The great thing is that we can learn much from those of other faiths without sacrificing our own beliefs and, hence, the value of “A Serious Man.” The film is about faith.  It doesn’t matter how you cloak that faith in religious terms.  The Coens have made a film that speaks universally to all faiths, and even to atheists. So while it happens to be set in a Jewish world, every single thing that happens could just as easily have happened to Christians or Buddhists or Muslims or Hindus.

And that is why you should see it. No matter what branch of faith you reside in, you will find plenty to identify with in this wonderful, dark, insightful, and thought-provoking movie.

There are spoilers ahead, but for now I’ll speak in generalities and a few specifics that do not impact the viewing experience and let you know about the big spoilers.

To Dybbuk or Not To Dybbuk?

The film’s central theme is replayed over and over again, which demonstrates the Coens’ outstanding writing talents.  Every scene places the main character, Larry Gopnik, in a position where he is made to wonder — what the heck is going on and why is all this stuff happening to me? Sound familiar?  Maybe the story of Job?  Maybe your own life, or that of someone you know?

The film opens with a quote from Rashi, short for Rabbi Shlomo Itzhaki, an 11th century French rabbi who commented extensively on the Talmud (a rabbinic discussion on Jewish law).

Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you.

For anyone who wonders what the heck “A Serious Man”  is about, the Coens state it right up front and the message is delivered repeatedly. In essence it is this: it is fruitless to ask “why?” We aren’t in a position to question God’s motives.  All we can do is act in faith, be good, and find somebody to love.

Then comes this mysterious prologue.

Dybbuk?  Human? Who knows? The Coens tell us: all you can do is act in faith. The complete quotation from Rashi is, “Conduct yourself with Him with simplicity and depend on Him, and do not inquire of the future; rather, accept whatever happens to you with simplicity and then, you will be with Him and to His portion.”

The wife did what she thought was right, coming from a place of faith. Will she be cursed? Will the husband? Will the body be found? What will become of the couple? Their descendants? The Coens tell us that not only should we, and they, not worry about it, it is pointless to do so.  The events occurred. There was no reason why, they just did.

The Coens don’t even let us know if they think he’s a dybbuk. The end credits read, “Fyvush Finkel – Dybbuk?” However, I have an interpretation of this scene that goes deeper. Of course it’s a dybbuk. Not just because he gets stabbed in the chest, laughs heartily and exits without dropping dead, as he should — but because he inserts doubt and deception into the relationship of the husband and wife. Like Satan, this is a dybbuk’s purpose. The husband is left consumed with doubt.  But the wife….ah!  The wife remains steadfast in her faith and, consequently, her actions.

Faith vs. Doubt

And so it goes throughout the entire film, to the main character, Larry Gopnik.  Is God punishing him?  Who knows? But the fact is that Larry does not ever act out of faith. He remains steadfast in his doubt, and may (or may not) pay dearly for it in the end.

Now we move to the body of the film. Larry is first glimpsed discussing Schrodinger’s cat to his physics class. The lesson of this famous thought experiment is that until the box is opened and it is determined if the cat is alive or dead, either possibility exists. And once we open the box, we have disrupted the experiment, so we in fact can never know if the cat was alive or dead before opening the box. This scene, like almost every scene in the film, revolves around the same thematic element.

Larry’s wife is leaving him for a smug and condescending man by the name of Sy Ableman. Both he and Sy experience separate car crashes at apparently the same moment. Sy dies. Larry does not. Why? We don’t know.

Someone has been writing disparaging notes the to tenure committee at Larry’s university, as we await the committee’s decision. Later on, we learn Sy “wrote the tenure committee.” Are they one and the same? We don’t know.

His stern next-door neighbor — a Gentile — seems to have a personal dislike for Larry…and owns guns. Later on, as Larry is confronted with Mr. Park (see below), he comes by and asks, “Is this man bothering you?” Does the neighbor dislike Larry? Is he an anti-Semite as the film implies? We don’t know.

His unemployed homeless brother is living with Larry’s family while he writes “The Mentaculus”, a tome on something having to do with how the universe and probability works. Larry later finds it and it appears to be the scribblings of a madman. Is it? We don’t know.

Later in the film, during his son’s Bar-Mitzvah, his wife makes the first move towards reconciliation. Is it genuine? Will they reconcile? We don’t know.

Throughout the film, Larry is confronted with one crisis after another. He wonders why all these things are happening to him. He asks why God is doing this to him. Why is he being made to suffer? We don’t know.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

Wisdom?  Yes and No.

He does what we all might do — seek out spiritual guidance. He goes to visit three Rabbis. The first seems to offer only surface platitudes. The second seems to offer a pointless fable. And he can’t even get in to see the venerable third, the one who might actually have all the answers.

In truth, however, each rabbi’s message is useful. The problem is that Larry isn’t listening — or hearing — what they say. In fact, the answers to all of Larry’s questions are right there for the taking throughout the movie, just as they always are for each of us. But Larry is so far removed in his relationship with God that he doesn’t see them.

The first rabbi’s point is simple: revel in the everyday miracles God provides us. The second rabbi’s point is that you’ll drive yourself crazy asking “why? Is any of what happens supposed to be a sign from God?”

As the second rabbi tells him straight out:

Larry:  I want an answer.

Rabbi:  Sure, we all want an answer.  Hashem doesn’t owe us the answer, Larry.  Hashem doesn’t owe us anything.  The obligation runs the other way.

Larry: Then why does he make us feel the questions if he’s not going to give us any answers?

Rabbi:  He hasn’t told me.

Accept The Mystery

It is the screenplay’s great triumph that every scene reinforces this theme over and over. Indeed, the subplot involving Mr. Park and his son Clive practically screams to the audience what the movie is about. Notice in the first scene how Clive sits in a chair in Larry’s office across from Larry’s desk, which we see in a wide shot . We see the top of the entire desk. There is no envelope.

Clive leaves.  Larry makes a call.  As he is dialing, Larry notices (via a POV shot) an envelope on his desk. It was definitely not there in the wide shots immediately before.  We see that Clive doesn’t drop it on the desk as he exits.

It just appears.

How did it get there? Why is it there? We don’t know, nor should we even ask. It just is. And Larry is driven crazy when confronted with a real-life version of Schrodinger’s cat.

Park: This is defamation. Ground for lawsuit.

Larry: You’re threatening to sue me for defaming your son?

Park: Yes.

Larry:  Let’s keep it simple.  I could pretend the money never appeared.  That’s not defaming anyone.

Park: Yes, and a passing grade.

Larry: Passing grade?

Park:Yes.

Larry: Or you’ll sue me?

Park: For taking money.

Larry: So he did leave the money.

Park: This is defamation.

Larry: It doesn’t make sense.  Either he left the money or he didn’t.

Park: Please. Accept the mystery.

Accept the mystery. The message of the film. Again. One might even choose to view Mr. Park and Clive as angels sent to deliver a message to Larry — stop asking why, accept the mystery, and live your life — just like the Goy.

The third rabbi? That Larry doesn’t even get to see him is itself the message — the old man has no more wisdom than anyone else.

Indeed, Larry has been beset by a dybbuk known as Doubt. He needs to stab it in the chest and send it on its way. We hear him say throughout the film,”I haven’t done anything” in many different contexts. The subtext the Coens are providing us is that Larry is simply puttering through life.  He is not doing anything remarkable. He is out of touch with his family, his wife, his brother, his students, and with God. He is even exiled out of his own home to a motel called The Jolly Roger — an obvious reference to a pirate ship, a ship without a port, without a home.

Larry’s Lesson

So what finally happens? With everything seemingly falling apart around him, jammed into a tiny motel room with his suffering brother, he awakens to his brother sobbing by the motel’s empty pool. The man is at wit’s end himself, in trouble with law, homeless and unemployed and probably crazy. He sobs, “Hashem has given you everything. He’s given me sh*t!”

And Larry shows compassion. He embraces his brother. It’s the first time we’ve seen an expression of caring for a fellow human from Larry.   What follows is a dream where he sends his brother on a boat across a beautiful lake to Canada — using the money from the envelope. There his brother will be safe. It’s this moment of reaching out that seems to turn the tide for Larry. One by one, all the crises drop away and are resolved. It seems as if all will be well.

But this is a Coen Brothers film. They have shown us what the movie is about, over and over again. And as if to test us — Larry returns to his office, and it is implied that he will take the cash to pay an attorney to defend his brother, and give Clive a passing grade of “C-”. The phone rings. It’s his doctor. He has concerns about some recent tests — the kind of concerns where he needs Larry to come in and talk, but he is not specific. Simultaneously, his newly Bar-Mitvahed son and his classmates congregate outside a concrete building, as an old teacher fumbles with a set of keys so they can get in….for a tornado approaches. And as the tornado bears down….

The End.

What’s going to happen?  What does it mean?  If you are asking those questions, you haven’t been paying attention.

Conclusion

So we return to A Serious Man as a faith-based film that anyone can enjoy and yield great dividends from. The circumstances and questions that Larry faces are the same that we all face, and every religion responds in essentially the same way. We already know what Judaism says. I imagine Christians would assert that we are not one to question God’s plan, but to play the hand we’re dealt and have faith that He has his reasons. His Holiness XIV Dalai Lama said at a speech I went to, “There is no point in worrying about whether or not something is going to happen. If it happens, then it happens, and worrying about it won’t change anything. If it doesn’t happen, then you spent all this time worrying over something that didn’t happen.” Religious Science might say that once something happens, we have the power as individuals not only to derive a personal meaning from it, but by virtue of the fact that our mind has provided that meaning, then that is the meaning. We should thus act accordingly to make the best of the situation and use it in a positive fashion. Even atheists should look at the film and be heartened. God isn’t causing anything, so at the end of the day, you either press on or you give up regardless of the situation.

We, the audience, are even given the real wisdom of the film because we (but not Larry) get a message from the venerable Rabbi Marshak, delivered to Larry’s son after his Bar-Mitzvah. The message? He quotes Jefferson Airplane — the song that recurs throughout the movie.

When the truth is found to be lies, and all the hope within you dies…be a good boy.

And, we know the rest of the words. “Find somebody to love.” Because that’s all you can do, because God is love. Participate in what God is.

Then again….the ancient Rabbi was listening to the boys’ transistor radio and that’s the song that was playing. Is Marshak just senile and repeating what he’s hearing, or is it wisdom?

Or is it…?  Or maybe…?  What if….?

If you want to hear another perspective about this movie, have a look at Father Barron’s comments.  He often comments on the spiritual messages of films.

—–

As with the majority of the conservative artists in the Tea Party movement, Jeremy has been traveling around the country performing on his own dime and as many fellow musicians know, studio time costs a pretty penny.  Jeremy has set up a project page where fans can participate in the production of his new songs by helping defray some of his costs, getting a few “thank you” goodies in return, and even a shout-out in his video.

Here’s what Jeremy has to say about how he got started in music and how he ended up using his talents to wake his fellow Americans up:

Does morality really matter? George Washington adresses the issue:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.  

In wake of the Congressman Weiner scandal, questions are being asked if morality really matters. After all, “Weiner didn’t break the laws of the Constitution,” said the casual observer on the street, as did Weiner himself. Others, however, beg to question, for one who holds the public trust, where do matters of deceit draw its confines? 

The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.  

Washington’s words, from over two hundred years ago, some would argue, are dull and mundane. Yet, actually, they are sharp and solid, resonating relevancy and reason. Reason transcends time and reason sees the connections between “private and public felicity.”  

But are we a country of reason anymore? A country who props up politicians who don’t seem to have a clarity of moral boundaries and/or an understanding or acknowledgement, for that matter, of simple words such as “budget.” Private citizens deal with these concepts every day in their households, and private citizens know that they can’t spend more than they make.  

Reason is being ransomed and morality, like reason, is being stripped from our society, as if it does not really matter.  

In our nation’s schools, any nod to God is ground for being expelled or maybe even a required visit to the psychiatrist’s office. Our founding documents state freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. George Washington, in his farewell address does not specify a religion. Yet, he most definitely states that religion and morality play a vital part in the survival of a republic and a society as a whole.  

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. 

History proves that without morality, life and civilizations crumble. Why then is a politician impervious to these same principles? 

What would Washington think of our present generation of kids who are being taught by our nation’s schools that one should be dumb, deaf and blind to the call of God, country, duty, civics and morality? How will they cope? They are being taught that morality and religious principle is not a mainstay to sustain one through life. They are not being taught that morality and religious principle are necessities to sustain a republic – a republic that embodies liberty and justice for all.  

But, how would they know about liberty and justice for all? They cannot, or are not encouraged to say the Pledge of Allegiance to their Republic. They are not taught to revere it – the very republic that gives them their liberties to speak their minds – but wait, they can’t speak their minds.  

If our children do not know their rights, they will not know when their rights are being insidiously usurped from them. 

Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? 

Where do justice and morality meet? They meet in the hearts and minds of a populace who, as “the genius of the people” maintain their Republic. What do we expect of our politicians? We expect of them what we expect of ourselves and what Washington expected of us: dignity, integrity, morality - based on religious principle.

Thankfully there will probably be no more Weiner’s wiener pictures released (even though the nightmares remain), and after a leader of the anti-circumcision movement published a blatantly anti-Semitic comic book (called Foreskin Man), the ballot initiative to ban childhood circumcision Santa Monica was dropped. The San Francisco initiative still remains on the ballot.

Sadly the movement against circumcision is not over and Academy Award winning actor Russell Crow, has decided to join in on the “fun” with an anti-circumcision rant on twitter.

A Crowe follower told the Australian celebrity that he was expecting a son soon, and asked for his input on whether he should have his baby circumcised.

Crowe responded harshly, saying that “circumcision is barbaric and stupid. Who are you to correct nature? Is it real that GOD requires a donation of foreskin?”

The actor added that “babies are perfect” when they are born. Crowe later said that he “will always stand for the perfection of babies, I will always believe in God, not man’s interpretation of what God requires.”

Mr. Crowe should know that throwing a telephone at an employee of the Mercer Hotel is barbaric and stupid, circumcision is not, it is part of a both Jewish and Muslim religious practice.

Many Jewish practices do originate from Rabbinical interpretation of what is written in the Torah, such as not eating milk with mean (Rabbis got that from the Torah saying “Do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk)

On the other hand circumcision is directly commanded in the Torah, the five books of Moses. The command for circumcision is in the appears  in  Bereisheet (the Jewish name for the book of Genesis)

You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, as a sign of the covenant between Me and you. At the age of eight days, you shall circumcise every male child born to you throughout the generations …Bereisheet 17:11-1

This is not as Mr. Crowe says an  interpretation of what God wants, but according to Jews and Muslims it is a direct order right there in ink and parchment. From what I understand from my Christian friends,  they too believe that the Torah is the word of God (but order’s such as circumcision apply only to Jews in the “old Testament”)

Where there is interpretation is why God ordered Jews to circumcise their son’s at eight-days-old. One interpretation given by the Rabbis is that males are  not born perfect on purpose.  The reason for circumcision is to give fathers (the parent who is ordered to conduct the ritual) is to allow them to have a greater participation in the act of creation.  We believe that God has a huge role, and the mother’s obviously have the role of developing the baby within her body, through the act of Brit Milah (the circumcision ceremony) dad has the role of adding the final touch, making the boy perfect.

Several followers responded to Crowe’s remarks, using scientific and hygienic explanations to justify circumcision. The actor rebuffed them, saying that “‘human’ science has caused too much damage,” calling the follower “a moron”. In response to claims that circumcision is hygienic the actor scoffed, saying “why don’t you sew up your ass then?”

Maybe Mr. Crow should sew up his fingers before his stupidity continues. It is an established scientific fact that circumcision helps prevent HIV.

The actor pointed out what he believes to be a double standard, saying it is “interesting that female circumcision is widely considered barbaric, while male circumcision is so widely accepted.”

Perhaps it has been a long time since Mr. Crowe saw a woman naked (which may be why he is so cranky), so allow me to refresh his memory….females parts are different than male ones.

The female circumcision argument is often presented by the anti-circumcision forces. Female genital cutting, a controversial practice that usually involves the removal of the clitoris, is illegal in the United States.  Female circumcision  is designed to take away sexual pleasure from women, male circumcision does not reduce sensation (you will have to trust me on that one).

Per the explanation I gave above, according to the Rabbis, it is males who are born imperfect, not females so there is no need for female circumcision. As far as permanent injuries during the practice, thankfully they are very very few and far between (although after my Bris at eight days old, I could not walk for over a year, the same thing happened with my son).

Crowe clarified that he is not anti-Semitic, saying he loves his Jewish friends with their “apples and the honey and the funny little hats”. However, he implored them to stop “cutting” their babies.

He may not be anti-Semitic but he is certainly insensitive. The reader is half expecting him to say  ”some of his best friends wear those funny little hats.”

Crowe’s argument is reminiscent of the Hellenist philosophy behind the Chanukah story.  The Hellenists “worshiped” the human form, it was the essence of perfection. The story of the Maccabees begins with the  Greeks banning circumcision, which led to a bloody revolt. The Romans banned circumcision after the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70.

Whether they were meant to be anti-Jewish or not, both the SF Ballot initiative and Crowe’s rant,  are fundamentally anti-Semitic,  as is the Dutch ban on kosher slaughter and the movements across Europe to ban kosher meat.

Although I would argue that their intent is more nefarious, even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and believe their intent to be Humanist or Hellenistic the end result is banning key Jewish rituals and practice.

As for Crowe, if he is truly not anti-Semitic,  he should do research on the issue and understand, prior to starting to rant against it. Based on his tweets he either a hater, too stupid to think before he tweets, or simply jealous because he cannot be circumcised.  Because his recent twitter behavior has proven he cannot be circumcised because there is no end to that prick!

Obviously Steven Hawking is a very bright guy, but his elitist hostility towards those who have an explanation for something neither he nor anyone has ever been able to explain, is rather bizarre.

Fox 411:

Last week, award-winning scientist and best-selling author declared that the belief in heaven or an afterlife is a “fairy story” for people afraid of life after death. …

That complete rejection of the existence of God infuriated Evangelical Christian Kirk Cameron, who shot back at the world-famous scientist with his own retort—prove it! 

“Professor Hawking is heralded as ‘the genius of Britain,’ yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life.” The former teen heartthrob steamed to TMZ. “Why should anyone believe Mr. Hawking’s writings if he cannot provide evidence for his unscientific belief that out of nothing, everything came?”

Cameron’s exactly right. Hawking’s making a scientific statement based on zero evidence. Where’s the scientific recreation of Hawking’s belief? Where’s the creation of life out of matter that isn’t already alive? Where’s the creation of something out of nothing? The Big Bang doesn’t explain what created the Big Bang and no one can truly wrap their mind around the infinity of space.  As far as I’m concerned, it requires the summoning of more faith NOT to believe in God than the other way around. Honestly, I don’t know how atheists do it.

Besides, it’s just a fact that Jesus-freaks like Cameron and I not only have an explanation to many unanswered questions, but also no small amount of historical and archaeological evidence with which to back it up.

Hawking’s got nada.

Anyway, there had better be a Heaven. I’d hate to think I’ve behaved myself all this time for no reason.

Why have so many mothers become so active?

Because motherhood is political.

I have two sons. One day they may hear the call of duty and enlist to fight for our liberty. One day they may be called upon to defend America’s shores. They may decide to enter business or take up a trade. They may decide to have families of their own someday. I want them to have every opportunity available to them and I will stand against that which impedes on their rights. It’s instinctual: my job as a mother is to raise up, nurture, and protect my children, to protect their interests, to protect the interests of my family. In a society where my first line of defense, my husband, has been compromised by the self-victimization of the female sex, I’ve volunteered to go to the front lines of this ideological battle and I do it for my children. I’m not the only one.

It’s unconscionable to me that I would protect my children from running out into a busy street but not protect their right to be free. A month after my oldest was born my husband and I spent an entire morning baby-proofing our house: placing plastic covers on all empty wall sockets, installing cabinet latches, covering all the sharp edges of the tables with adhesive cushions. Why wouldn’t I also rise to install barriers against that which harms my children’s future? We armed our children with the knowledge against “stranger danger,” we taught them how to dial 911 in emergencies, we’ve taught them how to properly handle and not handle firearms. Why wouldn’t I teach my children about their fundamental rights as an American? Their right to free speech, to assemble, the freedom of the press, the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the freedom of religion? Their right to pursue happiness but not the expectation that they are owed happiness from their fellow man?

We take them to the pediatrician to have them immunized, to inoculate them against disease. Why wouldn’t I also build up their knowledge of the Constitution, their confidence, and their courage so as to inoculate them against the ongoing campaign to break them down and render them dependent upon a swelling government?

Every Sunday morning we’re in the church pew and our children learn about the grace and love of their Creator. They’ve also been taught that their rights are inalienable, that these rights come from God, and though man tries he cannot co-opt those rights.They are taught that while our country was built on the Christian principles of freedom, one isn’t forced to subscribe to the faith to enjoy the rights born of it.

The nurture and protection of your children isn’t limited to monitoring their dietary needs, their educational needs, their emotional and spiritual well-being. I speak out because I don’t want my children saddled with debt. I don’t want my children’s generation to be the first generation that comes out of the gate with a lower standard of living because of our recklessness. I don’t want my children’s future squandered on entitlement and things non-essential to the operation of our basic Article 1 Section 8 government. I don’t want my children robbed of their ability to have effect in their communities because the power was sucked up and centralized at the federal level. I don’t want them to be demonized because they reject the socialist and humanist ideology which preaches against self-sufficiency and criminalizes faith and ambition in popular culture.

This is why mothers have been politically active these past few years and why more and more they are strapping the baby in the carrier before grabbing a diaper bag and a bullhorn on their way out the door. If you saw danger coming headfirst at your children you would intervene. Danger assumes many forms.

We’ve taken position against the reckless spending of our children’s future, against the many attempts by the establishment government to assume more parental rights and position our children as wards of the state in education, medicine, faith, diet, and wage. We reject the ideal that the government can be all and provide all because no government can be all, provide all and still reflect a free people. We reject the cultural vehicles through which this ideology is distributed: through the attack on men via feminism, through the cultural criminalization of our boys, and through the false empowerment via promiscuity and self-victimization of our daughters.

This is why motherhood is political. This is why mothers are turning out in force to protest, to petition, to run for office. Our instincts detected a threat to the well-being of their children and we are working to right it.

Old sayings never fail. The most dangerous place in the world is between a mother and her children. It remains true today.

And Happy Mother’s Day to my mother, who didn’t raise a victim.

Superman renounces his U.S. citizenship in Action Comics‘ record-breaking 900th issue. But that’s not all the benevolent alien refugee does in the sprawling special issue, which hits stores Wednesday.

The Man of Steel throws down in outer space against a continually misguided Lex Luthor, who’s finally rewarded for his boundless ambition by becoming a petulant god. Supes also throws a pizza party with Lois Lane for his Kryptonian pals, who crowd his couch while chowing grub and chewing scenery. He talks cosmology and philosophy with an interstellar deity beset by guilt over civilizations he was perhaps too selfish to save, and goes head-to-head with a one-time pro athlete who’s become a superheroic show-off. 

It’s just another day in the life of Earth’s most recognizable comics immortal, in a landmark issue penned by all-stars from film, television and comics. Previewed in the gallery above, Action Comics No. 900 features stories penned by Doctor Who’s Paul Cornell, Lost’s Damon Lindelof, Superman: The Movie director Richard Donner, The Dark Knight screenwriter David S. Goyer and DC Comics’ chief creative officer, Geoff Johns. …

It’s a sobering moment, as obvious as it is revolutionary. Superman’s conscientious creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, who dreamed up Superman for Action Comics‘ 1938 debut, positioned their deathless hero as an American heartland warrior battling tyranny and evil.

But Superman has always been bigger than the United States, and not just because he was inspired — directly or indirectly is still subject to debate — by Friedrich Nietzsche’s polar-opposite Übermensch.

In an age rife with immigration paranoia, it’s refreshing to see an alien refugee tell the United States that it’s as important to him as any other country on Earth — which in turn is as important to Superman as any other planet in the multiverse.

The genius of Superman is that he belongs to everyone, for the dual purposes of peace and protection. He’s above ephemeral geopolitics and nationalist concerns, a universal agent unlike any other found in pop culture.

The finest moment in Action Comics No. 900 comes when Goyer makes that exquisitely clear to everyone.

Full article here.

Mr. DeMille tells us outright…

“The theme of this picture is whether man ought to be ruled by God’s law or whether they are to be ruled by the whims of a dictator like Ramses. Are men property of the State, or are they free souls under God? This same battle continues throughout the world today.”

Yes, today, and not just where “The Ten Commandments” is set — throughout the Middle East in countries such as Egypt — but also here in America as we watch an ever-growing federal government burden us with debt and chip away at our liberties. I’m not comparing Egypt’s current struggle with our own in any way other than how DeMille’s use of this universal theme speaks in some way to everyone and will for as long as there’s a civilization. As his epic unfolds, this is the theme DeMille holds on to, straight through to the story’s final line of dialogue — Moses’ (Charlton Heston) parting words to Joshua (John Derek) before he joins the God who has put him through so much:

“Go. Proclaim liberty throughout all the lands, unto all the inhabitants there of.”

Last week I watched the entire film straight through twice, once on the big-screen at a special event commemorating the film’s Blu-ray release, and again just a few days later on the actual Blu-ray. The finest compliment I can pay one of Hollywood’s all-time great epics is that I could watch it again tonight and enjoy it just as much. DeMille’s world is so vivid, so detailed and all consuming, that after spending nearly four hours visiting, you just want to return to lose yourself into it again and again. The story stays with you for days and you truly do miss spending time with those wonderfully drawn characters.

What’s most remarkable about the new Blu-ray is that it is easily the most beautiful film I’ve ever screened on television. Though the print I saw in the theatre Thursday night was a full, frame by frame restoration and jaw-dropping all on its own, the Blu-ray is, impossibly, even more beautiful. The VistaVision widescreen Technicolor pops right off the screen in ways I didn’t think possible. The richness of the colors, the stability of the blacks, and the details of everything, including fabrics and architecture, pull you deeper and deeper into the world of the film. The work DeMille put into the look of each frame is detailed in a terrific 75-minute “making of” documentary included only with the Blu-ray gift set, and my guess is that even the director himself never saw his work displayed as beautifully as this Blu-ray.

After watching “The Ten Commandments” at home Sunday afternoon, I made the mistake of screening Errol Flynn’s “Robin Hood.” Suddenly, what was once my favorite-looking film on DVD now looks positively wan in comparison. I’m not happy about that at all.

Also included in the pricey but well-worth-it Blu-ray gift set is DeMille’s original 1923 silent version of “The Ten Commandments,” which I’d never seen before and is well worth a look. Only the first hour covers the actual story of Moses and except for the visual splendor of all those magnificent sets and the parting of the Red Sea, it’s the least interesting part of the film. The problem is that it unfolds like a moving pop-up book hitting on the beats of Moses’ journey but without all the palace intrigue, character development and complicated relationships that make the 1956 version so addictive. The remaining 90 minutes, however, are set in 1920s America and tell the compelling story of two brothers who love the same woman. One is good and a believer in God. The other rejects God and is so rigid in his non-belief he destroys himself while in the process of proving life can be good if you dedicate yourself to violating the Commandments.

Not being a silent film fan, I popped in the 1923 version only out of a reviewer’s obligation and even then busied myself with something else while it played in the background. About two hours in, I realized I was missing something special, started the whole picture over again and sat there spellbound until two in the morning. That doesn’t happen very often.

The gift set is gorgeous, a real treasure-trove, and not only includes the “making of” documentary and the 1923 film version (on Blu-ray), but also a wonderful hardcover photo book and a replica of the 1956 souvenir program. There’s also a set of cards with costume sketches of all the main players and some truly fascinating archival reproductions that include a wonderful hand-written letter Charlton Heston sent to “Mr. DeMille,” a man he obviously held an enormous amount of personal affection and respect for. Using footage from 2002, Heston also appears in the “making of” documentary, and again, it’s always “MISTER DeMille.” To command that kind of respect from a man like Charlton Heston is quite the compliment.

I know that there are those who accuse the film of being campy, but I see it more as something that’s larger-than-life. Anne Baxter’s frequent use of “Moses, Moses…” catches most of the flack but let me tell you, when she turns evil in the third act it is very effective. Another performance poked fun at is Edward G. Robinson’s Dathan, but I find him hilarious in the way I think I’m supposed to. He’s so unashamed of being a scumbag that when he’s dancing like a Goldwyn Girl in front of the golden calf, I practically fall out of my chair. I think it’s a marvelous performance by a genius actor who added something no one else could.

At the center of it all, though, stand two giants. If it’s impossible to see anyone but Heston playing Moses (and it is), it is even more impossible to see anyone but Yul Brynner as Ramses II. Not only is he a convincing and formidable antagonist to a man able to summon the very power of God, but DeMille’s direction of this character is absolutely brilliant. Repeatedly, Ramses is slighted by the woman he wants and even his own father, and yet never once does DeMille cut away to a reaction shot of Brynner looking wounded. And yet, thanks to Brynner’s extraordinary screen presence, Ramses is never one-dimensional. But because DeMille never asked us to sympathize with him, when he’s finally beaten, when he finally says, “His God is God,” it is an unforgettable defeat that might prove the power of God even more than the parting of all that water.

Though God is obviously DeMille’s star, Heston is the sun around which everything else revolves. His ability to speak some very difficult lines with complete sincerity is probably the greatest testament to his abilities as an actor. For any actor, that kind of straightforward dialogue, much of it spoken as grand proclamations, is a tightrope without a net. The risk of looking foolish is enormous and yet Heston never comes close. It’s a legendary and iconic performance no amount of words can do justice.

The rest of the cast is just as perfect. Yvonne DeCarlo is simply breathtaking as Moses’ shepherd wife Sephora; Nina Foch is utterly believable as Bithiah, Pharaoh’s sister and Moses’ adopted mother; Cedric Hardwicke as Pharaoh gives humor and humanity to a real monster; Vincent Price as Baka the builder is deliciously sleazy; and Martha Scott as Moses’ birth mother Yochabel is the perfect contrast to Bithiah. Finally, there’s John Carradine as Moses’ brother Aaron — a presence and voice all his own; John Derek and Debra Paget as star-crossed lovers; and Lisa Mitchell as one of Jethro’s beautifully innocent daughters — a lovely woman I met at the screening who along with Heston’s son Fraser (who plays the Baby Moses), carries the torch of the film’s legacy wherever she goes. Her stories, insight and anecdotes are a real highlight of the “making of” documentary.

And don’t get me started on Elmer Bernstein’s PERFECT score, which has been stuck in my head for nearly a week.

Soon, I’ll watch the film again in order to enjoy the full feature-length commentary by Kathryn Orrison (who I also met at the screening), author of “Written in Stone: Making Cecil B. DeMille’s Epic The Ten Commandments.” Unfortunately, I just didn’t have time for a third screening, but the commentary I did hear during my five favorite scenes/sequences…

1. Moses meets his birth mother for the first time
2. The Burning Bush
3. The final plague/Passover
4. The Exodus from Egypt and parting of the Red Sea
5. The juxtaposition between God’s writing of the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai and the G-rated orgy around the golden calf.

…was some of the best I’ve ever heard. She knows everything and obviously has enormous respect for the film and all of those who made it possible.

It was 1980 and I was 14 years-old. On Easter weekend, my brother, who was only a baby at the time, broke his leg in a freak accident and was hospitalized for almost a week. Obviously, we all held vigil around the clock and I’ll never forget sitting in a waiting room all by myself on Easter Sunday as ABC broadcast “The Ten Commandments” in its entirety over five hours. It was such an awful situation for our family and yet here was this deceptively small story playing out against an epic backdrop to keep me company. Fourteen is an impressionable age and how lucky was I to have experienced such a powerful lesson in faith, courage and freedom?

What I’m most grateful for is that repeated viewings never diminish the power of MISTER DeMille’s final film to inspire, entertain, and teach. What I’m not especially happy about, though, is that this Blu-ray transfer is so drop dead gorgeous, that I’m now likely to become dissatisfied with an embarrassingly large DVD collection I’ve spent two decades and a ton of money building.

“The Ten Commandments” Blu-ray was released today. You can choose between the gift set – which I reviewed here,  the two-disc special edition Blu-ray, or the two-disc DVD.

What if God Himself was standing in the way of your deepest hopes and dreams, or your true love? Can you possibly change His mind and His plan for your destiny? And is it wrong to try in the first place?

——

These fundamental questions are addressed in fascinating fashion by the remarkable new film “The Adjustment Bureau.” The fact that it manages to do so in the context of a strong romance with plenty of thrills, stunning special effects, constant yet effective plot twists and outstanding performances by Matt Damon and Emily Blunt only adds to the appeal of this must-see movie.

Built upon the mind-bending work of legendary sci-fi writer Philip K. Dick, whose literary output also inspired “Blade Runner,” “The Adjustment Bureau” stands close behind “Inception” as one of the most original films to come out in years. A refreshing change of pace from typical Hollywood cookie-cutter fare, it stars Damon as David Norris, an idealistic young Democratic congressman who in the film’s opening minutes is scrambling to win a seat in the U.S. Senate, only to surprisingly lose on election night.

While prepping his concession speech, he meets Elise (Emily Blunt), a supremely talented ballet dancer whom he feels an instant love connection with, but who is chased away from him by mysterious men in hats. When David finds Elise again a few days later and develops an even stronger connection, he loses her in even more mysterious fashion – but this time, David stumbles across the mystery men in an entirely different setting.

They are erasing the memories of his colleagues at the law firm he now works at, forcing the hat men to explain that they work for “The Chairman” – an obvious reference to God – to keep certain important people’s lives running according to a strictly written plan. That plan is supposed to prevent David and Elise from falling in love, because each is meant to have a profound impact on the world in distinctly separate ways.

But this time, David doesn’t want to take “no” for an answer, and convinces Elise to make a literal run for their lives and destinies – setting off a complex chain of events and spectacular chases that force themselves and viewers to consider just how much of our lives are truly shaped by our free wills, and how much are predetermined by God or other mysterious forces.

Written and directed by George Nolfi, who previously worked with Damon as a writer on “Oceans Twelve” and “The Bourne Ultimatum,” “The Adjustment Bureau” weaves together action, humor, drama and romance all under universal questions that should leave viewers fully engaged in discussions about their own lives long after they leave the theater.

While the whiz-bang effects and top-notch performances are expected for such top-notch artists and actors, what’s truly surprising is how well the film handles the questions of free will versus predestination. Yes, God is an unseen “Chairman” here rather than straight-up Jesus, but “Bureau” is so adept with and respectful of the profound issues underlying its extremely entertaining core that the studio has engaged in a massive national outreach to Christian groups in an attempt to let them know that this film could be the kind of thing that kicks open the doors to inventive, intelligent work with a Godly bent. This is one film that merits such an outreach and isn’t just faking it, nor is it a religious film where the entertainment value is lacking beyond its message.

Damon and Blunt have instant, sparkling chemistry and handle the vast range of their roles with ease, while the film’s stunning visuals create an entire parallel vision of New York City that will likely make anyone who sees this film never look at the Big Apple the same way again. The only weak spot in the film is the character of one of the lead men in hats, played by John Slattery, who comes marching into some early scenes with blatantly expository dialogue that made me feel like a college freshman fiction-class writer had been handed the scenes while the rest of the film was being written by Shakespeare.

But after a couple such maddening moments, even Slattery and his character find their groove, slipping into the puzzle with ease and ultimately adding to the wonders at hand. I realize that this may sound like a studio press release, but trust me on this one folks: this could be a landmark film in the quest to have deeper films that respect the quest we’re all on for a Godly life and a meaningful eternity, and if it’s not supported, it will be a long time before Hollywood steps up to the plate on this level again.

Bill Maher is that monkey.

See, Bill Maher’s a smart guy. None of us can deny that. A nuisance at worst, a more than worthy adversary at best, Bill Maher is the kind of intellectual whose worst enemy is his own pride. Smart people generally don’t make intellectual miscalculations; they make careless errors.  Sometimes, a mistruth is so often repeated in society that even smart folk like Maher accept it as fact. A good example would be Bill Maher’s constant claim that the Bible encourages slavery and the founding fathers were anti-Christian.

Firstly, Bill would be right to say that the founding fathers were anti-religion.  One could say the same thing about most pastors heading churches throughout the United States today. A disdain for man-made religion does not equal a hate for personal faith in God. 

As a matter of fact, oftentimes as one grows in their relationship with God, they find themselves saddened by the state of the modern church. People like John Adams and Benjamin Franklin (the same people whom Maher loves to quote) would be perfect, powdered-wig crystallizations of religion-hating, God-fearing Christians. A simple glance through the founding documents or personal journals of the founding fathers confirms it.

As for the Bible being a rampantly pro-slavery piece of literature… false.  It’s true that there are passages in the Bible dealing with slavery, which when read in modern America without the proper context, seem cringeworthy at best. Nowhere in the bible, however, is there an open-ended encouragement of the practice and in multiple places, being what we would consider slavery today is thoroughly condemned.

See, we have to understand that the slavery referred to in the Bible is most often not slavery as we know it today. In both Old and specifically New Testament times, people would go into slavery themselves if they were unable to pay their debts, or unable to pay their own cost of living (which would then be covered by their master). They would have more in common with a lower class worker or a college student still mooching off of their parents than the race-based slavery we’ve known in the Western world.

A prime example of where one does see race-based slavery in the Bible, is when a little group of people were enslaved by the Egyptians solely because they were Hebrew (Exodus 13:14). Anyone know what happened next?

Anyone? Anyone?

…God was pretty ticked. Angry enough to bring the freaking plagues. [Note: They were kind of a big deal.]

The Bible also does address the act of “man stealing,” (exactly the kind of thing that Africans did to their own people) and had this to say about it: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16).

God then went on to put such folks in the same category as murderers and rapists. I guess you could say he had a thing about that.

In the end, don’t blame Bill Maher.  He’s just accepting common mistruths because he doesn’t know any better… and nobody will tell him. Maybe he needs an uneducated, God-loving, gun toting, tea-partying, redneck in his Hollywood entourage.  You know… just to keep him in the know.