Tuesday, July 22, 2014

God in the Shadows (Essay and Poetry by Bob Racine)



Barbara Brown Taylor has been active in Christian ministry for many years; she is an experienced preacher as well as writer and instructor and has written books through which she has drawn for herself quite a following.  All of them challenge traditional thought about spirituality.  Her latest, which was recently reviewed in Time Magazine, is entitled “Learning to Walk in the Dark.”  In this published treatise she maintains, and this is a quote from that Time Magazine article:  “contemporary spirituality is too feel-good. . .it is sometimes in the bleakest void that God is nearest.”  

Such a notion might sound revolutionary, but it takes little discernment to understand where in the course of human events we run into circumstances which seem to offer some proof of its validity.  For instance, we have reason to be leery when we hear the same well-meaning person, noted for her or his cheery disposition, repeatedly reporting that “I’m doing okay” or “I’m in a pretty good place” or “I’m all right” with no elaboration.  Especially is that true when an unsmiling silence follows the unelaborated claim.  After all, “okay” is not “golly gee wiz wonderful.”  “I’m okay” is sometimes a disguised way of saying “I’m not in the best of places and I don’t want to talk about it.”  I have been guilty of that myself.  The power of positive thinking does not extend as far as denying the unseen burdens of the mind that we all carry, ones that are not unloaded so easily, however many self-help books we have read.  

The larger family I grew up in would never have shared their dark emotions or their stressful experiences with just anyone.  They were very picky and choosy about those to whom they would open up.  They kept such things to themselves; they did not advertise.  Sometimes they even hid themselves away – bodily.  I had three grandparents who were quite practiced at the art of concealment.   They did not reveal facts about themselves that they thought would reflect badly upon them, even if those facts concealed nothing more than that they were as human and subject to weakness and crisis as anyone else.  They had a name to protect, a reputation!  Even if they were in the midst of a trial by fire or an agony of soul and spirit, they did not let too much of the particulars about their condition or situation slip out.  They hedged, they shaded, they modified.  The unwritten guideline was to put on a happy face, cover up the unpleasant.  God will look after me; it will all work out.  The idea that God’s help would come to them not just in the midst of depression or doubt or crisis or confusion but by way of these things was foreign to their thinking.  “What would people think of me, if I were too honest or confessed too much neediness?”     

And the last thing they ever wanted, something to be avoided like the plague, was giving anybody an excuse to feel sorry for them.  Of course, they themselves did not hesitate to feel sorry for others.  They would feel sorry for those poor people over there somewhere – down the block or in another country, wherever.  But nobody better consider them poor and in need of sorry.  A reputation to be shunned!  The refusal to open up and make others a gift of your dark struggle is itself a refusal to love.  I had to grow to adulthood before I knew there was any such thing as the dark night of the soul.

Ms. Taylor points out that people are taught from an early age to fear darkness.  Parents line the pathway to the bathroom with nightlights so that the children can find their way.  Sometimes we even encourage them to sleep with the light of the room on.  This is intended to chase away the closet monsters, to restrain the scary creatures that sneak up on you when you are asleep.  To quote the Time article again: “As we grow older, the monsters take different shape: darkness descends when the call comes that a loved one has cancer, months of unemployment, or a child with an addiction.  Taylor’s own darkness extends to anything that scares her, and that includes the absence of God, dementia, the melting of polar ice caps and what it will feel like to die. . .Our culture’s ability to tolerate sadness is weak.  As individuals, we often run away from it.”  And this is a direct quote from Taylor’s book itself: “We are supposed to get over it, fix it, purchase something, exercise, do whatever it takes to become less sad.”  

Part of Taylor’s discipline is seeking out dark places in which to meditate.  She has spent time in caves.  She takes walks at night (choose your neighborhood carefully, things being as they now are), she watches the moonrise.  She has been known to unplug all the electrical fixtures in her house and abide in that self-imposed darkness for a spell.  She has even sat in her closet with the closet door shut.  She reasons that “God and darkness have been friends for a long time.”  God appeared to Abraham in the night promising him more descendents than the stars he was looking at.  The exodus from Egypt happened at night.  God delivered the Ten Commandments on a dark mountain.  Paul’s conversion happened after he lost his eyesight.  To run from darkness is to run away from God.  And most of the world’s major religions have something to say about finding God in the shadows.

Her most striking statement has to do with feelings of unworthiness due to doubts and fears.  “For many years I thought my questions and my doubt and my sense of God’s absence were all signs of my lack of faith, but now I know this is the way the life of the spirit goes.”  Do we get that?  Doubt and questioning are part and parcel of the spiritual life, not anathema to it.
 
Now this does not mean becoming morbidly fascinated with irksome or depressing or defeatist or negative thoughts.  Wallowing is something else.  I hate to think of how much during my lifetime, when I have been separated from a sense of God, I have spoken or acted in such a way that I have reinforced the negativity of others around me.  I have been the misery that loved the company of other peoples’ misery.  Sometimes we can do this very subtly – a careless look in the eye or a careless little dollop of disdain or fatalism or what might pass for fatalism in voice or attitude.  I don’t think Taylor is talking about that sort of thing – casting a cloak or mantle of bitter-sweetness over everything and everyone.  She speaks of that which she thinks is supposed to be good as a spiritual discipline, not the things that morbid people say and do as a form of self-indulgence.

Of course, the other side of all this is the fact that darkness will not be a gift to us unless we know that is truly what we are experiencing.  People can live in spiritual darkness so long that they cease to realize that that is what it is.  There was a book written during the 1960s with the odd title “Been Down So Long It Seems Like Up to Me!”  The darkness can seem like light.  We humans create big flashy neon signs and cascades of splashy color and artificial illumination to pass for the light that is gone out of us.  Night life per se has never held any fascination for me.  I find it superficial in its promise of freedom and frivolity and relaxation.  But many do chase after it. 

The spiritual life, whatever the form of faith practice, is a mixture of Light and Darkness.  The Apostle Paul hit that nail on the head when he said, “Now we see through a dark reflective glass,” as opposed to whatever we see after we stop breathing.   It does appear that God in a sense expects us to be in the dark – not the darkness engendered by evil but the darkness engendered by partial knowledge.  We have to distinguish between moral darkness and the darkness created by limited understanding, the blurriness of human, finite awareness.           

I once composed this poetic prayer.  In it I talk to Light and Darkness, as if they were persons – Light first, then Darkness.  I end with it:

Oh Light, oh Light,

Under your beam we have felt condemned to work and sweat.  Drenched in the visibility you impart, we have been smug and complacent and imputed to our eyes the wisdom of omniscient gods.  You we sometimes wish to blame for our illusions of grandeur.  Of you we have asked miracles.  You we have expected to free us from fear and loneliness, to cancel out our wounds and our debts, to erase our hatreds, to resolve our dilemmas, to soothe all our qualms.  You we want to hold accountable for our happiness, for the enlivening of expectation, for salvation, for the utopia of which we never cease to dream.  We have silently chastised you for your alleged desertion of us, when without your resistance you give place to Darkness and seemingly abandoned us to it.  But in this moment we know that you are indeed unique among blessings, not the be-all and end-all of them. 

Without you we would never know delirious joy and passion.  Under your bright fire we are incited to run and walk and dance and jump.  By you our energies are called forth.  We go forth to explore, to experience, to discover, to create.  By your lamp we build, we rearrange the universe in search of healing enterprises and arrangements of matter and phenomena that portend justice and productivity on behalf of human need.  Under your aegis, oh Light, we know love.  We see our fellow creatures at their noble best.

It is you who illumines the path along which peoples and nations encounter each other.  Among your grand entourage our hands see to reach out and touch surfaces and shapes and the warm satisfaction of other hands, other hearts, other kinships of need reaching for us.  From your infusion we gain confidence.  In your radiant, enervating ambience we fling ourselves into labors of love, undergo the reward of accomplished pursuits and catharses that enlighten our whole being.

You, oh Light, have shown us wonders we cannot comprehend.  You have raised us to pinnacles of truth.  By you we obtain visions and learn to walk the world in faith.
         
Oh Darkness, oh, Darkness,

You have made us tremble.  Under your spell we have imagined shapeless and faceless horrors.  In your deep bosom we have known the meaning of fear and doubt, our eyes sealed shut by shadows that cannot be erased.  We have thought of you as evil, a friend only to demons and workers of iniquity.  To you we have brought our fatigue, our stress, our sulking hatreds, our languor, and our deep and abiding suspicions.  You have been our mute and captive audience.  In your hearing we have soliloquized grievances with the world that the world will never hear. 

Often we have ignored you and spurned you with our weaponry of artificial light.  Our noise, our caprices, our frantic restlessness driving us to indulgence of body and mind beyond moderation have helped us forget you were there at all.  But we know that you are a blessing, not a scourge, that whatever horror there may be is in us.  We have taught ourselves fear and doubt.  Shadows are of our own making, if indeed they are not the chosen object of our fascination and sometime obsession.  The evil we know is not your creation.  It is we who befriend iniquity.

You, oh Darkness, we have come to love so late.  Late in our lives we have made peace with you and heard your message to us in the midnight beating of our hearts.  Without you we would never have known introspection.  Because of you we have eyes within as well as without.  It is you who leads us to take comfort from solitude.  It is you who draws us closer to loved ones, who catalyzes us toward intimacy and sleep and meditative second thoughts.  It is you, Darkness, who breaks the fevered thrust of our momentum and puts us in gentle touch with our mortality.  Under your inspiration we wrestle and subdue the urgencies of conscience and flesh and private dilemma.  Without duress or chicanery you allow us to see ourselves in the mirror of disquietude and find strength to ennoble our own quiet needing.  By your silent blanketing of our eyes, our window of the soul, you inspire us to find our own way to God’s illuminating presence.

Darkness and Light – Light and Darkness, we bless you both.  We embrace you both.  We acknowledge your dual power and press on with endless vigor to give it shape all the days and nights of our lives.  Amen!


To read other entries in my blog, please consult its website:  enspiritus.blogspot.com.  To learn about me consult on the website the blog entry for August 9, 2013.

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Her (Movie Review by Bob Racine)



                             2 hrs & 6 min, color, 2013

“Sometimes I think I’ve felt everything I’m ever going to feel, and from here on out I’m not going to feel anything new.”  The man who utters these words goes by the name of Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix), a computer processor in a society at some distance into the future.  His specific function is the writing of letters on behalf of faceless individuals who do not wish to compose their own, intended for relatives or wives or lovers or friendly acquaintances of those persons, who are equally unknown to him.  What appears to be a task that links our man to a sizeable assortment of humanity is in actuality a lonely profession.  He is in effect a ghost writer, and the danger of ghost writing is the possibility that you yourself will become a ghost, a lifeless functionary without solidity of purpose or solidarity of form.  Apparently in his many composings he feels as if he has exhausted his cache of originality, emptying himself of self.  That he is in the final stages of getting divorced adds to his sense of quandary.                 

We have seen the likes of him in many motion pictures of the last fifty years.  An introspective soul yearning for connection, particularly romantic connection, but unable to master the art of intimacy, and let us make no mistake about it, creating intimacy is an art.  But in this futuristic society, something has become scientifically possible that offers the Theodores of the world a way to cope, if only for a limited time.  It is called “the world’s first artificially intelligent operating system.”  Its purveyors claim that it is not just a system but “a form of consciousness.”   One can create through computer ingenuity a lover or companion of one’s choosing, an operational system (os for short) that speaks in a voice already equipped and toned exactly to fit the fantasy composition of the receiver’s mind and imagination.  The unseen personality is constructed out of Theodore’s answers to leading questions about his life and background, fed into the circuitry, clues to what he would like his intimacy partner to be, and it is all done within seconds. 

Before he knows it, he is speaking to Samantha, a friendly, relaxed voice (provided by Scarlett Johansson) that (or maybe we should say who) relates to him and coaxes him into a form of sharing he has never really known.  She has been constructed just for him.  She exists to bring him and him alone the joy of companionship.  They can call on each other any hour of the day or night, and do.  She projects the aura of a very strong, imaginative personality and intelligence and comes with her own varied, human-like emotions.  She can even make things happen on line that he does not instruct her to make happen.  Whatever she does, however, is done for the purpose of pleasing him.  In time they fall in love (an apparently unusual development), and that is when the way becomes somewhat slippery for both of them. 

I have had conversations with several people about the future depicted in Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey,” as compared with the twenty-first century as it has really evolved.  We have a space station, and voice print identification has come about in some places.  What has not come to pass is the travel of humans to other planets, though there are trends that are leading in that direction.  One phenomenon, however, that plays a big part in the story and I hope NEVER materializes is HAL, the computer that not only talks but takes on human emotion and the capability of independent thought and action.  As most of you surely know, HAL turns psychotic and becomes murderous.  I know that when Samantha started to speak and act, a slight shudder passed through me recollecting the fiasco that HAL’s form of artificial intelligence becomes.  That is one eventuality I would take great pleasure in averting altogether.  My prayer to God is: “Please let computers remain what they are – inanimate machines that work according to designs that humans conceive and control, however advanced and however fanciful their encasements turn out to be and however rapidly they are equipped to produce results.  May their “voices” always be limited to digital transcription and computation.  Please, no mimicking of the moods and whims and volatilities of the human species!” 

I am pleased to report that nothing horrific takes place in “Her.”  Only pains of the heart do we experience with Theodore, as he becomes involved with his os, who proves to be far more of a human challenge than he might have guessed.  Early in the story she tells him that she is afraid that she is going to feel nothing more than what she has been programmed to feel.  This remark gives us an advanced clue about the complication his involvement with her is certain to become.  We know at once that she will exceed all the specifications of her creators.

The set decoration by Allen Coulter, the art direction by Austin Gorg and the overall production designing by K.K. Barrett demand from me a very special mention.  Some of the most singularly inspired work in these domains that I have ever absorbed – far out, but not that far out – has been perfected. 

A genius named Spike Jonze is responsible for the creation of “Her.”  Both the screenplay (for which he won an Oscar) and the directing are his alone.  His dialogue is keen-edged, transparent and extraordinarily intelligent.  Aside from emotionally gripping and spell-casting, the picture is quite amusing.  I would call it a situational comedy-drama, the laughs inherent in the situation.  For instance, Theodore sounds unintentionally funny when he speaks with his ex-wife Catherine (Rooney Mara) about his new flame and just casually mentions that she is an os.  In this future society it appears that os’s have become a commonplace option widely employed, hence his matter-of-factness in disclosing her computerized identity.  And that is not the only fun Jonze has with his disembodied female, but he never comes anywhere close to campy ridiculousness.  There is a purity of form from which he never deviates and which he never compromises.  He makes us believe in the simple process being depicted, however fantastic it may seem to us.                       

The performances are uniformly superb as well.  Phoenix in low key hits his mark during every emotional encounter, generating great sympathy.   He never looks or sounds silly.  Amy Adams adds to her trove of good characterizations as the wife of a friend who, subsequent to her breakup with her husband, also enlists the support of an os.  And Scarlett Johansson, though never seen, is dynamic in her portrayal.  Samantha will be hard to forget.   

A real mind-bender as well as rib tickler and heart tugger!  A somewhat rare combination!

 
To read other entries in my blog, please consult its website:  enspiritus.blogspot.com.  To learn about me consult on the website the blog entry for August 9, 2013.

Friday, June 20, 2014

Gravity (Movie Review by Bob Racine)



                               1 hr & 31 min, color, 2013

The frontier of motion picture technology continues to expand beyond  anything that our grandparents could have envisioned.  It stuns me to realize that “Gravity” could not have been made as it was made probably as little as two decades ago; the wherewithal of photography and special effects and digital ingenuity simply did not yet exist.  Even Stanley Kubrick, trailblazer that he was with “2001: A Space Odyssey” in 1968, could not have quite matched the visual clarity that is demonstrated during this amazing hour and a half.  I am not enough of a scientist or camera buff to explain exactly what we see or how or why.  I simply never recall spending the entire running time of a movie feature in which nothing is nailed down and there is no ground under anyone’s feet.  Deep space drift is the norm, from opening shot to the very last (well, almost).  Anyone subject to extreme dizziness or motion sickness under the slightest provocation will have a difficult time keeping eyes on the screen for very long.  And if you have a pathological fear of heights, the kind that would keep you away from amusement park rides, or a morbid fear of flying, your time might be better spent on something closer to the earth.  But for us space adventure nuts I could not recommend anything more appropriate.          

There was a time when the genre of science fiction was relegated to low status, something on the order of a Mickey Mouse watch among timepieces.  Or a circus sideshow!  The technology was so primitive that even among the scariest of the bunch one would have to make an effort not to laugh.  The plots were often quite corny, and set decorations were generally cardboard in texture.  This was due not only to primitive methodology but to the fact that back then we did not know as much about the universe as we do now.  Martians were dreaded aliens.  Today we know that the red planet is uninhabited and we have sent probes far enough to discover galaxies by the thousands and still we possess no proof as yet of life off the earth, and certainly not within our solar system.  “Gravity,” like “2001” in its time, is a watermark signaling the advancement of science fiction as a motion picture art form, though it does not by any means compete with the 1968 masterpiece in the realm of imagination or in its mysterious allure and magnetism or its poetic power.  It does not have the far reach that Kubrick achieved.  It is only a trip, not an odyssey, though it is a very exciting trip.      

There are no alien creatures in this one or psychopathic computers gone berserk.  The enemy is space itself, as we are subtly forewarned in a preface.  Two NASA technicians (Sandra Bullock and George Clooney) at work performing an installation on an orbiting satellite some distance from their spacecraft, are surprised by a sudden hail of debris that drives them from their place of work and sets them spinning un-tethered to anything but each other.  One of them describes the feeling: “like a Chihuahua being tumble-dried.”  In short order they discover that the spacecraft as well as the satellite has been destroyed by the merciless swarm and all inhabitants of the craft killed.  Besides that, all radio contact with ground control in Houston has been cut off.  A freak accident, courtesy of the stratosphere, for which there has been no way to prepare!  They are alone and must improvise their own means of reentry.  They are the only players in this drama; there is no intercutting to NASA or anything happening on the ground anywhere.  Everything happens in orbit, though we do hear voices coming through the radio transmission before the debris storm strikes, before the radio cutoff.           

It appeared to me at first that the hardware was going to be the star of the show all by itself, that the film was largely a tech experiment.  But in short order it became clear that we have a human drama after all, thanks for the most part to Ms. Bullock.  Even with all that space suit covering her from head to foot and with all the twists and turns her character is forced into, during which even her face is for the most part difficult to observe beneath the plastic covering – even with all that the soul of the woman she portrays emerges.  We learn that this is her first time in orbit and that she heads up a project that she has had to fight to get funds to complete.  Can we begin to imagine what it must be like for this catastrophe to occur on your first space voyage? 

We also learn that she is a mother whose four-year-old daughter and only child met instant death from a fall incurred on a playground.  This loss has had both a shattering and a numbing effect on the course of her life, propelling her into her work where she can best forget that cruel circumstance and bury her feelings.  Now she herself is threatened with annihilation by a freak collision in another domain of existence.  A tendency toward fatalism slows her down, dulls her reflexes.  Clooney, head of the mission they share, her commander-in-chief at the moment, labors against this tendency of hers and is challenged to awaken her slightly slumbering survival instinct. 

Clooney himself is something of a study.  He is well cast to play a super efficient astronaut who tries to relieve the mental stress of his co-workers with the use of light banter and wild yarns, many of which they have all heard him tell before.  He can switch in a second from good-humored companion to a no-nonsense commander giving inflexible, on-the-spot orders.  The way he mollifies Bullock’s fear and redirects her activity, with both of them tumbling head over heels and sometimes in reverse rotation, is quite touching.  Of course the tether that connects them does not have unlimited durability, and they know that one hail of debris is not all they will have to confront.  The inevitable separation comes, and the ensuing developments test the moral fiber of them both. 

In a word, those are not manikins or robots inside the suits; they are real human beings, engaged in a solitary fight for survival that reminded me somewhat of another 2013 release – “All Is Lost.”  (To read my review of it, consult the blog entry for February 24, 2014.)  That one takes place at sea.  This one occurs in another ocean, so to speak, just as perilous and cruel, where improvisation is likewise the only means out of harm’s way.  Perhaps the most moving moment occurs when Bullock uncovers foreign voices and tries to alert them as to her location to no avail, but she overhears the sounds of a barking dog and a baby’s cry that put her mind momentarily at ease and give her a measure of needed hope.    

“Gravity” is the first science fiction movie ever to win an Oscar for Best Directing.  Alfonso Cuaron is listed as the movie’s director; it was he who won the trophy.  But considering the kind of complex job “Gravity” is, a gigantic puzzle with more pieces to fit together than meets the eye, I daresay he accepted it on behalf of his gifted crew.  Where did direction in the conventional sense overlap with so many other very needed skills?  A movie is almost never the work of one individual; it is a joint endeavor, many hands giving at least a sense of direction to produce the final product.  So I feel compelled this time to list the names of those I suppose deserve a share in that award: 

Producers – David Heyman, Nikki Pemy, Chris DeFaria, Stephen Jones
Director of Photography – Emmanuel Lubezki
Visual Effects Supervisor – Tim Webber
Production Designer – Andy Nicholson
Animation Supervisor – Max Solomon
Film Editors – Alfonso Cuaron and Mark Sanger
Co-writers – Alfonso and Jonas Cuaron
Camera Operator – Peter Taylor

These, of course, are just a few among a myriad of contributors, including Stephen Price who has given us a powerful score and an unseen Ed Harris as the Mission Control voice coming through the airwaves.

“Gravity” is, in the final analysis, more a tribute to human resilience and courage and all their attendant qualities than it is to the majesty of space, which comes off also as a sly beast that has to be tamed as much as the science of space travel has to be mastered.  And we have just begun the process of taming and mastery. 


To read other entries in my blog, please consult its website:  enspiritus.blogspot.com.  To learn about me consult on the website the blog entry for August 9, 2013.


In my previous blog entry I reviewed the movie version of the novel “The Book Thief” and somehow the last name of the book’s author, Markus Zusak, got chewed off.  It came out Markus Zu.  I have not been able to figure out how it happened; I must have gotten distracted in some way.  Please accept my apologies for that error and note his real name – Markus Zusak.

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

The Book Thief (Movie Review by Bob Racine)



                                    2 hr & 11 min, color, 2013

How does a war picture become inspiring?  How do you depict the brutal realities of nations and peoples clashing with each other in deadly confrontation and still lift the viewer’s spirits?  How can images of destruction and holocaust bless the eyes that watch them unfold and lift hearts in hope and reverence?   Where do you go beyond the apparent, beyond the ugliness and inhumanity and devastation, to find enough of their opposites to reach the tender core inside all of us, however dormant that core may lie? 

One way is to place the viewer under the skin of a child, to let us see and hear and feel by way of the child’s eyes and ears and visceral intake.  The widely read novel “The Book Thief,” written by an Australian named Markus Zu, following the crisis-strewn path that an elementary school child has to travel in Nazi Germany in the early 1940s, has been adapted into a motion picture that penetrates as few war films have to bring us to the hallowed ground of our being and destiny.  I cannot imagine a war saga laden with so many individual deaths striking more upbeat chords. 

The child’s name is Liesl Meminger, a German youth given up for adoption for her own safety by her Communist mother who is being hunted by the Nazis.  She is played as close to perfection as a child performer can get by Sophie Nelisse.  The story concerns the imperiled life she falls into with her adoptive parents and the maturing of her spirit and soul over the years of the Second World War and its traumas.   

Four individuals play a vital part in her unstable and tumultuous life.  Two of course are the adoptive parents themselves.  The father Hans (Geoffrey Rush) from the very start is a loving individual, who seems to connect intuitively and empathetically with each crisis she faces and teaches her how to read, approaching her quite playfully, as if she brings out the aging child in him.  The mother Rosa (Edith Watson) at first is quite stern, not trusting Liesl and resentful of her background but in time comes to respect her and love her dearly.  Another is a boy her age, a school chum named Rudy (Nico Lersch), who befriends her the day she arrives and becomes somewhat protective of her until he realizes that she has as much grit as he does.  (Rudy undergoes a metamorphosis of change and awareness just as remarkable as hers.  Another movie, just as stirring, could be made in which he is the chief character.)  And perhaps most significant of all is a Jewish fellow named Max (Ben Schnetzer).  In return for Max’s father saving Hans’ life in the previous war, Hans unhesitatingly hides him in his home when the crackdown on Jews begins. 

As you can well imagine, Max’s entrance into the household compounds the stress they are already feeling just from the shortage of food, the uncertainty of the war effort and the scarcity of employment for Hans.  To all this is added the danger of detection and the subsequent imprisonment and possible death for them all as traitors to the Reich.  The crime of hiding Jews was one usually dealt with by the Nazis most severely.  Reluctantly they have to move Max down to their windowless basement, where it is easier to conceal him but where the dampness makes him sick – seemingly unto death, when they cannot wake him up.  What will they do if he dies?  “The smell would give us away” is Rosa’s keen observation.  Keeping him alive with their very limited resources causes wakeful hours during the night for everybody.   In the meantime, however, he and Liesl have formed a very special bond, one that draws forth her humanity and deepens her understanding of the power of words. 

Words!  That is what the film celebrates more than anything else.  Liesl, forced by her Nazi leaders to participate with the citizens of her town in a mass book burning, supposedly to cleanse their nation of corrupting influences, lingers behind, as the crowd finally disperses, and retrieves a scorched but still intact volume that catches her eye.  Thus begins her literary education, one further encouraged on the sly by the local Burgemeister’s wife, whose private library she is given access to when she delivers the laundry Rosa does for her.  Thus is born her private nickname, Book Thief, coined teasingly by her admiring friend Rudy, when she begins borrowing from that library quite freely.       

Max acquaints Liesl with a quote from Aristotle when he sees that she has a special gift for memorization.   “Memory is the scribe of the soul.”  This pearl of wisdom is given special shape in a scene that takes place in a bomb shelter, where all the neighbors are forced to spend a long fearful night, as the sounds of deadly warfare are heard doing their worst somewhere not far away.  She distracts everyone from their fear and dread and stone silence by reciting a story she has written herself, word for word, one that deeply absorbs most of the adults and soothes the other children, until they fall asleep.  She turns the darkness into light before the dawn summons them all out of their confinement.   

But let me assure everyone that Liesl is no Pollyanna.  This is not a movie on the order of those ridiculous ones made many years ago in which the child has knowledge superior to adults and becomes the premature, implausible voice of reason and reconciliation.  Liesl is quite human, very much a child and at first quite innocent.  She makes mistakes and does foolish things, one of which places her family in grave danger.  She takes some drastic chances, even breaking a promise of confidentiality.  It does not take much coaxing for her to get into a fight with a school mate.  And when disaster is visited upon her world, she proves quite vulnerable to grief.  A true child of adversity! 

The film has narration, mixed with a lovely score by John Williams, a deep, soothing, dreamy male voice that sounds deceptively inviting.  I have been debating whether or not to reveal in this review the identity of the narrator, only hinted at throughout the footage, never disclosed in so many words.  If I did, many would find it difficult to believe me.  It would sound incongruous with all I have said about the upbeat tone of the picture.  So I have opted for leaving those of you yet to screen the film to find out for yourselves.  By the last reel the voice should have ceased to incite any apprehension anyhow.  This unseen attendant’s presence will have come to seem quite appropriate to the circumstances.  

Dramatic and comedic elements mix quite tastefully at every turn, thanks both to the directorial skill of Bryan Perceval and the incisive writing of screenplay author Michael Petroni.  It is quite a story, one that is appropriately intense and suspenseful but one that honors both the living and the dead in a most unusual and satisfying way.  It should be easy to take for most family audiences, even with its tearful ending.  In case anyone is wondering, the dialogue is in English, not German.  So you do not have to anticipate the need for subtitles. 


To read other entries in my blog, please consult its website:  enspiritus.blogspot.com.  To learn about me consult on the website the blog entry for August 9, 2013.