and well-told and set against the backdrop of post-World War II America.

Bogie plays Frank McCloud, an idealistic but jaded war veteran who travels to Key Largo to visit the crippled father (Barrymore) and widow (Bacall) of George Temple, a friend who served under him in Italy. They are good, decent people and he tells them about George, saying, “You’d have been proud of him, like every man in his regiment. With good reason. It wasn’t just a matter of doing his duty. He was always looking for a way to do more. And finding it. George was a born hero, Mr. Temple. He couldn’t imagine his own death. Only dishonor.”

The Temple family owns a hotel, which also happens to have some unsavory guests in the person of Robinson, as gang-boss Johnny Rocco, and his assorted henchmen who are there to close a counterfeiting deal. Oh, and did I mention a hurricane is on the way?

As in Casablanca, Bogart plays a good guy who just wants to mind his own business and not get involved in any causes, but who ultimately can’t ignore his conscience. A subtext to the story that younger viewers are likely to miss is the postwar disillusionment Frank feels after sacrificing so much to defeat evil and then returning home to find things little changed, as ultimately manifested by Rocco. (Talk about great acting – one of the most powerful scenes is when Robinson is whispering to Lauren Bacall, even though she doesn’t speak and you can’t hear a word he is saying).

Thrown together in close quarters due to the storm, the Frank and Rocco naturally clash but when pressed to the sticking point Frank initially backs down to preserve his life, saying “One more or one less Johnny Rocco in the world isn’t worth dying for” even though it costs him the respect of the Temples (who apparently prefer dead heroes to survivors). It also costs him some of his own self-respect but he ultimately regains all when he realizes that “a fighter can’t walk away from a fight” and goes against doing the sensible because “your head says one thing but your whole life says another.”

Questions to answer:

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

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

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

  4. What do you think Nora meant when she said, “When you believe like George believed, maybe dying isn’t so important.”

Points to ponder: From the dialog in the story, why do you think Frank drifted between so many jobs after the war. What do you think his expectations were when the war was over, and how did he adapt to the reality?

Great quote:
“You’ve got to be lying. 800 people swept out to sea in a hurricane? Who would ever live here again if that really happened?”

About Fundamentals in Film: this series began as a class I taught to junior high and high school boys as a way to use the entertainment media to explore concepts of honor, honesty, duty and accountability. The movies were selected to demonstrate these themes and as a contrast to television that typically either portrays men as Homer Simpsons or professional wrestlers, with little in between those extremes. I wrote questions and points to ponder for each movie to stimulate discussion and to get the boys to articulate their thoughts and reactions to each movie. I offer this series here on this blog for the benefit of parents or others looking for a fun but challenging way to reinforce these concepts in their own families or groups. As the list of films grows each week, feel free to use these guides and to mix and match movies according to your interests or those of your group. I’m also always open to suggestions for other movies that can be added to the series.

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Intermission

Posted on by
Reply

I’m taking a little time out to watch some more movies and to try to get a little ahead of the pace I’ve set for myself with these reviews. I’ve got a couple of films queued up and should be back next week with a new movie for the series. This week, however, I want to focus on a subject that I see as being closely intertwined with this series: educating boys.

As I’ve said before, this series started out as a way to illustrate positive character traits to teenage boys in an entertaining way. I think one of the greatest failings of the modern U.S. education system is the way it suppresses boys’ natural behavior and instincts through its educational orthodoxy and even with drugs, simultaneously dampening their natural desire and ability to learn in their own manner. At the same time a further disservice is performed by our culture of entertainment that, instead of suppressing boys’ instincts, plays to the basest of these. Alternately numbed and overstimulated, we have a generation of young men who may be easy to manipulate but hard to educate.

I’m not a distinguished pedagogue, but I am male and I have followed this subject for some time. I am also sympathetic to the impulses of the schools. There are many times in the youth group my wife and I lead where if I had a tranquilizer dart gun I’d be seriously tempted to use it on the young teen males in the group. I’d rather have them rambunctious, however, than sitting in a stupor because it’s easier to engage them during the former. I know that boys have high energy and learn kinetically, often by doing rather than listening. Sitting still disconnects something in their brain, yet “sit still” may be the thing they hear the most in school.

Since I was in college, much has been made about how schools have to do a better job in creating a “safe” learning environment for girls where boys don’t dominate the lessons, or unintentionally intimidate girls from participating in class. If this premise was ever true, it seems that the enforced solution has been effective if you look at the statistics offered by Michael Gurian and Kathy Stevens, co-authors of “The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons From Falling Behind in School and Life.” Using data from the Department of Education, the State Department and other sources, they report that boys:

  • Receive the majority of D and F grades given to students in most schools, as high as 70 percent.

  • Create 80 percent of classroom discipline problems.
    Account for 80 percent of high school dropouts.

  • Represent 70 percent of children diagnosed with learning disabilities and 80 percent of those diagnosed with behavioral disorders.

  • Are an average of a year to a year-and-a-half behind girls in reading and writing skills. (Girls are behind boys in math and science, but to a lesser degree.)

  • Represent 80 percent of schoolchildren on Ritalin or other medications used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

  • Make up less than 44 percent of America’s college population.

In this article from the January 22nd Washington Times, Guerian and Stevens say that a key reason boys are not performing as well as girls is that there are neurobiological differences that are not recognized by most teachers.

“We have an industrial schooling system to educate the greatest number of people, and this system — with its emphasis on reading, writing and talking — is set up for the female brain, not the male,” Mr. Gurian says. “And this verbally motivated environment will leave out large groups of males, who are not very verbal.”

He says boys cannot benefit optimally in an environment where they are under tight control.

“When boys sit down, their brain shuts down,” Mr. Gurian says.

Some boys need to be more active in the classroom, and because of this, they are more likely to become discipline problems, he says. Although Mr. Gurian acknowledges that not all boys will be lost in the current system, about five boys in a class of 30 will be left behind.

(Read the whole article for some more great insight into this subject. Also, I think one of the reasons Calvin and Hobbes was so funny, poignant and successful is that people could relate to Calvin’s imagination, energy and rebelliousness, especially as counterbalanced by Suzie Derkins.)

My observation from growing up and from hanging around young men now is that boys see through false “self-esteem building” exercises that are too easy, but they can be challenged to excel by appealing to their competitive yet cooperative natures and by holding out an inspiring and chivalrous ideal. Credit for that idea has to go to King Arthur, and the British certainly understood the value of what was learned “on the playing fields of Eton.”

An example that occurred to me once was to picture an island in the middle of a raging river. Imagine the island has arable land and a small population of men and women. It is capable of supplying enough food for everyone until the population grows. The women might suggest a method for equitably rationing food, but the masculine response would be to think, “If I can just build a bridge across this part of the river, we can find more land to feed our families. Oh, and you say I might die trying to build that bridge? Cool!” Sure, that’s the kind of thinking that leads to war sometimes, but it’s also what has pushed exploration and civilization forward. It’s not exclusively the province of the male chemistry, but it shows what can happen if you harness, rather than benumb boys.

This “Fundamentals in Film” series isn’t a solution to the problem, but my hope is that it can help provide part of that virtous inspiration in an engaging way and that it will be helpful for parents, home educators and youth leaders who want to counter the media’s portrayal of men as either mindless brutes, mindless slugs or — if they have a mind — as nerds. Illustrating and encouraging strong character and channeling your strength for the benefit of others is beneficial not just to the boys but to society as a whole.

(Along the same lines is a great on-line program meant to encourage boys, young men and even older men to read. Called Guys Read, it has a fantastic understanding of what kinds of stories interest males of all ages and tries to use these books and stories to kindle a love of reading that will also ultimately lead to more academic success. Check it out.)

Friday Fundamentals in Film: The Tuskegee Airmen

Posted on by
Reply

This week’s movie, The Tuskegee Airmen, is based on a true story about a group of young black men recruited to be fighter pilots in World War II. It’s a stirring and thought-provoking movie that easily stands on its own from a cinematic and historical perspective, but at the same time it plays almost like a sequel to another movie, Glory (see link below). While the black Union soldiers in Glory were fighting for freedom, the men in this movie are fighting for equality and both groups have to overcome many of the same hurdles and pay a blood sacrifice as a down-payment on that goal. (Another commonality is the appearance of Andre Braugher in both movies, as Thomas in Glory and as Col. Benjamin O. Davis in The Tuskegee Airmen.

I recommend this movie to young men not just for its themes of honor, perserverence and looking out for one another but because it deals effectively (and not too heavy-handedly) with the additional burden of being a standard-bearer for your race and the daily, deliberate attacks on your character, integrity and sense of self. In this case these attacks come through racism but in every area of life we are going to be faced with people who don’t like us for some reason — faith, background, politics, accent, past mistakes — and have the power to mess with our lives. When it happens will you blow up, wash out or persevere?

The movie is also an interesting perspective for anyone who assumes that nothing much happened to the conditions of blacks in the U.S. in the 100 years between the end of the Civil War and the civil rights movement. While the young cadets are the first of their race to pursue combat pilot status, each of the young men is college educated. Further, the men from the North had a culture shock when they arrived in the South, such as being removed from their train car because it was now “Whites Only” — and seeing their seats given to German prisoners of war being transported. “Normal” treatment for the southern men, but shocking to the ones from Iowa and New York.

The ensemble cast is universally solid and even exceptional, though it did seem to me that Laurence Fishburne alternates only between super-solemn and solemn moods and Cuba Gooding, Jr. plays, well, Cuba Gooding, Jr. The most interesting character for me was Lt. Glenn (Courtney Vance), the black “liasion officer” between the white chain of command and the cadets during their training. As the only pilot – black or white – on the base with actual combat experience (from volunteering in the Canadian Air Force) his demeanor is ultra-sharp and tightly controlled but you can still see the powerful emotions and drive in him to be the ultimate, consummate soldier and by force of will do the same for the cadets in his charge.

Beyond the racial story, Airmen is pretty much standard war movie fare with good messages in terms of the men maturing, coming to grips with their fears and bonding as a team. That additional element, however, provides an especially poignant perspective that I think is moving, inspiring and educational for viewers of any color. The discipline and common cause the men demonstrated and the understanding that this was something bigger than themselves are important takeaways.

Points to Ponder:

  • Why do you think it was so challenging to people such as Major Joy and Senator Conyers for the black airmen to succeed?

  • Can you help others by being hurtful? Can you hurt others by being helpful?

  • Was the “blood sacrifice” in the movies Glory and The Tuskegee Airmen important? Why or why not?

Questions to Ask:

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

  2. What did Hannibal Lee mean when he said to his friends, “I’d rather be here by my lonesome than play with a couple of jokers who can’t figure out the game.” What was the significance of this?

  3. What does Lt. Glenn’s demeanor and conduct say about what he feels he has to prove as a soldier, a pilot and an instructor.

  4. The cadets heard two speeches from two different officers, as Lt. Glenn noted, when they arrived in Tuskegee. What was the significance of each speech and what did they say about what was ahead of the men?

  5. References are made in the movie to Jesse Owens and Joe Louis. Who were these men, and what was the significance of these references in the story?

  6. What would you do if faced with the same choices of these men: Hannibal Lee, Colonel Rogers, Lt. Glenn, Cadet Peoples?

Great quotes:
“Cadet (spoiler) just taught you men the most important lesson here at Tuskegee. If you don’t believe in God, you better find yourself a damn good substitute.”

“It’s your privilege to live in the air. It is your destiny to die by fire.”

About Fundamentals in Film: this series began as a class I taught to junior high and high school boys as a way to use the entertainment media to explore concepts of honor, honesty, duty and accountability. The movies were selected to demonstrate these themes and as a contrast to television that typically either portrays men as Homer Simpsons or professional wrestlers, with little in between those extremes. I wrote questions and points to ponder for each movie to stimulate discussion and to get the boys to articulate their thoughts and reactions to each movie. I offer this series here on this blog for the benefit of parents or others looking for a fun but challenging way to reinforce these concepts in their own families or groups. As the list of films grows each week, feel free to use these guides and to mix and match movies according to your interests or those of your group. I’m also always open to suggestions for other movies that can be added to the series.