Category Archives: Movie Nights

The Producers?

Posted on by
Reply

I thought I’d have a new “Friday Fundamentals in Film” post ready for today but time and circumstances worked against me. The next one in the series is imminent, however.

I did, however, recently see a movie that will never make it to the FIF list, but I’ll describe it here as a warning and public service. The movie is The Producers: The Musical, a remake by Mel Brooks of his 1968 comedy classic, with the latest version essentially being a filming of the hit Broadway-musical version of the show.

I ordered the remake from Netflix with both anticipation and trepidation. I loved the original movie and was interested to see how it would look with a real budget, but I was concerned with how it some of my favorite scenes might translate into the modern version. The original was so off-the-wall and unlike anything else I’d ever seen (I don’t think I stumbled across it until the mid-70s) that I’ve always cherished it even though it looked as if it had been written in one weekend and filmed in two. The success of the Broadway version in recent years encouraged me. The fact that I hadn’t noticed the new movie when it was first released to the theaters, however, might have been telling.

The latest version is fast-paced and very slick looking. I will say that I like Nathan Lane as Max Bialystock better than Zero Mostel, but Matthew Broderick as Leo Bloom is no Gene Wilder; in fact, he couldn’t carry Wilder’s blanket. Broderick plays the same whiny nebbish he’s played in The Road to Wellville and The Stepford Wives (a long way from his role as Col. Robert Gould Shaw in Glory). Of course, the role calls for a whiny nebbish, but while Wilder made it funny, Broderick never rises above the annoying.

The best thing the movie did this go-round was to expand the role of Franz Liebkind, the erstwhile Nazi turned playwright. The best and funniest scenes involve Franz, played by Will Ferrell — and I should let you know that I normally cannot abide Will Ferrell. While I missed Dick Shawn as Hitler, the flower-power-hippie role as presented in the original movie obviously was too dated for this version, and updating to a gay parody was inspired. The problem was (as is often the failure with Brooks films) in beating the joke to death. Brooks at his best (Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein, imho) sets up the joke, gets the laugh and moves on to the next absurdity. At his worst (e.g., History of the World, Part 1 and Spaceballs – which even so has many funny scenes) you see the joke coming a long way off, it is carried on for way too long, and then repeated again and again. TPTM falls into this bog.

There are some good bits in the new version, and the movie is not bad as a Netflix rental, especially if you keep your expectations low (a service which I hope I have performed).

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Boys’ Night Out #5 – Glory

Posted on by
Reply

I had a coach and gym teacher back in junior high school that used to call us guys a bunch of “Yo-yos”. We knew that wasn’t a good thing, but it also seemed like kind of a silly insult. Now that I’m about the age he was, and have deliberately subjected myself to the company of 13-to-15 year old boys, I know exactly what he meant by the term.

These kids can’t sit still, and bounce around mentally just as much and as fast as they do physically. You can get their attention, but it’s like having it on a string; it constantly goes off in different directions and has to be pulled back. Similarly my own experiences with them are up and down. I’ve gotten involved because I want the lads to be of future benefit to society, but there are times when I think society might be best served by me drowning them in the river. Then there are times…

Last night we got together to watch Glory, the movie about the black regiment, the 54th Massachusetts, during the Civil War. The movie quickly got their attention (exploding heads in the opening scene will do that) and it appeared they were soon caught up in the story, even taking the unusual steps of raising their hands to ask questions about what was going on at different times in the movie. I’d stop the movie and answer the questions, giving them additional history about the Civil War and the politics of that time and using the opportunity to point out contrasts between different characters and how the actions of various men reflected their thoughts, assumptions and expectations (good and bad) of their fellow soldiers.

The boys became so engrossed in the story that they started offering exclamations and commentary when certain things happened on the screen, showing their own frustration with what the men in the movie were experiencing. When the 54th arrived in the South and was put to work felling and hauling timber one of our young men made the observation that, “They’re still just like slaves!” At the end of the movie when the written epilogue revealed that the fort the men had sacrificed themselves to storm was never taken, another young man exclaimed, “What a waste!”

This was an excellent opening into discussing the movie, because I could ask him why he thought it was a waste. His response was because they had been killed with nothing to show for it; I asked the rest of the group if that was true, which led to some good responses as they started to grasp the significance of the “blood sacrifice” the regiment had made toward earning the respect of the nation for themselves and for their people. We also spent a long time talking about the dynamics of the flogging that one character received in the movie and whether or not it was “just”, what it “cost” different people in the movie and whether it served a greater good. It was a very interesting discussion with some saying it was a racist act, while others saw the need for discipline to be enforced for the benefit of the regiment.

The boys were energized by the movie, and I was energized by their interest and the quality of their questions and answers and by the way they listened to the observations from the dads in the group. Before the movie started I had told them to watch for how different people had different expectations about the soldiers (even among the soldiers themselves) and how these expectations were reflected in different actions…and led to different results. A key thing I wanted them to understand is that “hard” doesn’t necessarily mean “bad” and that “no pain, no gain” doesn’t just apply to one person at a time. (Click on the link earlier in this post to see the original study guide and questions I use with this movie if you want to know more).

It was a good for me to review the lesson on expectations as well. Both the men in the movie and the boys in the class have to deal with the expectations — positive and negative — of others. Whether the boys made the connection or not, they, too, are judged by others simply because of their age and the “expectation” of their behavior. Sometimes they are dismissed as uncontrollable and barely human; other times they are held to an idealized and unrealistic standard; often the person holding both of those attitudes is myself.

What the men of the 54th needed, and what these boys who will be men are needing, is to be seen for the value that they have and for what they will be. Training can be hard and unpleasant for all concerned, but training exercises are a piece of cake compared to the real-life lessons that await. We do them no favors by thinking of them as just so much fodder to be thrown away, or by cutting them slack now out of mis-placed pity for how tough things are going to be for them later. Thinking back to my own days as a “yo-yo”, I can see the difference others have made in my life.

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!

For the benefit of Mr. Kite (and Alice Cooper and Steven Tyler)… look away

Posted on by
Reply

The thing about the latter 1970s is that so much of the weirdness then can be easily attributed to drugs. Well, drugs and Jimmy Carter. Now when I look back on those times I often get the feeling that I’m revisiting an alternative universe. Lately I’ve been inclined to write these perceptions off as a matter of me getting older, while discounting the ready access to certain botanicals and pharmaceuticals back then. After some unfortunate channel-surfing over the weekend, however, I’m back to my original hypothesis.

Friday night I watched the last half of the 1978 “film”, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Yes, I had full control of the remote and could have changed the channel or looked away, but there was an oddly compelling desire to look, such as what one gets when passing a road accident or a pro-illegal immigration rally. When I first saw the movie in a theater (what are these “movie rental” and “cable television” things you speak of?) I remember lamenting the experience as nothing more than the waste of $3, which I alternatively could have used to purchase half a tank of gas.

Now, looking back from the omniscience of my years I can see where this movie was the place where the fabric of the universe first took on the look of the frayed or torn blue jeans so common back then. Could it be more than coincidence that torn jeans are once more in vogue and this movie is circulating via satellite waves? (And for the record, kids, back in my day we had to work to get those jeans looking like that.)

I’m sure it seemed like a good idea at the time to movie executives to do a rock opera homage to the Beatles. Beatles music was still big, processed rock and roll was starting to rule the land, no dialogue would make it easier to cover up that no one could act and Peter Frampton still had three or four seconds left of his 15 seconds of fame. Peter Frampton? Lord, yes, the movie starred Peter Frampton, looking like he weighed 110 pounds and in all his white blond curls as if he was trying to channel William Katt in The Greatest American Hero, but with half the machismo.

Predictably the result was more homogenization than homage with casting trying to pull in as many popular icons of the era regardless of field or musical genre. Hence the film also features The BeeGees, George Burns, Steve Martin, Alice Cooper, Aerosmith and Earth, Wind & Fire. The BeeGees have the largest roles after Frampton, but I never could (or never bothered) to keep their names straight; to me they’ve always been Big Hair BeeGee, Missing Hair BeeGee and Blond Hair BeeGee. The trippiest performance, predictably, was Cooper singing “Because” while the best part of the movie was Aerosmith’s great cover of “Come Together” (and I’m not even that much of an Aerosmith fan).

To show just how much drugs (or money) were involved you only need to know that both Alice Cooper and Steven Tyler get their butts kicked by Peter Frampton. Yeah, right, like that could happen, especially since Frampton’s “moves” seemed to have been borrowed from the scene in “Blazing Saddles” where the men’s chorus fought with the cowboys, or perhaps Lauren Bacall trying to hit Edward G. Robinson in “Key Largo”. I don’t know how much they had to pay Cooper and Tyler (or with what) to go along with this indignity, but I hope for their sakes it was enough. I mean, it would have been more believable for George Burns to win the fight, or even Jimmy Carter’s Killer Rabbit who, apparently, wasn’t cast in the movie because he wasn’t famous until the following year.

As insipid as the movie was it somehow exerted a strong pull on me, not unlike what a kleenex must feel as it gets sucked down the toilet. Maybe it was the lateness of the hour and my fatigue, or the effects of some post-hypnotic suggestion I received in the 70s. The pay-off, however, meager as it may have been was the final scene when the producers pulled in every idle celebrity within a 10 mile radius of the studio for a group chorus of “We’re Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” shot to look like the album cover.

I was just about to turn the tv off when the camera started panning the pre-“We Are the World” assembly, challenging my ability to recognize these people from nearly 30 years ago. OMG, is that Johnny Winter? What’s he doing in this abomination? Rick Derringer and Nils Lofgren — what, did the producers have photos of you with teen-age girls? Wasn’t that Jackson Browne, or only Keith Carradine? Hey, there’s that other guy with my name, and Hank Williams, Jr! Bowser from Sha-Na-Na? They must have been offering free food at the recording session and he walked in. Whoa, there’s Heart from back when they were still good-looking, and a low-miles Bonnie Raitt! Leif Garret, go back to your room NOW, young man. They even had Dr. John and Robert Palmer in there, no doubt to ensure that no matter how stupid the filming was, the cast party was smoking.

I know, I know, I need to chill. I don’t know why this set me off, but I’ll just do what Alice Cooper and Steven Tyler do whenever they think of this and that is to repeat over and over, “It’s only a movie. It’s only a movie.”

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.