Friday, May 1, 2015

Being Mortal by Atul Gawande & Still Foolin' 'Em' by Billy Crystal (Book Reviews by Bob Racine)



The two literary gems I am about to plug, both recent publications, explore the subject of mortality, but in a vastly different vocabulary – one in the very learned but warm and ingratiating language of a healer, the other in the light satirical banter and reflection of a comic master. 

Gawande, an accomplished, experienced surgeon, sets a terrific example for health practitioners the world over.  He is self-effacing and honest about the medical profession’s failures at the task of preparing terminal patients for their ultimate departure from the flesh.  It is a fact we have all heard underscored many times among the most educated of modern minds.  But it is so rewarding to me as a lay person to have a member of the profession itself fully own this failing and devote a sizeable book to examining the whys and wherefores of it and, more importantly, pointing the way toward a more sensitive and humane approach to preparation for aging and death. 

He admits that his medical school training did not prepare him to deal with it.  “The way we saw it, and the way our professors saw it, the purpose of medical schooling was to teach how to save lives, not how to tend to their demise.”  The most startling assertion in the entire book on the part of a fellow surgeon, one the author highlights, is the admission that in his way of thinking “death is the enemy,” and all the doctor does must be devoted to defeating it.  If in doubt about the advisability of a certain regimen of treatment for someone struggling to stay alive, ignore the doubts and go with it, even if it results in adding to the needless suffering of the body and soul in travail and robs the patient of dignity and relative peace.        

Nursing homes come in for a huge drubbing.  He recounts the history, and it is not pleasant reading to hear how the aged and infirm in former days were treated.  In 1912 an Illinois state official described a home for the aged he had examined, called back then a poorhouse, as “unfit to decently house animals.”  One went to such a place to die, not to live.  If there is a topical sentence in the book, it is this, in his chapter on Dependence:  “How did we wind up in a world where the very choices for the very old seem to be either going down with the volcano or yielding all control of our lives?” 

Perhaps I knew, but had forgotten, that the concept of assisted living is quite a recent invention, even though I have worked closely with two of them in Columbia leading drama clubs.  They are devoted to the creation of a living and active environment for people who are on the downgrade but have a long way down to go.  All that is possible is done to preserve their sense of autonomy.  These places do work, even though, as Gawande points out, the concept has been exploited and corrupted a bit in some areas of the country.
    
Gawande does not deal in generalities or paint in broad strokes.  He gives a lot of detail, citing the progressions of many individual patients with which he has been involved.  He opens up his files and his memory to take us down numerous paths trod by terminally ill individuals and the part that he and other physicians played in leading them through possible treatments.  And he is always putting things in what I call a humanistic context, perhaps even a spiritual one.  He frequently backs away from minute recounting and inspection to remind us of what life’s essentials are, not just for survival but for joy and contentment.  This man is an observer of the human heart and a reader of people, though he confesses that that could not always have been said about him.  He was a slow learner.

There are essentially two kinds of doctors who serve the elderly, according to the book.  There are those it calls the Informational type.  The medic gives the patient all the facts and details about their condition and plans treatment for them based solely upon that doctor’s professional opinion.  This is what you must do or else!  If you choose not to, let it be on your head (my words, not those of the author).  There it is, take it or leave it, no room for discussion, though presented in very courteous terms usually, not a bossy one. 

But Gawande tells of how he came to adopt what he calls the Inspirational approach.  It begins by asking the patient what his or her goals are.  He gets them talking about themselves and what they value most for what life they have left.  From there on the discussion works its way into examining options and chosen priorities and “matching treatments to them.”  The patient has the sense of planning with the doctor, and Gawande admits that it is a challenge, much harder than the direct, aggressive approach practiced by the Informational physician.   He tells us that a worldwide revolution in the treatment of the mortally ill is going on, though we are yet in transition.  So much more educating and training will be required to establish what he calls “a new norm.” 

At times it felt, as I read, as if I was reading a novel or at least a series of short stories.  The detail is so sharp and well honed that it seems very close to fiction.  There are many characters to whom we as readers are introduced, of varying ages and varying degrees of helplessness and infirmity.  When I was finished, it felt as though I had actually lived through many of those crises and struggles with them on a first name basis.  Nothing is abbreviated, there is no sketchiness whatsoever.  At moments it was saddening, at other moments heartening, at still other moments a gripping narrative of push and pull, of individual human destinies being shaped and completed.  He even includes his own father in the accounting.  It is a brilliant balance between the sharing of intricate data and the portraying of human drama, informative and deeply touching.  I get the feeling that I have read one of the most important books that I ever have or ever will read.  I cannot recommend it too highly, all of us being, whatever our age or in whatever state of health, among the mortal.

The publisher of “Being Mortal,” copyrighted 2014, is Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company, New York


When I read autobiographies, I approach them with a certain caution.  Most I have read tell stories out of school that I never really wanted to hear, even if they did go on to share the details of vital interest that I was seeking and expecting.  A kind of confessional one moment, an awkward attempt at self-justification the next!  But all caution was swept out the window, when I was no more than a few paragraphs into Billy Crystal’s “Still Foolin’ ’Em.”  It is his sixty-fifth birthday and he begins as I would expect him to open a gag presentation on stage. 

“I looked in the [bathroom] mirror. . .My scream brought Janice, my wife of forty-two years, running in.  I kept yelling, ‘Holy S---!  What the f--- happened to me?’  Somehow, overnight it seemed, I had turned from a hip, cool baby boomer into a Diane Arbus photograph.  I looked at Janice for an encouraging word, for a hug, for an ‘It’s okay, Billy, you look great.  It’s an old mirror.’  All she did was glance down at my robe, which had opened up, and ask: ‘When did your pubic hair turn gray?’ ” At once I was, so to speak, in the floor laughing to beat the band. That is how he launches this wacky ship, and he is forthwith off and running and making us run with him without ever getting winded. 

Yes, he covers the many highlights of his career and how he came to be one of the most sought after comedians this nation of ours has ever known.  But woven all through those highlights are his many reflections on the aging process.  Of course, as you can probably tell from this opening of the book, he is not averse to putting us on, but who cares.  He exudes a quality of loving embrace that gets extended to a host of individuals he has worked with and associated with, and when I say a host, I mean a super abundance, an armada; this guy has made more friends than most of us have ever had the opportunity even to meet, with heads of state, fellow show people and sports celebrities into the bargain.  They swarm through his life, coming from every direction. 

Consider some of his chapter titles.  “I Worry.”  He comes forth with a long  list of worries, mostly having to do with his alleged inability to sleep.  “I don’t worry about dying in my sleep, because I never sleep.  When the angel of death comes to my bedside and puts his hand out for me, I’m going to look him right in the eye and say, ‘Get the f--- out of here.’  Then Janice will tell him, ‘Don’t listen to Billy – he’s overtired and a bit cranky.’ ”   Unless you are especially prudish, you will roar when you read through his chapter on “Sex.”  And in “Count to Ten” he shares his mind on how religion comes to bear upon life beyond 65: “People say it is a given that. . .you turn to religion.  Personally, the aging friends I know turn to the Holy Trinity: Advil, bourbon, and Prosac.”  (He earlier in the book takes on the subject of his Bar Mitzvah and even satirizes that.  But do not misinterpret him, being Jewish gives him a pride that is pleasantly disguised beneath many of his asides about it.)  He has a very short chapter called “Take Care of Your Teeth,” in which he remonstrates about going to have his teeth cleaned after turning 65 as a birthday celebration and being passed among no less than six dental specialists and bemoaning the fact that so many people have been in his mouth. 

He has one entitled “Conservative,” which is misleading.  In it he talks about his gripes, and some of them are quite serious and point-well-taken, but he gets through hardly a one without making us at least snicker.  He has an ironic twist on the most common of them that any of us might share.  One I especially found delightful was about being patted down at the airport.  Once at LAX a woman screener who recognized him said, “Billy, you are the best.  I love you.  Can I see your picture ID.”  And that is just the start of what goes on for a full page and a half.  Outrageously funny!

Billy seems to have no hesitation or embarrassment about being human in every sense of the term.  Eroticism seeps through much of his writing, whatever the subject matter at hand.  In his chapter “Kiss Me Twice” he confesses to having had a blazing affair with Sophia Loren.  “It started when I was 13” and lasted for many years.  One super moment for him is when on a certain public occasion he finally gets to meet this Italian woman who has fueled his fantasies as a kid.  

I feel compelled to quote a passage from his chapter “Grandpa.” 
It blesses me no end, an aging man talking.  “There are more and more people telling me I’m not as important as I once was.  The inevitable becomes clearer every day.  Sometimes, like a sudden rainstorm, I get that scared, sad feeling that time is getting shorter. . .I can’t stop conjuring the saddest images my mind can muster, and I’m lost – and then I hear the footsteps running toward me and I hear the giggles, and they yell ‘Grandpa!’ and suddenly they’re in my arms and I squeeze them and hold on to them for dear life. . .I am important [after all]; I am their star; I am their grandpa.” 

His last two chapters – “Can’t Take It With You” and “Buying the Plot” are luminous in their detail about late life choices and plans for dying and settling accounts with the present world.  They are, to use the much heard lingo of the theater, worth the price of admission, and many times more.  No Shakespearian sonnet could be more inspired and profound than what he shares about the place of his family (including the wife) in his thinking and late life living; he walks us right into his heart of hearts.  But all he so quirkily says is overlaid with a quietly joyful embracing of the process.  He shares in great detail his experience of losing loved ones – fellow performers, celebrities, and members of his own extended family. 

This is one comedian who exudes no contempt for the human race.  He speaks to us like a brother who shares all our dilemmas.  He does not spin any fantastic webs or tell any tall tales.  He faces into one hard knuckle issue after another and deals out salvos.  But he does it all with a gusto and a lust for living that is infectious.  Anyone above 50 should give reading it high priority.

“Still Foolin’ ’Em,” copyrighted 2013, is also published by Henry Holt and Co., New York


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.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

The Imitation Game (Movie Review by Bob Racine)



                                   1 hr & 54 min, color, 2014

“Sometimes it’s the very people who no one can imagine anything of who do the things no one can imagine.”  Three times we hear those words on the soundtrack of this extraordinary motion picture, and each and every time they are spoken in reference to the same individual, i.e. Alan Turing, a mathematical scientist who made a secret and amazing contribution to the winning of the Second World War by his native England.  His story is decades late being told, because his work was so surreptitious and so unprecedented at the time that disclosure after the fact might very well have endangered the lives of his inner circle of fellow mathematicians and indicted the careers of certain high ranking military personnel.  It was a story of personal, behind-the-scenes, sneaky triumph that nobody at the time would believe anyhow.  All his personal top secret files were expunged at the end of the war, and only a few knew what he had been up to.  It took in fact five decades for the drama of his short life to be made public. 

Bernard Cumberbatch (Oscar nominee) gives a commanding, apparently flawless performance portraying him.  Turing was a child prodigy in the math department and by 1939, at the age of 26, he was audacious enough, academically astute enough and lettered enough to persuade the powers that be, which included no less than Winston Churchill, to put him in charge of a team trying to break a Nazi communications code, by all appearances unbreakable, that went by the then secret German name of Enigma. 

A very lonely, socially awkward and standoffish man who lived in his head, Turing was evidently brash and flippant in conversation enough when he had to be to forge his way into the dense structure of officialdom to make his case.  But doing so and getting himself put in charge of the project was just the first phase of his fight that went on for most of the length of the war, not only with the upper brass but with his impatient team members.  It seemed apparent to them that there was only a million to one chance of cracking this Enigma code and could not fathom why Turing spent all his time constructing a machine which he named Christopher.  No one could have imagined that that machine would become the precursor of what we today call a computer.  The way he posed the query was: “What if a machine could decode a machine?”  The Enigma machine to be decoded by his Christopher!  Unlike the human brain that can only examine one coded message at a time, the machine could examine millions in a matter of minutes.

A man named Graham Moore won this past season’s Oscar for the film’s screenplay, which is adapted from the book, “Alan Turing: The Enigma.”  A well deserved honor!  Despite the complicated ramifications of the experiment that tests even the scientifically smartest in the audience, the dialogue is forceful and precise enough to capture the sustained attention of even those of the most meager scientific comprehension such as myself.  (I think I said enough on that subject at the beginning of my previous movie write-up in the April 5 posting on this blog.  If you have not read my comments on “The Theory of Everything,” another true story of a scientist, you can do so at your leisure.)  What makes the writing so dynamic and engrossing is the suspense.  We know Turing and his assistants are going to succeed, but how and when and after how many upsets, setbacks and collisions with their bosses and each other?  An amazing flow of events that if we did not know they are fact would serve as the basis for a rousing and controversial sci-fi tale!

I have no way, short of plowing through the book, which I have not done, of knowing who the fictional characters are as portrayed by a sharp British cast.  Keira Knightley is a young woman crossword genius who Turing reluctantly takes onto his team, when she outshines all the competitors for the top secret mission and gradually wins Turing’s respect.  When she reports for the crossword test, she is mistaken for one of those females applying for the secretarial pool.  She comes to play a very decisive role in the unfolding of the plot, as does a guy named Hugh (Matthew W. Goode), who turns out to be a bit of a rogue, at one point threatening the project but eventually saving it from collapse, when the bigwigs are about to scrap it. 

In fairness to the doubters, Turing’s idea would have seemed to almost anyone at the time to be the stuff out of which pipe dreams are made. 

It is after the war, in the 1950s, that tragedy descends upon Turing’s life, when it is discovered that he is a homosexual.  Homosexuality was at the time not only frowned upon in Great Britain but a crime punishable by imprisonment.  When brought before the judge (a scene we never witness), he is given only one alternative to that imprisonment – hormonal alteration through drugs, better known as chemical castration.  Screenplay writer Moore thankfully does not spend overbearing time on this episode.  He breaks things up nicely, jumping back and forth between the 1940s, the 1950s and the 1920s when Turing was a student in a boys academy, an editing device that it may take a while into the footage to get accustomed to.  We see Turing’s life as a fateful thread that binds all elements together in such a way that the final announcement of his suicide in 1954 at the age of 41 is not as jarring or unexpected as it might have been.  The last we see of this unfortunate man is really heartbreaking!  He is weeping all by himself, expressing fear of abandonment in front of Christopher, which has become his only companion.  This is probably Cumberbatch’s greatest moment, rounding out his brilliant portrayal.

In final credits we are told that Queen Elizabeth, all those fifty years later after his suppressed record was finally no longer top secret, granted him a posthumous Royal pardon.  I am certainly gratified by that move on her part, though I do not believe the word “pardon” was the right one.  One can only be pardoned for something done wrong.  When Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, he was not telling the country that Nixon was innocent.  He was saving him from the prosecution he deserved.  But in my book Turing did nothing to be prosecuted for, either during the war or in his sexual behavior.  What the Queen should have granted him was a Royal exoneration. 

We today are still playing the Imitation Game, which is the scheme to teach computers to emulate the human brain in its reasoning acuity.  And the question raised as far back as Kubrick’s “Space Odyssey” remains to be fully answered: How much capability will we permit them?  Will they always be at the service of human intelligence or will they somehow surpass us and develop minds of their own that produce ideas in opposition to and competition with ours?   I personally reason that as long as human intelligences of Turing’s caliber are in play, the chance of automatic intelligence gaining the ascendency will remain in grave doubt.

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, April 5, 2015

The Theory of Everything (Movie Review by Bob Racine)



                             2 hrs & 3 min, color, 2014

Listening to scientists of any variety discussing the ramifications of their science has always made me squirm with frustration.  I feel as if my ears as well as my limited brain are being stuffed full of wire mesh or crammed with cotton, hay and rags.  And this cramming can make me dizzy or it can dull my interest until I recoil against what seems like the prattling of a foreign tongue.  I always struggled through Biology and Mathematics when in high school and college, until my retentive powers slowly began to flivver out.  I know what buttons to push to make my TV give me what I want, but do not ask me to explain why that button produces that desired result.  Just tell me the sequential steps to take; do not expect me to perceive the electronic principle of it.  I guess I am saying in so many words that I feel intimidated when called upon to fathom the shop talk of any scientist, even my doctors, who have mastered medical science, attempting to explain to me what has gone awry in my body.  Rather embarrassing!  I am a right-side-of-the-brain individual, and it does not take very much left-side chatter to find me wanting for comprehension.

Surely one of the virtues of “The Theory of Everything,” the current biopic of world famous English theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking, is its easy digestibility, even on the part of a dullard like me.  I feared before seeing it that I would once again have to face the intimidation of a lower caste Science student.  No such problem!  The film contains some shop talk, but it is enshrouded in a narrative that puts a human face upon the man and the struggle in which he has been for many years enmeshed.  It is a very warm human tale that traces the path he took from utter helplessness to a rich fulfillment of vision and purpose.

Most of present day western humanity is already somewhat familiar with the particulars of his affliction – being struck down with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease) at 21, in which the cells and neurons in the brain that control muscle use die off, eventually rendering the victim totally helpless, unable to move an arm or a leg.  He was told at the time when he was diagnosed that he only had at most two years to live.  Meanwhile , 52 years and three children later, at age 73, he is Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology at the University of Cambridge in England.  In short, he retarded the disease’s progressive rate, though we have to bear in mind the fact that he has had medical technology at his disposal that Lou Gehrig never did.  (Gehrig lived only three years after he was struck down.) 

There is considerable discussion in the film about black holes and space/time and the behavior of neurons and cell formation/dissolution.  But it is all palatable.  I found myself rooting for him when he faces the scientific establishment in his limp and slurring condition, knowing already that he is going to break through and be accepted as an equal in spite of this, whether I fully understand the theories and claims being set forth or not.  It is the man I root for, not a school of thought.  I never felt intimidated by his interplay with other brilliant minds, thanks to screenplay writer Anthony McCarten, Director James Marsh and to the woman, Jane Hawking, who rescued him at least twice from the jaws of death , married him, inspired him and finally wrote her book “Traveling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen,” from which the screenplay is adapted.

Not real often does an actor or actress come along, previously unfamiliar to movie audiences, who appears to be the perfect fit for a dominant screen role of iconic dimension.  Eddie Redmayne makes Hawking so completely his creation that it is inconceivable that anyone else could have been cast.  Where does the actor leave off and the character begin?  Hawking viewed the film before release and commented that at times he thought he was watching himself.  So thoroughly and naturally does the fusion take place that I wonder if the actor in this case will ever be free of the man he has portrayed.  Will he find other parts just as demanding, that draw forth the same degree of skill and imagination and innovation?  Is there somewhere else to go? 

I guess I take some measure of comfort from recalling Peter O’Toole’s explosive screen debut as T.E. Lawrence in “Lawrence of Arabia.”  I remember wondering at the time whether he could ever possibly even approach the caliber of portrayal he evidenced in that monumental juggernaut of an adventure.  Since that debut, he has worn many faces of many unforgettable figures and excelled at them all.  I had no need to worry.  I hope for the same in Redmayne’s case.

Especially powerful and engaging are those moments in which Hawking has to grope with normal functions but with such limited capacities – struggling with the task of bringing his spoon up to his mouth to eat, his hand shaking uncontrollably, and literally climbing stairs one at a time by himself prostrate and face down, with nothing to assist him in his climb but the wooden bars on the railing.  A very physically demanding role!  And his face, with his wide mouth, his almost flat stretch of a smile and his big beady eyes that appear to be always searching by themselves for cosmic answers to cosmic questions!  I can only begin to imagine how much training and practice Redmayne had to undergo before he could perform in front of the camera. 

And let us not throw mere passing glances at Felicity Jones as Jane; she has engraved on my memory the image of a small-of-stature, seemingly innocent, protected young language student who surprises her family and the world and maybe the movie audience by turning into a strong, determined and fiercely loyal woman almost overnight, who sets the bar considerably high for Stephen in the steps he takes to fight ALS and pursue his career.  No shrinking violet, hers is a fully committed love that requires her to make some difficult, major league decisions.   Ms Jones hits her mark in every scene, whether it calls for humor, anxiety, tough-mindedness, confrontational anger, tears, tenderness, or visible emotion unaccompanied by words.  Her face speaks most incisively.  Her previous film work has been sparse, but now she should have a productive career ahead of her.

One issue never quite resolved between Stephen and Jane is the religious question.  She is a faithful member of the Anglican Church fully accepting of the tenets of her faith.  When after having just met him she asks him about his specialty, Cosmology, he remarks that the science is “a kind of religion for intellectual atheists.”  In place of worshipping and seeking for God, he claims to be in search of “one single unifying equation that explains everything in the universe.”  Whether or not this difference impacts upon their marriage is open to question.  Let the viewer decide, after their marriage is lovably terminated, each of them having become attracted to someone else. 

Though I found the film to be an inspiring tribute to human resilience and compassionate caring, there is one aspect of the production about which I feel the need to speak a little negatively, and that is the photography.  I have no quarrel with where the cinematographer chose to put the camera, but the use of color images I found at times confusing and annoying.  One moment we are bathed in a cold dim blue, at others in a splashy yellow or orange that seems a little overexposed and all for no apparent reason artistic or otherwise.  Better choice of palettes would have been a plus.  Easier on the eyes! 

Everyone who takes an interest in “The Theory of Everything” should bear in mind that the film only deals with the man’s early life.  It does not by any means cover the entire range of his writings and his findings and the contribution he has made to making science accessible to the average person.  If you want to know how far his persistent struggle has taken him and the many innovations he has made in his field, I recommend his Biography as posted on line by Google.  It would be a very fitting and hopefully exciting follow-up to seeing the movie.  It was for me.   


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.