Friday Fundamentals in Film: The Red Badge of Courage

The Red Badge of Courage is a John Huston Civil War classic starring Audie Murphy and Bill Mauldin (yes, the WWII creator of the “Willie and Joe” cartoons). Barely over an hour long, the movie pretty much sticks to Stephen Crane’s novel and features multiple passages read outloud by the film’s narrator. While clearly a war movie about “courage”, I found the most interesting embedded message here to be about the untested soldier Henry Fleming’s struggles to match his confidence and self-image with what he wanted it to be or hoped it could be and with his perception of the expectations of others. Battle happens to be the ready setting for this story, but the essential conflict could have been depicted in many ways.

At the beginning of the story Fleming and his Union comrades in arms have never been in battle and are bored with military life and useless drilling. Itching to fight (each other if they can’t get at the Rebels) the men talk boisterously of the feats they will perform under fire and young Fleming joins in while alternately withdrawing into his doubts. He struggles because he’s afraid he will be afraid, and because the realization of his fear appears to confirm the worst. Yet he doesn’t want to consider himself a coward, or be considered a coward by his fellow troops or his family. He speaks and writes in ways meant to show that he will stand firm, but he has to question himself.

Battle looming or not, untested young men have to deal with the same concerns and hope they will rise to be among the best while fearing they will be among the worst, and the fear of failure can be more motivating than the fear of death itself. This movie is a good opportunity to look at the nature of courage, the influence of others around us in inspiring our best or most craven characteristics, and even to examine the role of faith in giving us a workable handle for grabbing hold of the world. It is also good preparation for young men (or older men) who have not been tested so that they know their doubts or thoughts are not unique to them.

Point to Ponder:
After the Rebels’ first brief attack and retreat, and then after the last battle, Fleming and the others saw the world – and appreciated things – in a different way. Imagine yourself in those same moments; how would you describe the sensation?

Questions to ask:

  1. Fleming was embarrassed first to have run, and then embarassed to be recognized for his fighting. Why do you think both were embarrassing to him?
  2. What was the philosophy of the “happy soldier” (played by Andy Devine) that Fleming met the night after the first battle? Did this have an affect on Fleming?
  3. Was it courage or another kind of fear that propelled Fleming into battle on the second day?
  4. What effect did the actions of the soldiers who ran and the soldier’s who stayed and fought have on Fleming? What consequences did his actions have on others on the first day and then on the second? Which behavior do you think was closest to his true character?
  5. The narrator said, “He had performed his mistakes in the dark so he was still a man.” If nobody sees what you do does it make a difference?
  6. Even when Fleming confessed the truth to his friend he couldn’t bring himself to tell the whole truth. Was this another kind of fear? How well did he confront and overcome this challenge? All in all, would you say he was brave, or a weasel, or something in between? Why?

Great quote:
“So it came to pass as he trudged from the place of blood and wrath his soul changed. He had been to touch the great death…and found that after all it was but the great death. Scars faded as flowers and the youth saw that the world was a world for him. He had rid himself of the red sickness of battle.”

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 sometimes 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: Conagher

This week’s movie is Conagher. If you’re looking for a film to demonstrate certain manly virtues it’s hard to go wrong with a movie based on a Louis L’Amour book and starring the laconic Sam Elliott. Elliott plays Conn Conagher, a seasoned cowhand with the highest personal integrity; not looking for trouble, willing to avoid it if he can, but able to deal with it efficiently if the need be. The role could have easily been a caricature but in Elliott’s hands (and face) it comes off as note perfect. In fact, the acting throughout the film, originally made for TNT, is first rate: Kathryn Ross (not afraid to show some lines in her face) and veteran character actor Barry Corbin are excellent and there’s even a small but significant appearance by Festus himself, Ken Curtis. Shot on location in Colorado, the scenery is spectacular and even the minor characters look as if they’ve just stepped from a Frederic Remington or Charles Russell painting.

The action revolves around one man, Conagher, making a stand for doing what’s right in a wide open land with little “controlling legal authority” where many are looking to take advantage of others any way they can. There’s also a strong but largely unspoken love story woven throughout that is heightened by the sense of loneliness and isolation that is well illustrated by the cinematography. For all of Conagher’s rawboned toughness, he’s also consciously well-mannered and respectful around the widow Evie Teale and her children. His silences and discomfort are not because of boorishness or a lack of confidence, but because he knows himself so well and doesn’t think he’d be good for her. As he asks Charlie McCloud (another interesting character study) at one point, “What have I got to offer a woman like that?” To which McCloud replies, “Why don’t you let her answer that question?”

As I mentioned earlier, Conagher doesn’t go looking for trouble with other folks, but just by the way he goes about doing his business he convicts others of their shortcomings and causes them to feel as if they need to prove themselves – for good or ill – as a result. Conflict and teachable moments abound throughout the movie as a result without bogging down into preachy dialogue. You can watch it with the whole family and everyone will enjoy the story and get something different out of it.

Here are some questions I’d ask a viewer:

  1. What did it mean to Conagher to “Ride for the brand”?
  2. What does it mean to have integrity in a world with little in the way of effective law enforcement?
  3. Chris Mahler, Kiowa Staples and Smoke Parnell were members of the Ladder 5 gang that Conagher was resisting. Aside from the conflict over the cattle-rustling, however, each man was challenged in some way by Conager’s personal character. Can you describe what it was that bothered Phillips and Mahler the most, and the way Parnell regarded Conagher?
  4. Describe Evie Teale’s character. Do you think it makes a difference in the story that the children are her step-children?
  5. Describe what kind of men Charlie McCloud and Seaborn Tay are.

Points to Ponder:

  • Independence is apparently understood and highly valued in the part of the country where the story takes place. Why do you think that is, and how is this expressed by the different characters?
  • Johnny McGivern’s father died when he was very young. How would you describe his personality and how these factors influenced his decisions? Do you think Laban might have turned out to be like him as well? Why or why not?

Great Quotes:
Laban: “Who gave you the black eye?”
Conn: “Nobody gave it to me. I fought for it.”

Tile Coker (under Conn’s gun): “East? But that’s a 50 mile walk!”
Conn: “That’s the life of an outlaw. Tough, ain’t it?”

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Kidnapped

You can trust a Robert Louis Stevenson tale to work in plenty of swashbuckling action, hair-breadth escapes … and moral clarity. Kidnapped doesn’t disappoint, and this 2004 made-for-tv adaptation (don’t confuse it with the earlier PBS version that plays fast and loose with history and the book) delivers a rollicking story with plenty of villains and heroes.

Young Davie Balfour (Brian McCardie) is the rightful heir to the Shaws estate in the Lowlands but his miserly and covetous uncle conspires to have Davie kidnapped for eventual sale into slavery in order to keep the estate for himself. On the ship carrying him away he meets another traveler who didn’t intend to be there, Alan Breck Stuart (Armand Assante), a supporter and agent for the Scottish king in exile, Bonnie Prince Charles. Stuart is a fugitive from the English trying to smuggle gold to Charles from his still loyal subjects after the failed Jacobite rebellion. Together they make a plan and escape the ship and its evil crew and find themselve cast up again on the shores of Scotland.

Stuart is a man of action and experience, while Davie is quiet and well-educated. They make an unlikely, and sometimes unwilling, team as they try to stay one step ahead of the British soldiers, complete Stuart’s mission and regain Davie’s inheritance. Despite their different backgrounds and circumstances, both are clearly men of honor who thereby bring out the worst in those who would harm them. Greed drives many of the actions of others, while some are in it for power. Stuart remains steadfast to his cause and his loyalty to his king, while Davie is “betwixt and between” in his political sentiments but committed to acting honestly and justly.

This version is nearly three hours long and Assante’s Scots brogue is as uneven as the terrain the men find themselves traipsing around, but the story is fun and the on-location scenery is spectacular. It is an entertaining movie for the whole family with several good talking points on the role and importance of honor, duty and honesty. It also has a stirring recitation from Psalms 35 from an innocent leader condemned to die.

Points to Ponder:
The role of clan feuds and long-standing enmity between the people of Scotland and the role this has played in the country’s history.

Questions to answer:

  1. Why did Davie not open the envelope his father left, even though it had to do with him?
  2. What question did Stuart ask Campbell the Red Fox that put him on the spot and proved that Campbell was lying to him? Why wouldn’t Campbell answer him?
  3. Why did James of the Glen surrender himself to Mr. Reed, the agent of King George? Why was this necessary?
  4. Describe the life of Uncle Ebenezer and the use he got out of his wealth.
  5. How did Davie change over the course of his adventures, and in what ways did he not? What affect, if any, did he have on Alan Breck Stuart?

Great quotes:
(Despite my politics) “As a gentleman, it is my duty to see justice done if I can.” (Davie Balfour)

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Beyond the Gates of Splendor

I want to go in a little different direction with this week’s movie. Instead of a classic movie or a more contemporary film that illustrates strong values and virtues I want look at the documentary Beyond the Gates of Splendor. This documentary is the factual and very well done basis for the new movie in theaters now, End of the Spear (both were produced by the same people).

This is a very intense film that tells the story of the massacre of five missionaries in the 1950s by a primitive tribe of people in the jungles of Ecuador, and the subsequent and near miraculous actions of the families of the men to continue the work that they began — with the same tribe and individuals that killed their husbands and fathers.

While the story is nearly forgotten today, it was a major sensation at the time it happened. While it took place in the 1950s there are enough people still alive today to offer first hand accounts of the events. There is also a lot of home movie clips shot by the men that have been worked into the film. These accounts and film clips are especially moving and compelling elements of the documentary. The time that has passed also provides an interesting perspective when discussing how similar and different the world is now compared to then.

Beyond the Gates of Splendor begins almost as a National Geographic program as it details the primitive life of the Waodani tribe. It is a violent life where murder is the expected and accepted way of settling disputes. With six out of every 10 adult deaths attributed to homicide, the tribe is spearing itself into extinction. Then the focus shifts for a time to the background of the missionaries and their families. The five men — Nate Saint, Jim Eliot, Ed McCully, Pete Fleming and Roger Youderian — will certainly challenge the image some may have of what a missionary looks like. They were all young, handsome, fit, energetic and resourceful. They were leaders in everything they did and drew people to them; truly the flower of a generation. They literally could have done or been anything they wanted yet their hearts were for people in distant lands.

The second half of the documentary details their efforts in Ecuador and Peru and their initial and ingenious method for making contact with the Waodani and early successes. All is well until a young Waodani, to cover his own misbehavior, lies to the tribe about the men, resulting in the fatal assault party. If the film stopped here it would still be compelling, but the real story is just beginning as the wives, children and friends of the men continue to minister to the tribe over the next generation, leading to a spectacular turnaround — so much so that at one point one of the missionary’s daughters is baptized at the same spot in the river where her father was killed, with two of the men from the group that killed him participating in the ceremony. My kids were completely mesmerized by Beyond the Gates of Splendor and while it can be emotionally challenging at times, it is a stirring depiction of vision, commitment and faith.

Points to Ponder:

  • The Waodani society was based on two key values: egalitarianism and autonomy. No one could consider himself better than anyone else, but also, no one could get away with wronging another. With no institutionalized way of settling disputes, murder was the recourse of choice, often sparking a cycle of retribution. Does this sound familiar to other parts of the world or cities you know?
  • What is your conception of the mission field today? Do you think it is the same or different from 50 years ago?
  • What would you have done?

Questions to Answer:

  1. How did the men go about introducing themselves to the Waodani? Why did they do it this way?
  2. Nate Saint said “They’re not ready for ready for heaven, and we are,” in explaining why the men had decided not to use guns even to defend themselves. What did he mean by that?
  3. What were the circumstances that led up to the attack? Could they have been prevented?
  4. Why did the women return to the Waodani?
  5. What effect did all of this have on the Waodani?

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Spartacus

The 1960 epic Spartacus is long and in it’s production and pacing doesn’t fare well when compared to modern films that tell similar stories such as Gladiator or Braveheart, so it might be difficult for younger viewers to appreciate. (Really, when was the last time you saw a movie that took itself so seriously as to have an overture and an intermission?). The movie does explore some key themes, however, that can make for interesting starting points for discussion on the nature of love, power, freedom, hate, sexuality, political intrigue, loyalty, and friendship.

The central theme, however, is man’s desire to live free and with dignity and the willingness to sacrifice all to achieve it. This is shown well in several scenes and with dialog that is powerful and not too preachy or long-winded. While the movie is based on a book by Howard Fast and the screen play was by Dalton Trumbo (both Communists), the movie is not as political as you might expect. While the story is about gladiators and slaves (the proletariat) trying to throw off their masters, I thought the presentation and scenes explaining what Spartacus hoped to achieve were more closely related to the Declaration of Independence than to The Communist Manifesto. Indeed, part of the irony is to consider how much of what Spartacus said and did would have resulted in the same treatment from a Communist government as what he received from the Romans.

In addition, the film’s illustration of the dehumanizing aspect of slavery without a racial element may be eye-opening for those who think of slavery as being a black and white issue only.

Of particular meaning for young men are the scenes that show that self-control is the foundation, and not the opposite, of freedom. First in his initial dealings with the woman Virinia when Spartacus refused to perform sexually for the entertainment of the guards, and in his control over the gladiator army to keep it from behaving like a drunken mob, showed that the power to do something is nowhere near as important as the power to choose not to do that thing.

Finally, the political intrigue is instructive as we watch Crassus and Gracchus manuever and manipulate others to serve their own ends, becoming the personification of two opposing political philosophies willing to mouth anything to gain power when in reality there was little difference between them. One illuminating quote was when Gracchus said, referencing the gods: “Privately I believe in none of them. Neither do you. Publicly I believe in them all.” Also, later in the movie, when Julius Ceasar (then commander of the garrison of Rome) questions Gracchus on the unseemliness of dealing with pirates and criminals and Gracchus replies, “Don’t be so stiff-necked. Politics is a practical profession.”

Points to ponder:
What is the nature of freedom; how do you get it and how do you maintain it.

Questions to answer:

  1. On two occasions Spartacus draws distinctions between being man and being an animal. What were these occasions, and how did they relate to each other?
  2. One difference between Crassus and Gracchus is that one saw the people as something to be exploited and the other saw them as something to be controlled. Which was which, and how did they go about trying to achieve their ends? What differences, if any, were there between their objectives?
  3. At the end of the rebellion, why did the gladiators all claim to be Spartacus, even though it meant death? Was their decision similar to, or different from, Gracchus’ action at the end of the movie? How and why?

Great quote:
Spartacus said, “When just one man says, ‘No, I won’t,’ Rome began to fall.”

Friday Fundamentals in Film: class report

No movie this week as I’ve exhausted my original list of films and discussion topics I compiled for the Fundamentals in Film class I taught to a small group of junior and senior high school boys. I am, however, in the process of reviewing other films I’ve thought of or that people have recommended so I can continue the series, using the same approach of looking for examples of personal character within the movies. My thanks to those of you who have commented, e-mailed or spoken to me in person to tell me what you’ve gotten out of this series or how you plan to use it with your own sons or young adults. I’m honored by your response, and it is your reaction that has encouraged me to expand the series.

I’ve been promising a post describing how the Fundamentals in Film class went over with the boys and whether or not I felt it met the objectives I had in mind, and this is as good a time as any to get into this.

Friday Fundamentals in Film: U-571


The point of the Fundamentals in Film class was to help a group of young men see examples of “manly” behavior beyond just pro wrestlers or Homer Simpson. The World War II submarine movie U-571 fit the bill, having the requisite non-stop action and examples of strong character under stress (true of most films in the series). The special lesson from this film, however, also dealt with being able to control your face and emotions when things don’t go your way.



This was a good lesson for the group of young men in my charge who were prone to expressive outbursts, eye-rollings and other body language if they felt an injustice had been done unto them.



At the beginning of the movie young Andy (Matthew McConaughey) is the executive officer of a submarine who has just been passed over for promotion to captain of his own sub, due mainly to his own captain rating him as not being ready for command.



He finds this out just before their sub is sent on an urgent, secret mission to try and capture a damaged German submarine and its priceless Enigma decoding device. Andy knows he’s a good officer and can’t understand why his captain (Bill Paxton) thinks he is lacking. The captain explains that Andy is still too much of a friend to his sailors and not a commander, ready to make hard decisions and give orders that might get some of them killed in order to preserve the rest or the mission (so guess what’s going to happen in the movie).



Indeed, when Andy is forced to take command under pressure he is uncertain and his lack of confidence threatens to lose him control of the ship as his lack of leadership creates a vacuum that threatens chaos. Another great example in the movie is how the sailors cope with the stress of their constantly deteriorating situation, even as one seemingly unfair thing after another happens. The men aren’t happy about it, of course, but go about doing what has to be done.



U-571 is an excellent movie simply from an entertainment perspective. If you add in the examples of character under extreme circumstances it also becomes an especially meaningful movie.



Themes:


  • The qualities of leadership.

  • The meaning of sacrifice (“Greater love has no man but that he lay down his life for his brother”).

  • Having a perspective of the greater good, beyond yourself.

  • Showing respect and being obedient even if you are upset or feel wronged (controlling your face and your emotions).

  • The necessity at times of having to make hard decisions, using imperfect information, that have significant consequences in other peoples’ lives.



Questions to answer:


  1. Why did the captain think Andy was not prepared to be the captain of his own sub?

  2. Did Andy’s disappointment affect his obedience and discipline? Contrast Andy’s behavior with Mazzola’s.

  3. What are the burdens of authority?

  4. What was the over-riding principle Andy had to use in making his decisions?

  5. Would it have done any good for Andy (or anyone in the crew, to protest being in an unfair situation?





Great quote:

“A sea captain is a mighty and terrible thing.”

Friday Fundamentals in Film: The Shootist




I have some more movies in mind that will allow me to continue this Friday series, but this week’s movie was the last one I presented to a class of junior high and senior high school boys. I chose The Shootist (1976) as the final movie not just for the character issues, which we’d pretty much covered already in other movies, but for the subtleties and shadings of character and the way a movie or story can manipulate our emotions and get us to identify with a “hero” who might not be all that heroic when you look really closely.



This is not to bad-mouth John Wayne at all, here appearing in his final movie, or even the character he played. Fittingly, this is the story of a famous but terminally ill aging gunfighter (or “shootist”) trying to find peace in his final days. The point I was trying to get across to the boys, however, is how easily we look for a “good” guy in a story and identify with him – even if it’s only because he’s “less bad” than others.



The movie features a great cast with Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Lauren Bacall, Henry Morgan, Richard Boone and Ron Howard as a fatherless and impressionable young man. Howard narrates the opening sequence of the movie, a flash back of gunfights featuring the infamous John Bernard (JB) Books which were, cleverly, scenes lifted from earlier John Wayne movies. When Books rides into Carson City, Nevada in 1901 he suspects he’s dying and is looking to lie low and pass away in obscurity. After his doctor friend (Stewart) confirms the diagnosis, however, word gets out in the town that they have a “celebrity” in their midst and many people start angling for a way to make a name or some money for themselves at Books’ expense. In the process he meets and eventually befriends the widow (Bacall) running the boarding house where he stays and her son (Howard). In interludes with this broken family Books gains a small taste of the life he might have had as a husband and father if he hadn’t followed the path his life took instead.



There were three things I wanted the boys to get out of the movie. One was the way Howard’s character, young Gillom, attempted to act more “manly” by swearing and drinking and otherwise carrying on as he thought men do because he didn’t have a model in his life. Another lesson was in the way Gillom’s mother, a staunch Christian who deplored Books’ lifestyle and history, came to see the “Christian” way to act toward someone who is suffering. The main point, however, was the code Books emphatically claimed that he lived by — “I won’t be wronged, I won’t be insulted, I won’t be laid a hand on…I don’t do these things to others, and I expect the same from them” — and how he regularly broke that code without seeing the irony in doing so.



Points to Ponder:


  • Does your life make your reputation, or does your reputation make your life?

  • The influences (or lack of influences) that shape our lives.

  • The consequences and significance of decisions we make.

  • Society’s expectations and exploitation of heroes.

  • Is being good, good enough?



Some questions you might want to be able to answer:


  1. What was Books’ personal code that he explained to Gillom? Did he live up to it?

  2. What were Mrs. Rogers’ personal codes? How did her codes come into conflict with each other?

  3. How did Gillom try to make himself appear manly? What events in his life might explain his behavior?

  4. Was Books a good man or a bad man? What qualities did he have that were admirable? What qualities did he have that were not?

  5. What price did Books pay for his way of life? (What things did he give up, or miss out on?)

  6. Did Books have faith? Was it sufficient to get him into Heaven?



Great Quote:

JB: “Damn!”

Bond: “John Bernard, you swear to much.”

JB: “The hell I do!”



As I said, I have a few more movies in mind that I think portray admirable character qualities and motives and are useful examples for young people and I hope to continue this series and format here. If you have a favorite movie that fits this profile and objective by all means leave a comment or send me an email; I’d be happy to consider watching the movie and including it here at some point.



In a future, separate, post I’ll describe the results of the class and the impact, if any, it had on the young men who participated.



Friday Fundamentals in Film: Sense and Sensibility

For the next-to-last film in this series for the class of junior high and high school aged boys I departed from the war, western and sports genres for a classic “chick flick”: Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet, Hugh Grant and Alan Rickman. This dramatic shift in direction led one of the lads to ask, “Are we being punished?” I told them that that wasn’t the case, but there were a number of reasons why I wanted them to learn the lessons within this movie.

For one, I said, the emotional and internal battles fought in this movie, while non-bloody, were every bit as intense and devastating as any war film we’d watched and were far more likely to occur regularly in their own lives than the scenarios in the the so-called “action” flicks. I also wanted them to see examples of the different ways that men and women think and act and the consequences of things said and unsaid. And, I added, “there are going to be times in your life – if all goes well – when you’re going to have to sit through a ‘chick flick’ and this is good practice.”

The story, of course, comes from the Jane Austen book and describes the hardships and romances of two sisters and their mother when the patriarch dies and, by law, his estate goes to his son, the sister’s half-brother from their father’s earlier marriage. While the father made the son promise that the women would be well provided for, the son – influenced by his grasping wife – ends up allocating them a pittance, setting the stage for all that comes after. The two sisters have different outlooks on life and love (the “Sense” and “Sensibility” of the title) and both undergo severe but different trials in the process of getting to the happy ending.

The story is an interesting character study not only of the time period but the way “power” between the sexes is divided and applied. There are heroes and scoundrels among both sexes and while the men supposedly have all the legal power and advantages, the main authority figures driving most plot changes in the movie (in terms of dictating what is going to happen) are women.

While there was some initial grumbling and groaning as the movie started, I soon noticed the boys were rapt in their attention and angered by the outrages and bad behavior, grieved by the near-misses and miscommunications, and, finally, looking around sheepishly at each other by the end of the movie as if afraid to show that they cared how it turned out.

Key Points:

  • Emotions are serious matters not to be trifled with.
  • The importance of honor and keeping your word, even unto your own hurt.
  • Our actions – even when we’re young – can have far-reaching effects on the rest of our lives and on the lives of others.
  • Even scoundrels can appear decent and honorable for a time, but substance and integrity (or lack of it) will ultimately be revealed.
  • Neither men nor women are inherently noble by reason of birth or their sex, but must make choices.

Some Questions to Answer:

  1. How did John Dashwood’s behavior at the beginning of the movie set the stage for the rest of the movie?
  2. Many are harmed when someone doesn’t keep his word. Edward’s decision to keep his word, however, also causes problems. Why?
  3. Both Edward and Willoughby made decisions when they were younger that dramatically effected their lives later. What were the decisions each made? How did each respond to the consequences of their decisions?
    Why does Marianne reject Col. Brandon initially? What does she come to value in him eventually?
  4. What did Col. Brandon mean when he (speaking to Miss Dashwood) said Edward was “proud, in the best sense.”
  5. Contrast the way Willoughby would talk about Brandon when he wasn’t present to the way Brandon spoke of Willoughby – even after describing him as “the worst of libertines.”

Points to Ponder:

  • Who has he power in the movie – the men or the women? Why?
  • Was Lucy Steele really in love with Edward Ferrars?
  • Who was “Sense” and who was “Sensibility”? What is the difference?
  • Which character in the movie do you think is the most like you? Why?

Friday Fundamentals in Film: A Christmas Story

A Christmas Story actually wasn’t one of the movies we watched and discussed in the class I led with the junior high and high school boys, but given the season I thought it appropriate to delve into some of the character lessons that can be found in this classic film.

First let me say that this movie is a favorite for at least two generations of my family, and especially for my mom. She thinks that Ralphie looks a lot like I did at that age, while the era that is depicted is the same as the one when she was that age. I’ve always admired Jean Shepard’s ability to aptly describe the thinking of children without turning it into a caricature.

Secondly, unlike the movies I used in the class to help youngsters learn lessons by watching adults, this is a movie where it’s the youngsters that have the lessons for adults. One of the things that I get out of the movie is that we don’t just see a child’s-eye view of Christmas, but of adults (especially the father) as well.

Ralphie’s dad is a force of nature in his life, amazingly powerful yet unpredictable. His temper tantrums and cursing, while humorously portrayed, can’t help but have an influence on his son’s life. This is certainly illustrated in the incident with the spare tire, but also when Ralphie has finally had enough and takes his frustrations out on the bully, Scott Farkus. (That in itself is a good lesson about how bullies rule through reputation and intimidation but are ill-equiped to deal with the consequences when they push a good man too far, ala The Tin Star). Ralphie knows and fears he has gone over the line, even though he’s probably only acting the way his father would have (why else did it seem so natural for the little brother to cry, “Daddy’s going to kill Ralphie”?).

While I love this movie and don’t mean to draw out it’s darker aspects, there is another lesson that I find myself tripping over all too often, and that is how important it is to realize when your child is offering you a brief opportunity to get inside his or her world and find out what’s important to them. Just like Ralphie’s parents, I’m so wrapped up in my own frame of reference that I don’t realize, until after the fact, when my child has opened herself up to show me something where my acceptance and approval are vital to her (not in terms of getting a specific item, but in knowing she can trust me with her heart). When I’m brusque or dismissive I risk closing a door that I may one day wish I could open but can’t because of all the “you’ll shoot your eyes out” stacked in front of it.

Questions:

  1. What were the Red Ryder BB guns in your own life, and what did you learn by either getting, or not getting, these?
  2. What have been the results of “double-dog” dares in your life?

Point to Ponder:
What stories are your children going to tell about you when they grow up?

HOLIDAY BONUS FUNDAMENTALS IN FILM: White Christmas

This is another movie I always try to watch when it comes on each year at this time. Yeah, it’s sappy and the plot is mainly designed to sketch together a bunch of singing and dancing scenes, but I really enjoy the themes of friendship, loyalty and decency that pervade the story. There’s the friendship between Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye, the respect and concern that they have for their former commanding officer, and the graciousness and maturity displayed in the way the romantic stories are played out, without all the drooling passion and physicality that seems to be required to show “love” in films today.

I love the naturalness of each characters desire to do good to others, and Rosemary Clooney’s character’s willingness to put her principles ahead of her heart when she (erroneously) thinks the man she loves has behaved poorly. Yeah, they don’t make them like that any more, and more’s the pity. If you haven’t seen this movie before, or haven’t seen it for awhile, take a look. It’s probably showing right now on a channel near you.