Philomena the film: a true story

Danny Zeng | December 11, 2013

Recently I went and watched the movie Philomena with a friend during Thanksgiving break (I know…sometimes I wonder what’s wrong with me also but hey it’s Judy Dench! Not gonna lie but loved the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel…anyways). The story was so touching that I went ahead and did a search on the movie that is supposedly inspired by “a true story.” Sure enough, sadly, the story turned out to be quite true. Despite the fact that the director had decided to make Martin Sixsmith, a former BBC correspondent, darker than he is in real life, the story came together through a fateful road-trip relationship developed between Martin and Philomena in search for Anthony, her lost son. Not to spoil the movie, but here is a brief summary: Philomena Lee was a Catholic nun living in a form of indentured servitude to a local convent back in 1950s Ireland. She gave birth to a child out of wedlock, a phenonmenon that was not to be tolerated by the Catholic sisters. Her son was born in the convent and was taken care of with the other orphans until a rich couple adopted him. Philomena at the time had signed away her parental rights to the Church. With only a grainy black-and-white wallet-sized picture, Philomena had thought about and searched for his lost son for fifty years. The New York Times did a story on Philomena recently. Most of the story happened to be true, with the exception that Philomena did not actually came to the U.S. with Martin to look for her son. This was the picture of Anthony (aka Michael Hess) gather by the paper. When the Guardian published the story in 2009, Philomena could only muster her energy to remark, “It [signing Anthony/Michael away and concealing the truth for so long] is the biggest regret of my life and I have to bear that. It is my own fault and now it is my woe.”

This heart-wrenching story, like the Guardian had pointed out, is a remarkable indictment on the 1950s Ireland as well as the 1980s America. Michael Hiss had to live and endure during an era serving a political party that disliked his peers, though less so today, is remarkably patriotic. Ironically, it is Andrew Sullivan, a self-identified political conservative, who first published his argument for gay marriage in the pages of the New Republic in 1989. It is only recently that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage across 50 states.  As recent as 2004, a significant majority (62%) of Americans were against same-sex marriage. Today, the President of the U.S. had come out openly in support of gay marriage. Support for marriage is at historic high for millennials. Rob Portman, Mark Kirk, and Lisa Murkowski are current GOP senators supporting the cause. Ken Melhman, former chair of Republican National Committee, has advocated in public and Wall Street Journal on this issue. Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah, and dozens of former senior officials in Republican administrations, have signed onto a brief supporting same-sex marriage in the Supreme Court cases last June. Republican House Speaker John Boehner recently said that the Party should openly support gay candidates. The times have changed. If only Michael/Anthony were alive today…

For Philomena though, “If only I’d mentioned it all those years ago. Oh Lord, it makes my heart ache.” What’s so remarkable about her journey with Martin Sixsmith as portrayed through the film is her humorous and light-hearted touch on the otherwise dense, somber context. It’s almost if Martin has personified Anthony in real life, whose ardent search for Anthony, initially stemmed from a personal motive for a journalist comeback, resulted in much needed emotional companionship for Philomena. [SPOILER ALERT] However, even Martin’s seeming ascension into a place of moral superiority is vastly dwarfed by Philomena’s higher forgiveness of Sister Hildegrad who buried the truth of the mutual mother-son search from her for decades. The dynamic duo as so ingeniously portrayed by Steven Frears (director of The Queen) left the audience still wondering near the end: is this movie a comedy or a tragedy? I think it is safe to say that the movie incorporates elements of both in order to shed light on a horrific practice symbolized by greed, misplaced moral authority, doctrinaire dogmatism, and loss of humanity through misguided faith. However, even after what Philomena had suffered and endured, the Times reports that she is going back to church again because “she finds it a peaceful place.” Perhaps this is a story that offers hope in humanity by suggesting that closures can be found, but it requires faith, humor, and perseverance. A very well-done film that challenges our own moral compass.

The Amazing Spider-Man: an American story

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0948470/

I took a lazy nap yesterday afternoon after orientation staff meeting. I then went to grab dinner at the campus cafeteria with two friends, who convinced me to join them and another friend to see the new Spider-Man movie in IMAX over at Bob Bullock History Museum nearby. At first I was reluctant to spend money to sit in a movie theater to watch a movie that I did not have much interest for up until that point. Though realizing that I did not have better alternatives that early in the evening, I went along with them to see the movie. When I was in line getting my ticket, I joked that the movie better be “amazing” or else I would ask for a refund, but boy was it a cinematic adventure to say the least!

I was shocked to find that Andrew Garfield, who plays Eduardo Savarin in the Social Network, plays Spiderman in the movie. He is beyond gorgeous to say the least, especially viewed in 3D glasses… What’s more? Emma Stone was in the movie! I absolutely adored her performance in The Help from 2011.

The story begins with a camera zooming into the young Peter Parker, who is left at an early age to the care of Uncle Ben and Aunt Mae after his father, a cutting-edge geneticist, is been pursued by those who are after his secretive work with DNA regeneration using reptiles. Uncle Ben and Aunt Mae are in every possible way father and mother figures in the life of Peter Parker. The couple treasures the boy as if he is their own. Despite been the “only child” in the house living with adopted parents, Peter is depicted as a “good boy” who stands up against bullies in school, who is smart, who helps around the house, and who is shy and inexperienced with talking to girls. This clumsiness in dealing with someone of opposite sex despite his otherwise brilliance and ingenuity makes Peter a lovable character from the get-go. Perhaps it is this picture-perfect family, aspects of functional co-dependence and seldom-found cross-generational connection and respect, that makes the death of Uncle Ben in the hands of a casual villain so emotionally harsh. This incidence serves as the turning point in which Peter Parker truly takes upon himself to be the male head in the family and seeks revenge in his new found role as a genetically modified, mutant superhuman. At the core of the story is about growing up and taking responsibility for one’s own actions; Peter resolves to revenge his uncle’s death as well as to preserve law and order amidst a chaos that he himself has created.

The well intentioned scientist. Dr. Connor, who turned “mad” and ascribes his personal ambition within a larger, nobler goal to improve humanity. Yet his character flaw, which caused his ultimate tragedy, is rooted in his hubris, as if he alone can save and improve humanity for the better.

The police chief, who happens to the father of the girl who is interested in Peter, serves as the protective father figure who sacrifices in the public field attempting to bring about law and order as means to protect his family and the community. Yet he too is a tragic outcome of hubris. He issued the order to arrest Spider-Man, when he should have known that Spider-Man, the vigilante, also serves the public good of maintaining order, albeit in an informal way, and if not better than the police.

Of course, the love story cannot be understated. I think it is this youthful plotline that traces the love development of Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy as two highly attractive and smart individuals who are righteous risk takers that make audience fall in love with them.

With July 4th on the horizon, I cannot fathom a better movie that depicts the national character of America better than the Amazing Spider-Man. The movieis a work that portrays the importance of family, community, good versus evil, and human hubris. Among other themes include corporate greed, fatherhood, care for each other, and of course, justice. All of which are truthful portrayal of various aspects of our country in exaggerated terms: the importance of a loving family, a sense of community (as portrayed by the construction worker who helps Spiderman out later in the movie for saving his son), good versus evil (the constant struggle to define who is good and who is evil), and human’s natural feel for invincibility and infallibility. The movie challenges us to reevaluate certain things in life: whether pursuing cutting-edge science have moral and ethical ramifications; who among our immediate support system deserve our utmost attention and love; how should we conduct ourselves to enhance the community we live in; and how do we wrestle with our inherent constraints as human beings, recognizing that we are flawed. These are perennial social issues that affect and intrigue our psych. I suggest that this may be why movies like the Amazing Spider-Man will timelessly capture our imaginations, hopes, expectations, and sorrows for ages to come.

I pray that America will stand on the side of justice for all people and continue to lead the world in fostering a democratic world of free thinkers and believers. Let the can-do American spirit sweep across the country and provide sustenance to national recovery and prosperity. And let the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution continue to inspire and liberate those living under tyranny. May the troops and civil servants abroad live and work in peace. I pray for their daily sacrifices. May we the people not forget the foundations of society: love, family, community. Happy 236th America. God bless the U.S.A.

Nothing but the Truth

Last night I had some down time to enjoy a very thought-provoking movie on Netflix called Nothing but the Truth (2008). The movie tells the story of one journalist who daringly exposes the government through her newspaper for covering up its tracks in unilaterally fighting against the Venezuelan government (fictionally of course but not utterly without context, as the Bush administration had its fair amount tensions against Hugo Chavez). The story itself is cited to be “watergate,” “Pentagon paper” big. Reporter, Rachel Armstrong, went ahead with the story exposing what happened to be her neighbor, whose daughter goes to the same school as Rachel’s son, as the CIA agent who warned the President against going into Venezuela. Special prosecutor, Patton Dubois, pressures Rachel to give away her source for the story, but Rachel adamantly refuses, citing confidentiality. Rachel is subsequently thrown into jail for holding the court in contempt.

The thematic struggle between free press and big government is pervasive throughout the whole movie. The case questions the strength of our republic and the nature of civil liberties in a post-911 world. What is truly mind-boggling is the eerie reminder of a real case years back (and what I later found out to be a relevant plot inspiration): the case of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s expose by Robert Novak of Washington Times in 2003 regarding the uranium enrichment activity in Africa that was cited as an important piece of support evidence for the U.S. going into Iraq  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair). 

An aside: If you do not know what I’m talking about here, please do look into it at your leisure hours. Scott McClellan, the former press secretary under Bush 43, wrote a book called What Happened, that details some of the decisions within the administration prior to going into Iraq, with a chapter on Valerie Plame. Questions to ponder (I’m still looking): Why did the U.S. go into Iraq in 2003? What were some of the criticisms against the Bush administration at the time? Are they legitimate? What about the case of Valerie Plame? (Another movie called Fair Game theatrically tells the story of Valerie Plame) How does the Plame case play into the criticisms against the Bush administration? What about torture?

Against this backdrop, I watched as the story unfolds depicting a brave journalist who is placing her principle above all else, her family included. One cannot help but sympathize her situation. What’s worse or perhaps unexpected is the film director’s hint that the CIA agent herself is also a victim in this whole situation, not dissimilar to the Plame case, in which the White House seems to be gutting her under a bus. In a struggle for truth, where do we draw the line between “national security” and “First Amendment?” How can our government protect us if it is above us? How can the people hold government accountable if they are deprived of their First Amendment rights due to national security concerns? These are not mere constitutional issues debated in the classroom of law schools across the country. They are existential political and legal issues that all republicans (people living in a republic – small “r”) need to wrestle with. Movies like this often make me wonder: how much power do I really have against the government? Am I really naive to think that my political voice as a citizen can check a government backed up by the most capable and destructive military on earth, supported by a web of highly-trained special force and clandestine operatives? I shutter that thought here. But I encourage you to think about the ramifications of that and ask yourself: how can we the people maintain power if we are not watchful of our own government? In a hyperpluralistic society like ours, there are good apples, and there are bad apples. How do we keep the bad apples out if we don’t participate? 

It is a often told story that Benjamin Franklin answered a woman after the Constitutional Convention when asked whether the Constitution created a monarchy or a republic, he answered, “A republic, madame, if you can keep it.” This sentiment cannot be truer today in 2012.