Category Archives: Movie Nights

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.

Friday Fundamentals in Film: The Red Badge of Courage

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
1

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

Posted on by
1

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

Posted on by
Reply

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?

Flight and fight

Posted on by
3

I didn’t blog last night because I was watching an incredible movie that left me feeling simultaneously too wired and too wiped out to write when it was over. The movie was Flight 93 (A&E channel), a dramatization about the 9/11 passengers and crew who fought back against the terrorists to prevent the jet from being flown into the White House or Capitol Building. Based on research, interviews and facts from the public record, the movie has a disconcerting realism that wrapped me in feelings that were equal parts outrage and helplessness.

When I first heard that a made-for-tv movie about this was going to be on I didn’t have a very positive reaction. I thought it would either be overly sappy or, worse, try too hard to “understand” the terrorists. I didn’t watch when it debuted Monday night, but heard positive reviews so I decided to check it out when it was rebroadcast Tuesday night (remaining re-broadcast schedule at the end of this post).

Even knowing the ultimate outcome (or maybe because I knew) I found my heart pounding from the opening, quiet moments of the movie. There’s no back-story on any of the people involved although a few things are hinted at in snippets of conversation or in glimpses at carry-on items; you don’t “meet” anyone anymore than you do when boarding an airplane. The story essentially takes place within the timeframe from the beginning to the end of the flight. As a viewer you get a vivid sense of how surreal the situation was as passengers, families at home, the citizenry, the media and the authorities all tried to wrap their minds around what was happening. Sometimes I almost wanted to shout at the television because it was so frustrating to see elements of the big picture already in my head revealed bit by bit and wanting the people in the film to understand. That same sense, however, also helped me to marvel at how quickly the people on board ultimately were able to not only understand but process, accept, adapt and act on that understanding. Can you imagine what it would take for you, going about your daily business, to completely re-order your reality to the point where you are making life and death decisions within a span of a couple of hours?

Adding to the compelling eeriness of the film is that it is so brightly and cleanly lit. No “Bourne Supremacy” type of dark edges and stylized blurred action; we see the bright light and clean lines we’re accustomed to in modern jets and the sunny, “just another day” weather around the homes of families talking to their doomed loved ones on the telephone. It all certainly heightens the “how can this really be happening” sense of everyone involved. It’s heart-breaking to see the families trying to cope while hoping for the best, and to think what it must be like for these same families to see themselves and their loved ones portrayed in this film.

While certain parts of what actually happened have to be conjecture, there is a remarkable amount of information available because of the communications that were sent and received, and it’s hard not to be caught up in the story or to imagine how you yourself would be reacting in the same circumstances. 9/11 wasn’t the day the world changed; that happened long before. It was, however, the day we realized the world had changed. Flight 93 is a timely and gripping story without patriotic rants and Boris Badinov cartoon villains and it resonates in these days when so many seem determined to forget the hard lessons learned that day.

Rebroadcasts this week (all times EST) on A&E:

Wednesday, Feb. 1 — 9:00 pm
Thursday, Feb. 2 — 1:00 am
Saturday, Feb. 4 — 12:00 pm
Sunday, Feb. 5 — 12:00pm

Update:

Welcome to visitors following Amy Ridenour’s National Center link to this post. I’m honored by Amy’s link and appreciate your interest.

Encouraged by this development, I’ve submitted this post to this weekend’s Open Trackback Alliance collection via the OTA portal at The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns.

Friday Fundamentals in Film: Spartacus

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
Reply

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.