RETURN OF THE AGE OF MIRACLES Hester Panim

We will have the miraculous again in grander vistas we have ever imagined possible. For those who love God, the coming miracles are past conception and past imagining. Hester Ponim will have come to an end as we know it. WE HAVE NOT MATURED AT THAT POINT TO MERIT THE RETURN OF OPEN MIRACLES. That is why we only have the still small voice of G-d. Note the following excerpt from an email I received from Chabad. Question of the Week: Why don't we see miracles today like the Jews saw in the story of Chanuka? And don't tell me that every day is a miracle, childbirth is a miracle, the sunrise is a miracle, blah blah blah. I am talking about splitting seas, dead people coming alive, voices from heaven type of miracles. The really supernatural stuff. What happened to that? Why did the people of biblical times get all the special effects and we don't? Has G-d retired? Answer: Have you ever wished you were a child again? Don't kids have it made? Their parents do everything for them. The child is hungry and amazingly food appears in front of them. They hurt themselves and the parent is immediately there to kiss them better. They are lovingly put to sleep at night, and taken out of bed in the morning. It is a comforting and secure existence. But it doesn't last for long. As the child develops and grows, the parents gradually withdraw. A baby becomes a toddler, they can walk on their own two feet, feed themselves, and look after some of their own needs. Eventually they will grow to be young children, and can even go out of the house for the day, without their parents, and go to school. Then they become teenagers, when they assert their independence even more. Teenagers often brush off their parents' advice, because they have to find their own way, and they think that they know best. As difficult as it is, the parents have to accept this as a part of their child's maturation process, and to some extent allow the teenager to make some silly mistakes. Otherwise they will never grow up. The parents have to let go, because only then can the child finally grow up, and become an adult. Then, as a developed and mature adult, they can relate to their parents with respect and understanding. They don't need their parents to clothe and feed them anymore, they can do that themselves. But they can enjoy a relationship that is even deeper and more real, because now, as an adult, they have grown to appreciate what their parents have done for them. That they are the person that they are due to the love and attention that their parents devoted to them. Humanity has taken a similar course. In the early days, G-d was like a loving parent, very apparent and obviously looking after us. He spoke to people to give them directions, He intervened by doing miracles to save His children from harm. The wicked were punished immediately, and the righteous rewarded. That was the era of humanity's infancy. We had yet to develop the spiritual tools to relate to G-d in any subtle or sublime way, so He spoon-fed us with open miracles. As humanity developed spiritually, so G-d withdrew His open manifestations in our lives. As a parent allows their child more and more freedom, so G-d removed His open interference in world affairs. But of course, while the parent may not interfere, they never really withdraw their love and attention. They oversee every move their growing child makes, and quietly influence their child's life direction, albeit from the sidelines. Similarly, as time has moved on, G-d is just as present as before, pulling the strings of history and human destiny this way and that, but not in such an obvious and obtrusive way as through a miracle. He hides behind the coincidences and daily occurrences that seem on the surface to be quite normal. But on reflection, they are not. The hand of G-d is clearly there. Over the last couple of centuries, humanity went through an adolescent rebellion. We threw off the yoke of our Heavenly Parent and sought independence. Belief in G-d was seen as a childish crutch and an immature myth. But our generation, having learnt from the adolescent mistakes of modern history, is starting to mature. We are realising that our Divine Parent's values are not so bad after all. And we as a generation are seeking to reconnect with G-d and true spirituality, not as children who need miracles to convince us, but as spiritual adults, who can discern the magic behind the everyday, and the Divine within the mundane. We are finally coming of age. Perhaps this new thirst for G-d is the greatest miracle of all. Rabbi Moss http://www.torah.org/learning/perceptions/5770/netzavim.html# Hester Panim "I will become very angry at them on that day, and I will abandon them and hide My face from them. They will be devoured, and plagued by many evils that will distress them, and will say, `Do we not suffer because God has left us?' " (Devarim 31:17) This week's PERCEPTIONS video can be accessed at: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=3F6A94F387BE70E5 Hester Panim is a commonly used term in the Torah world. Literally, it means "hiding face," but it refers to concealed Divine Providence, not the lack of it, just the concealment of it. For, a fundamental of fundamentals is that God always runs the world, even recreating it anew each moment. It's just that, when we merit it, we get to watch Him do it. Well, not exactly see Him recreate the world each second, but to at least see or sense that He is behind everything. Today, the average person either doesn't believe in God, or at least doesn't believe that He is involved in the everyday affairs of man. He lives his life as if God has little if any interest in his life at all, and therefore lives as he sees fit. Even religious people may have difficulty being real with the reality of God operating on all levels of existence at every moment. They may believe that He is always watching and keeping track of our behavior for the sake of the Final Day of Judgment and Eternal Life, but as far as everyday life is concerned, He has better things to do than actually help or deter man's daily activities. One of the fascinating things about Hester Panim is that it does not affect everyone the same way. Indeed, two people can be standing side-by-side, and yet not feel the same level of impact of Hester Panim, one strongly feeling the Presence of God while the other feels and acts as if God is billions of miles away, at least. This is why Dovid HaMelech can say: Should you but conceal Your face, I would be confounded. (Tehillim 30:8) Conceal not Your Presence from me ... (Tehillim 27:9) both verses implying that God did not conceal Himself from Dovid HaMelech, though He did from others. This raises the question about the true definition of fear of God. Is fear of God only the basis of a belief that God keeps track of all that we do, and will one day judge us for it, or is one's sense of Godly involvement in everyday life a part of it as well? In the case of the former, it is easy to forget about God during times of spiritual crisis, but in the case of the latter, it is impossible to forget about God at any time. With Rosh Hashanah just next week, b"H, this is an important question to address, since our understanding of the concept of Hester Panim determines how reliable we are as people, from God's perspective. This not only affects out judgment every Rosh Hashanah, but it also affects how intimately God is prepared to work with us in everyday life. What exactly is Hester Panim? When it comes to something in the physical world, hiding can be a local thing, or it can be that, for all intents-and-purposes, that which is hidden might as well not exist at all. For example, there is a solution for every problem, but sometimes it remains hidden for generations, and though it may be eventually discovered, its discovery will not help the many generations that are long gone. But, when it comes to God, hiding can only be a local thing. This is because the entire existence exists within God, and even should it cease to exist, God will always exist. Therefore, by definition, to be aware of anything in Creation is to be aware of God on some level, the only question being, on which level? For, as it is well known, man possesses both a subconscious mind and a conscious one. As if life wasn't complicated enough already, as much as we may be aware of at any given moment in time, there are things going on in our minds that we are not cognizant of, even though they affect how we perceive things and our reactions. Psychiatry, a huge and generally lucrative profession, is testimony to that, and it often tries to bridge the very large gap between the subconscious and conscious mind of a person, especially when they are in conflict with one another. Furthermore, the Talmud tells us that, just prior to birth, an angel teaches us the entire Torah, after which he makes us forget everything by tapping us on the upper lip just before being born (Niddah 30b). What is the point, if we're going to be born without that knowledge in the end anyhow? Because, obviously, we are not born without the knowledge, but rather, it remains with us, on a subconscious level. The point of learning Torah, as we have discussed in the past, is to draw that knowledge, idea-by-idea, from the level of the subconscious mind to the conscious mind. And once we do, there is always a sense of, "Ahaaaah," as if we are merely recalling something we had already known, but simply forgotten. Outreach, therefore, is not about teaching Torah anew to unaffiliated Jews, but about bringing what they already known on the subconscious level to the conscious mind. The more a person does this, the more attached they feel to the knowledge, and the more they become one with it. Eventually, lifestyle changes because personal perspective has changed, reducing the effect that doubt, and therefore Amalek, can have on the person. And, all of that knowledge is really just knowledge about God. If it remains on the level of the subconscious, then God remains on the level of the subconscious. As more of the knowledge is brought from the depths of the subconscious to the conscious mind, the more conscious a person becomes of God, and the more he can relate to His reality even on the level of the body. Hester panim, therefore, is really all in the mind. But, that doesn't mean that it is imaginary. In fact, it is like what happened to Pharaoh when God hardened his heart: the result may have been a harder heart, but it was his head that God worked on. For, a person responds to reality based upon his perception of it, and his perceptions are based upon his assumptions about life. If you know what they are, then you can create situations that will compel a person to perceive reality a certain way, and therefore, respond in a particular way. This is what makes conspiracy possible. Human beings have to work very hard to conspire against people successfully, because they can't know every last assumption people have about life, and therefore, they cannot dictate every perception they will have. They can only work in a general sense, which is why some people are able to detect conspiracies and break through them. But, for God, it is a different story. He knows everything and controls everything. He knows exactly how people think and He can manipulate reality completely and perfectly in order to take advantage of people's assumptions about life, so that they will be compelled to see things as He wants them to. And that is the basis of Hester Panim. So, for example, if a person's desire to partake of this physical world overcomes his desire to be close to God, then God will present the world to him in such a way as to make it appear he can have what he wants and not worry about repercussion. He may have to contend with man-made laws and rules, but occasionally, when he gets away with what he has taken illicitly, it will truly seem as if he succeeded. And, if people come to worship science as a religion of agnosticism, using it to question the existence of God or His involvement in Creation and history, then the world will appear scientifically in such a way as to feed such people's assumptions about the physical world. As the prophet warned: For the ways of God are straight; the righteous walk in them and sinners will stumble over them. (Hoshea 14:10) How do two people walk the same path with dramatically different results? It must be that one sees safety where the other sees danger, benefit where the other sees loss, potential gratification where the other sees misery, and when it comes to Hester Panim, one sees randomness where the other sees Divine genius. It must be that the two of them have two different sets of assumptions about life. Taking advantage of people's mistaken assumptions about life and about God within it is what Amalek does best. As Rashi points out, he divides the Name of God, but as Kabbalah explains, that means that he makes life appear Godless to those who can be duped. That is why the Torah says about Amalek: He confronted you on your way, and attacked the feeble stragglers who trailed behind you, while you were tired and exhausted. He did not fear God. (Devarim 25:18) Feeble, but not physically feeble, but spiritually so. They were the ones who could be impressed, or intimidated by Amalek's smoke-and-mirror's routine, because they had not done their homework to spiritually inoculate themselves against Amalek's psychological attack. To such intellectual stragglers, God seemed distant at the time, at best. The good news is that, if Hester Panim is a matter of the mind, then man can work with that. If when God hid Himself he really hid from everyone equally, and not just in the recesses our mind, then righteous and evil alike would have to live with the same spiritual reality, though the former would trudge forward spiritually like loyal soldiers, learning Torah and performing the mitzvos because that is what Torah-Jews do, rain or shine. In fact, sadly, that is the way many Torah-Jews live today, leaving God hidden on other, deeper levels of consciousness. I'm not talking about people who sin as if God is not watching, for that is not being a Torah Jew, even if, on the outside, they look like one. Everyone has their weaknesses, and people who believe that Torah came from Sinai are no different. However, they have a tougher time giving into weakness, and if and when they do, they know that they have to do teshuvah for it. But imagine sneaking up on some close friends, who happen to be waiting for you, and not knowing that you are in the room, they talk about you. To your delight, they have only good things to say, but not knowing that you are in the room, they do not connect to you the same way as they normally do when you are before them. Indeed, if you remain hidden long enough, eventually they are bound to forget about you. The same thing is true about many Torah Jews who do everything they can to do the will of God, but connect to Him as if He is not in the "room." Their loyalty to God and His Torah, "in the meantime" is admirable, but their sense of His Being is lacking, evident by the lack of enthusiasm they have in general, and when performing mitzvos specifically. Though they would never willing transgress the will of God, they don't show the proper enthusiasm when observing it. That was what Dovid HaMelech wanted to avoid. He wanted to feel the Presence of God wherever he went, as if he was in the House of God seven days a week, 24 hours a day. On Rosh Hashanah, we are evaluated for how hard we tried to make this reality our own, and rewarded for how successful we were, by having an even greater experience of Shechinah - Divine Presence - in the upcoming year. Last week, I had an interesting experience. I was called up for an aliyah, after which I stood to the side while the next person, called up after me, had the Torah read to him. As is my practice, I held on to the top of the Aitz Chaim closest to me, while following in the Sefer Torah as it was read (as opposed to in a Chumash). I love looking into a Sefer Torah. However, this time, as the one reading continued, it began to occur to me how fortunate I was to be there, that I believed in Torah, and that I was able to live by it. I felt so fortunate to be part of a minority of people in the world today who know that Torah comes from God via Mt. Sinai and Moshe Rabbeinu, and some tears began, on their own, to well up in my eyes. And, for that brief moment, I had a tremendous feeling of Shechinah. When I thought about the experience later, I was amazed at how intense a moment I was able to create by a single thought, albeit at the right time in the right place. I was amazed at how easily Hester Panim can be turned on or off, controlled by what a person believes and thinks about in life. Perhaps it was a moment that was made possible because it is Elul Zman, when God comes closer to us, but it is an insight that I have resolved to try and implement the rest of the year as well, starting, God willing, with this Rosh Hashanah. Wishing all of you and your families a happy and healthy new year, filled with only good things. Thanks for reading. Kesivah v'chasimah tovah. Pinchas Winston

APPLYING MEDICINE WISDOM IN THE MATRIX

Article: How Do I Apply Medicine Wisdom in the Matrix?

Back and forth lifestyle between the DC suburbs and the Amazon has taught me PLENTY. Purged me PLENTY. Stretched me...PLENTY. Above all, it taught me some things I don't think I would ever have been able to learn (in this form) without this particular experience. The art of the application and management.I remember when I first came into ceremony and finally understood how knowledge can move from a understanding on the mental level (sure, of course I know what Laws of Attraction are!) to the experiential level, for us occurring in ceremony (oh my GOD! NOW I get it! WOW! I totally thought I understood this before.) Then to the application level. Imagine - running strong and clear on Life Purpose, and exactly what steps to take. You know consciously that you may walk back into a cloud of naysayers and fear-based doubters. You swear you will hold to your integrity and truth. I WILL manifest this center! Or whatever your goal is.You get back strong. Start to tell people your idea, timidly at first. Some respond well, some don't. Time passes. I'll just shelf this idea for awhile until I get settled. Now you're settled. Still nagging. Once I get this other thing paid off. Once this, once that. Your dream has officially been swallowed by the Matrix.For a generation of children who have been raised to "be whatever they want to be" when we grow up, we sure have a hard spot in the consciousness to actually achieving it. As soon as someone wants to take a risk, it often triggers up other people's fears, resentments that they didn't do it, whatever. And of course, because they care about you, they will speak their concern. The intention is good, it's just fear-based. And people approach fear differently. Personally I don't trust fear for shit. I have intuition to guide me out of a bad situation.

Of course this doesn't happen all the time. Some people come into the Medicine for one group, ready to make a change, and damn if they don't. Turning-pointers. Off and running with nothing stopping them. Some aren't open enough to apply what they're learning while in Peru, so not too much of a chance of application at home (unless they open up later and allow the wisdom to seep up from under the ego.) Most people are somewhere in the middle. Certain epiphanies you can't erase, and one clarity may instantaneously change the structure of your understanding. Plus, we are purging. You leave Peru with less energetic crap than you came with. However, the amount of energetic crap in a typical Westerner is absolutely astounding. I don't care how many times you've Master Cleansed, Colon Cleansed, or Juice Cleansed, there is almost always more, unless your like a Buddha or something. Of course, the ego must be willing to see it for it to work (free will wins.)So where does it go? The clarity? The way I "see" it energetically/ceremonially, is the consciousness looks like a big, thick, dark gray layer of cement (with some moss and mold and stuff on it.) Again, just because that's the visual I receive doesn't mean it is that way, people see it differently. The inner work we do chips, cracks and softens the layer of cement, though I won't lie, it seems to take a hell of a lot of work to even get down there. Most of the time we get stuck in the "fumes" and emotional-energetic build-ups that seep up from the consciousness, and just those bubbles can blast us like a hurricane. Each step along the way down into the depths, we have to keep developing new levels of skills and strength in order to handle the next level. If one burst of someone else's ego is gonna launch our insides into a ego trigger-fest, spewing off defensive insecure bullshit at the first sign of danger - we're like little kids throwing a tantrum - not ready. Management of those bubbles and bursts - the art of allowing them out safely (stuffing is counter-intuitive) while not spewing them all over some poor suspecting victim (whether it be your loved one or the bitchy customer service rep, neither one deserve your own anger burst. It's YOURS not theirs.) Of course, we're human, so obviously there will be times when we lose the battle (sorry you know who you are!!!)

One way to train on management is what I call "hypertriggers." The people in your world that just their presence irritates you. They may be a co-worker, a friend of a friend always tagging along, whoever. But the hypertrigger, for whatever reason, pulls up more ego and judgment than most of us like to admit we have. Can you honestly look at your hypertrigger and claim you're not judging them at all?Practicing navigating through a hypertrigger is a way of "extreme training". Get it where it's the hardest, the easier ones are cake. Aya loves extreme training (or maybe I just do, which is why I get it so much lol!) Ego triggers ego, heart triggers heart. I believe there is good in everybody, and if you can communicate from a heart space vs. an ego-space, the person's heart (hopefully) will open right up. Being active to work through the ego/hypertrigger, and consciously making a choice to FIND THE GOOD in that person, no matter how much that pin they wear pisses you off - that's application. The Medicine may show you something like "hey look, your ego is bigger than you thought. You're only job is to love them" (true examples for me!) How to apply that? Where it's the hardest! That's the opportunity.

We are spirits having a physical experience. We can't compartmentalize our "spiritual experiences" and limit them to meditation, church or ceremony. Life is it! THIS is the training ground. We're on Earth for a reason, in my view, so we can have a PHYSICAL experience of the energies in spirit form. We need feeling receptors to do that. It's great to know that we are all one. Or that time isn't linear. Awesome. My brain can actually wrap itself around that, maybe, 5%. The application and experience is where the real understanding comes. I could read wisdom out of a book. But can I speak from experience? Got to get my ass off the couch and be active in my growth. The Universe, God, Medicine, Angels, whoever...anyone who sets an intention to learn, purge, heal, stretch, and serve - that's all it takes. The intention, then attention. PAYING attention. This is the biggest trick of the Matrix...forgetting.

There is only a very small space in the sum-total collective Western consciousness for the level of wisdom the Medicine holds. I would imagine the same problem occurs in other high level paths as well. You must strengthen up enough mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually to be able to hold that space larger than it's default Matrix size. Otherwise, it disappears under a blanket for awhile, until you remember it/open back up to it. I've noticed a tremendous difference in this arena from when I first started the back and forth until now. And the areas that disappear now are simply weak spots in myself I'm still working on, but at least I can see what's in queue.Tips and tools (for in and out of ceremony):WRITE SHIT DOWN: Duh. If it's an important enough bit of wisdom, put it in a card on your mirror until it's totally integrated into your body. Move it from short-term to long-term, then straight down to the core through experience and application.

TALK WITH OTHER MEDICINE PEOPLE: Just like ego triggers ego and heart opens heart, Medicine calls up itself as well. By staying in contact with others in the Medicine, talking about the Medicine, reading or watching movies or Medicine art, you call it up within yourself (obviously you could just call it anyway, but we're assuming you forgot.) Reach out - you'd be amazed how many times I haven't said hardly anything on the phone with someone and they just become clear. I have a lot of Medicine in my body at this point, and if they are new, theirs' is still smaller. Mine will activate theirs, even on the phone, and when it pulls up, it's like their eyes open. The more time in the Medicine, the stronger the spirits are in the body, and the easier everything seems to get (at least for me - but still quite stimulating and challenging of course!)

PHYSICAL MANAGEMENT TOOLS: Remember how it feels the next morning after ceremony, when all that purged energetic residue is weighing down your body and skin - and you drag your ass up at 6am to jump into the freezing river? The exhilaration and freedom that comes with those energies being cleaned off? WATER is STILL nature's perfect energetic cleanser (cool, not hot.) Just because you can see it in ceremony and not during the day doesn't mean anything besides your eyes are more closed. When you feel emotions and energies going wacky, take a breath (another thing not to forget!) and put some cold water on your face, and ideally your forehead, crown chakra, neck, chest and arms. This is also helpful when people do energy work and think they picked up something from someone else. Also, as much as it gets judged, many of ya'll have seen the power of the tobacco spirit. Blow smoke over your heart chakra, arms, and cup some over your head. You don't have to inhale, especially if you're an ex-smoker and it's too close for comfort, but there is a medicinal use there. If it's really too much, try Sage or Palo Santo.

TALK WITH THE MEDICINE: Another duh. Converse with her before bed. Ask her to teach you/purge you in the dream world if you like (but then be ready!) The relationship with the Medicine is exactly that - a relationship. These are real spirits we're talking about, not just physical plants. Nurture and cultivate the Medicine living inside of you, and you'll be amazed at the kind of guidance you receive!Which brings me to my last point, which is applied to any spiritual work (Medicine or non): WHEN YOU ASK FOR SOMETHING or SET THE INTENTION, REMEMBER WHAT YOU ASKED FOR!This is the most common "matrix-out" I see. For example, Suzy sets the intention that she wants to come into her true strong feminine self, and be free to live and love as she chooses. Great.Three weeks later Joe shows up. She falls like a schoolgirl. He represents the old pattern she swore she had broken, yet she can't stop. He's one foot in, one foot out. Not malicious at all, but not sure how he feels. She finds herself in teenage-energetic-hell, mind spinning like a hormonal adolescent.Did she take a step backwards? Fall off track?HELL NO. Welcome to life at Accelerated Medicine Pace. You can tone it down if you like, but if you can handle it, it's quite efficient.

How ELSE is Suzy going to go into her old core beliefs and actively/intentionally purge (usually emotional purges, like crying or anger) and restructure them, in ORDER to become her empowered woman self and be free to love? She's walking around with blockers Well, in order to manifest the intention, they've got to go. Suzy is now in Purgeland - where no one can see straight and it's emotional chaos. I highly recommend you tie a rope around someone you trust so they can remind you throughout that you are, in fact, purging. What was the intention again?You really almost need a "sitter" or someone during these intentional accelerated purges. But again, we're in physical world. Reading about how to restructure my consciousness isn't the same as walking into the fire and restructuring it. How do you know? Proof is in the pudding. If you see movement, you're moving. If you don't, you're spinning. Try to tap back into the energy of six months ago - hopefully you can feel the difference.Application and management is the other half of ceremony. You can't have one side of the coin without the other, at least if you want it to be worth anything. Wisdom on paper sounds smart and may feed the ego a bit, but the liberation is in the application. And REACH OUT FOR HELP. Email me, even a quick line of contact is helpful, I can at least send you some Medicine in your dreams. And be gentle on yourself - remember the 'no beat yourself up rule' - you wouldn't punch me in the face while I'm trying to heal a scar, would you? Don't do it to yourself.

Wow I really didn't expect this to be so 'second person'. Hmm. Well we'll go with it. Just writing practice for me anyway. I'm open to feedback! Much love everyone!!!

http://ayahuascameghan.blogspot.com/2011/04/article-how-do-i-apply-medicine-wisdom.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AyahuascaShamanicApprenticeshipInTheAmazon+%28Ayahuasca+Shamanic+Apprenticeship+in+the+Amazon%29

Ayahuasca Meghan "SOUL CREATIVE". Dedicated to creative writing, photography and arts from the innerworld dreamscape of Meghan Shannon. This is the sister blog of her Ayahuasca Shamanic Apprenticeship Journal from the Amazon Rainforest (www.ayahuascameghan.blogspot.com) which is a more directly expressive "journal" form of her personal journey. http://www.ayahuascameghan-soulcreative.blogspot.com/

Links Dear to My Heart Infinite Light Peru (our center for Medicine work) Inner Visions Institute for Spiritual Developement (Iyanla Vanzant's Program, Meghan's alma mater) Shamanic Healing Institute (Savage, MD) Meghan's alma mater Takoma Chapel (Silver Spring, MD - Open Spirituality) Natural Horizons Wellness Center (Fairfax, VA) Spiritual Nutrition and Coaching with Rheta Kwan Astrology Readings with David Kleber Psychic Healing with Angel Lightfeather (Sedona, AZ) Obsidian Institute for Financial Literacy Reiki Center of Greater Washington Links Dear to My Heart Infinite Light Peru (our center for Medicine work) Inner Visions Institute for Spiritual Developement (Iyanla Vanzant's Program, Meghan's alma mater) Shamanic Healing Institute (Savage, MD) Meghan's alma mater Takoma Chapel (Silver Spring, MD - Open Spirituality) Natural Horizons Wellness Center (Fairfax, VA) Spiritual Nutrition and Coaching with Rheta Kwan Astrology Readings with David Kleber Psychic Healing with Angel Lightfeather (Sedona, AZ) Obsidian Institute for Financial Literacy Reiki Center of Greater Washington

MYSTERY STREET AND EDDIE COYLE

http://www.bigscreenboston.com/2008/03/book-excerpt-my.html

Book excerpt: 'Mystery Street' We all know The Departed. But fewer of us know the other movie mentioned in Big Screen Boston's subtitle, Mystery Street. So here is an excerpt of the book's entry on this 1950 film noir, the first movie to predominantly feature location shooting in the Hub.

1950. Directed by John Sturges. Written by Sydney Boehm and Richard Brooks. Based on Leonard Spigelgass’ story. With Ricardo Montalban, Sally Forrest, Bruce Bennett, Elsa Lanchester, Marshall Thompson, Edmon Ryan, Betsy Blair and Jan Sterling. Cinematography by John Alton.

HOLLYWOOD FINALLY CAME TO Boston for this 1950 thriller, the first commercial feature to be predominantly shot in the area. Like the later (and lesser) Walk East on Beacon!, Mystery Street (also known as Murder at Harvard) rides the post-war wave of realistic crime dramas, pioneered by low-budget films like Anthony Mann’s T-Men, many of which were shot on location. Director John Sturges’ movie doesn’t quite use the semi-documentary approach that Walk East and other similar movies did. In this case, that’s all for the better. T-Men director of photography John Alton, one of the essential film noir cinematographers, is behind the camera here, bringing a sense of shadowy dread to the Boston locations in this pre-CSI police procedural in which a human skeleton is the only evidence with which an investigation starts.

Alton’s work is most evident in the set-up for the detective work that will follow. The movie opens in a Beacon Hill rooming house where darkness dominates, except for the light that shines on desperate Vivian Helding (Jan Sterling, right in photo above; click on it for larger view), the house phone she’s using and the ajar door of eavesdropping landlady Mrs. Smerrling (Elsa Lanchester). It turns out Vivian, a B-girl at a Scollay Square dive called The Grass Skirt, is pregnant, and the married Hyannis man who fathered the child is giving her the brush-off.

At The Grass Skirt, where Vivian’s boyfriend has stood her up, she gloms onto drunk Henry (Marshall Thompson), “helps” him move his car and keeps driving it to the Cape, where she eventually ditches Henry and meets with the boyfriend, whose face isn’t shown. He shoots her, dumps her body in the ocean and pushes the stolen car into a lake.It’s only months later, when a birdwatcher finds Vivian’s skeleton sticking out of a sandy beach, that the investigation begins. Barnstable County investigator Pete Moralas (Ricardo Montalban) is on the case, which eventually leads him to Beacon Hill, Cambridge and Harvard Medical School’s Department of Legal Medicine in Roxbury. That’s where Dr. McAdoo (Bruce Bennett) helps Moralas identify the body and build a case against unwitting Henry, who initially denies he met Vivian because he’s married and wasn’t supposed to be in The Grass Skirt (he was supposed to be at the Boston Lying-In Hospital with his pregnant wife). But that changes when McAdoo discovers the cause of death was a gunshot, putting Moralas on a collision course with the well-to-do Hyannis boyfriend (Edmon Ryan). He is finally shown to the audience halfway through the movie, when snooping Mrs. Smerrling tries to blackmail him.

As crime thrillers circa 1950 are wont to do, Mystery Street climaxes in a public place, Trinity Station. This long-gone train station adjacent to Back Bay Station is a suitably bustling, urban backdrop for the end chase (its train yard is apparently now part of the Mass. Pike). Although the rooming house is on fictional “Bunker Street,” the building used appears to be on Pinckney Street near Anderson Street (you can see the old New England College of Pharmacy there at one point). Suspect Henry lives in Charlestown (in a forward-looking movie connection, just a half-block from Monument Avenue), while The Grass Skirt exterior is on a studio backlot. Aside from the dunes footage (presumably) it’s unclear if any of the Cape Cod action was done there; the gas station with the greasy spoon attached looks to be in California (its signs for Caloco Oil sure sound West Coast). There’s also a Harvard Yard sequence that turns out to be rather inconsequential (since the cop finds out he has to go over to the Med School), but it adds to the movie’s local color. Amusingly, co-star Thompson (later of TV’s Daktari) appears on the movie’s trailer to offer special thanks to Harvard for its cooperation, something the school generally doesn’t offer anymore.

Like Alton’s artful Hollywood cinematography, non-local flavor comes from the cast, with Lanchester, the bride of Frankenstein herself, practically stealing the show with her proper yet hypocritically opportunistic landlady. Years before he became kitsch, Montalban is a sturdy presence in this brisk B-thriller

Locations: Beacon Hill, Roxbury, Back Bay, Charlestown, Boston; Cambridge; Cape Cod.►Accents: Back in a time when there probably were a greater percentage of area residents with Boston accents than there are now, Mystery Street generally refrains from including them. But there are generic New England accents from Cape Cod characters talking about the found skeleton. And we do get what might be Hollywood’s first overdone Boston accent from Wally Maher, who plays the Boston detective Moralas teams with in the city. Maher, who also voiced the title character in Tex Avery’s Screwy Squirrel cartoons, couldn’t quite get the Boston accent.Local color: Over 50 years later, many of the shooting locations will have you wondering their exact whereabouts, especially Trinity Station. But the movie’s issues also hit close to home at times, specifically the hypocrisy of the landlady, a self-righteous moral guardian who no doubt supported many a Boston book banning, and the elitism of Vivian’s blue-blooded killer, who not only victimizes her, but also feels superior to first-generation American Moralas, and lets him know it.

Book excerpt: 'The Friends of Eddie Coyle' Don't miss the chance to see an archival print of the best damn movie ever made in Boston, The Friends of Eddie Coyle. at the Coolidge Corner Theater on June 5 at 7 pm. I'll be there introducing the movie, and selling and signing books, too. Father to the more recent Boston "neighborhood pictures," from Monument Ave. to Gone Baby Gone, it has never come out on home video.1973. Directed by Peter Yates. Written by Paul Monash. Based on George V. Higgins’ novel. With Robert Mitchum, Peter Boyle, Richard Jordan, Steven Keats, Alex Rocco and Joe Santos. Cinematography by Victor J. Kemper. ALL HAIL EDDIE. THE gritty film adaptation of attorney turned writer George V. Higgins’ terse debut novel is the best movie ever made in Boston, a touchstone with a legendary status enhanced by the fact that it’s never been released on any form of home video. Director Peter (Bullitt) Yates’ movie is one of the few post-1960 color thrillers to capture the desperation and doom of 1940s and 1950s film noir. Of course, it helps to have Robert Mitchum, who headlined such vintage noirs as Out of the Past and Pursued, playing the title character. Mitchum and his hangdog persona perfectly embody the weariness of Coyle, an aging, working-class crook awaiting sentencing for transporting stolen goods who reluctantly becomes a police informer in hopes that his tips to “uncle” will win him leniency.

Book excerpt: 'The Friends of Eddie Coyle' Don't miss the chance to see an archival print of the best damn movie ever made in Boston, The Friends of Eddie Coyle. at the Coolidge Corner Theater on June 5 at 7 pm. I'll be there introducing the movie, and selling and signing books, too. Father to the more recent Boston "neighborhood pictures," from Monument Ave. to Gone Baby Gone, it has never come out on home video.1973. Directed by Peter Yates. Written by Paul Monash. Based on George V. Higgins’ novel. With Robert Mitchum, Peter Boyle, Richard Jordan, Steven Keats, Alex Rocco and Joe Santos. Cinematography by Victor J. Kemper. ALL HAIL EDDIE. THE gritty film adaptation of attorney turned writer George V. Higgins’ terse debut novel is the best movie ever made in Boston, a touchstone with a legendary status enhanced by the fact that it’s never been released on any form of home video. Director Peter (Bullitt) Yates’ movie is one of the few post-1960 color thrillers to capture the desperation and doom of 1940s and 1950s film noir. Of course, it helps to have Robert Mitchum, who headlined such vintage noirs as Out of the Past and Pursued, playing the title character. Mitchum and his hangdog persona perfectly embody the weariness of Coyle, an aging, working-class crook awaiting sentencing for transporting stolen goods who reluctantly becomes a police informer in hopes that his tips to “uncle” will win him leniency.

Like Higgins’ novel—which is almost experimental in its preferred use of two-character dialogues instead of conventional narrative—The Friends of Eddie Coyle atmospherically presents the workaday tug of war between crooks and cops. Seen through the movie’s gutter’seye view of the world, everyone’s looking for a leg up on the other guy, a favor or some sort of insulation from jail (for the crooks) or bad work assignments (for the cops). Eddie Coyle is the common thread running among gun seller Jackie Brown (Steven Keats), bartender/hit man Dillon (Peter Boyle), federal agent Foley (Richard Jordan) and a group of robbers that’s striking suburban banks. As Coyle secures handguns from Jackie for the bankrobbers, Dillon keeps tabs on Eddie’s travels and Foley fields tidbits of info from both men. These tips are cast out like fishing lines, hoping to return a nibble from Foley that might bring a desired favor. One such nibble comes after Eddie sees machine guns in Jackie’s car trunk and hears him say he has to get to the train station at Sharon. He gets there, but so do Foley and a half-dozen other agents. Still, Eddie’s aid in Boston is not enough to get Coyle a break with a New Hampshire prosecutor, and you can feel the vice tighten around him. He’s faced with a no-win situation: do jail time or fink on guys who, unlike younger Jackie, are his contemporaries and cohorts. In its own low-key, Eddie-ish way, The Friends of Eddie Coyle works to a tragic ending that, hard to believe, makes a change in the story that actually improves upon Higgins’ plot.

Eddie Coyle is the first Boston movie with the guts to never be scenic (just look at the Quincy street Coyle lives on, with its row of drab, look-alike houses). It’s a grey, grey movie, because Eddie is stuck in a grey, grey world, lacking the resources to go to sunny Florida (as he laments) or the traction to climb out of his place on the crime ladder. Yates shot the movie in late 1972, with winter approaching, and you can feel the chill in the air. You often see the breath exhaled by characters during the conversations on the Boston Common or outside a Quincy Red Line station. The other locations are grungy spots Thomas Crown would certainly never be caught at, including Dillon’s bar (shot at the Kentucky Tavern at Mass. Ave. and Newbury Street), the cafeteria where Coyle and Jackie first meet (which appears to be on Boylston Street near Tremont), Boston Bowl and Dedham Plaza. A Weymouth bank, Memorial Drive, the old Boston Garden and even grim City Hall Plaza also serve the story very well. And rather than packing up back to Los Angeles for interiors, the production did everything here, even building sets, including the trailer belonging to robber Jimmy Scalise (hometown boy Alex Rocco), in Pier Five on the waterfront.Apparently, Higgins did an uncredited polish on Paul Monash’s script. When I checked with the Higgins archives at the University of South Carolina to see if the late novelist’s papers contained any info on the movie’s locations, the Boston; Quincy; Sharon; Milton; Weymouth; Dedham; Cambridge staff’s perusal of his archival materials from that period turned up at least one reference in his letters to restoring dialogue from the novel to the screenplay. Thirty-five years after it was released to audience indifference, it’s hard to watch The Friends of Eddie Coyle now and not think that it—the most essential movie Hollywood has made in Boston—deserves the awards, acclaim and popularity bestowed upon Mystic River, a lesser movie in the same vein. Oh, well. That’s showbiz.►Locations: Back Bay, North End, Beacon Hill

Boston; Quincy; Sharon; Milton; Weymouth; Dedham; Cambridge

►Accents: Surprisingly good. Mitchum, originally eyed for Peter Boyle’s role, manages to use a convincing Boston accent without losing his own distinctive voice. So Eddie comes off as an emotionally spent Mitchum character, and a neighborhood guy, too. Boyle and Richard Jordan use a light touch with their accents, too. Considering the strong sense of place the locations give the movie, thick accents might have been overkill. These guys sound right at home next to Alex Rocco.►Local color: “Numbah faw, Bobby Aw!” Eddie bellows from the Boston Garden balcony during a Bruins game featuring helmetless players and no ads on the ice or boards. Of course, Eddie and his “friends” would be into the big, bad Bruins (just as they’d be into the Pats today). The hockey sequence appears to have been shot during a real game, and that’s the kind of authenticity you get here. It’s not as if other movie productions were lining up to shoot at the Kentucky Tavern or fluorescent-lit cafeterias. The locations are so real I expected to see Eddie pop into a Zayre at some point, but no such luck.►Aftermath: Higgins fan Elmore Leonard borrowed the androgynous name Jackie Brown for the heroine of his novel, Rum Punch. When Quentin Tarantino made a film of Leonard’s book, he renamed the story Jackie Brown, as did the movie tie-in re-release of the book.

NOIR'S SUBVERSIVE WRITERS AND FILM DIRECTORS

NO JOBS

THE KILLING

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/04/magazine/what-they-say-about-stanley-kubrick.html

The Killing (film) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For the fourth book in the CHERUB series, see The Killing (novel). For the Hatesphere album, see The Killing (EP). The Killing Theatrical release poster Directed by Stanley Kubrick Produced by James B. Harris Written by Stanley KubrickJim Thompson Based on Clean Break byLionel White Narrated by Art Gilmore (uncredited)[1] Starring Sterling HaydenColeen GrayVince EdwardsJay C. FlippenElisha Cook Jr.Marie Windsor Music by Gerald Fried Cinematography Lucien Ballard Editing by Betty Steinberg Distributed by United Artists Release date(s) May 20, 1956 (1956-05-20) (United States) Running time 83 minutes Country United States Language English Budget $320,000[2] The Killing is a 1956 film noir produced by James B. Harris and directed by Stanley Kubrick. It was written by Kubrick and Jim Thompson and based on the novel Clean Break by Lionel White. The drama features Sterling Hayden, Coleen Gray, Vince Edwards and Elisha Cook Jr.[3] Contents[hide] 1 Plot 2 Cast 3 Pre-production 4 Reception 4.1 Critical response 4.2 Awards 5 References 6 External links [edit] Plot Johnny Clay (Sterling Hayden) is a veteran criminal planning one last heist before settling down and marrying Fay (Coleen Gray). He plans to rob two million dollars from the money counting room of a racetrack during a featured race. He assembles a team consisting of a corrupt cop (Ted de Corsia), a betting window teller (Elisha Cook Jr.) to give access to the backroom, a sharpshooter (Timothy Carey) to shoot the favorite horse during the race to distract the crowd, a wrestler (Kola Kwariani) to provide another distraction by provoking a fight at the track bar, and a track bartender (Joe Sawyer). However, the betting window teller, George Peatty, tells his wife, Sherry (Marie Windsor), about the impending robbery. Sherry is bitter at George for not delivering on the promises of wealth he made her at the time of their marriage, and George hopes that telling her about the robbery will placate and impress her. Sherry does not believe him at first; but, after learning that the robbery is real, she enlists her lover, Val Cannon (Vince Edwards), to steal the money from George and his associates. The heist is successful, although the sharpshooter, Nikki, is shot and killed by the police. The conspirators rendezvous at the apartment where they are to meet Johnny and divide up the money. Before Johnny arrives, however, Val appears and holds them up. A shootout ensues, and a badly wounded George is the sole survivor. He goes home and shoots Sherry before dying himself. Johnny, while on his way to the apartment, sees George staggering in the street, and knows that something is wrong. He puts the cash in an old, used suitcase, and he and Fay go to the airport. While boarding their plane, however, the suitcase falls off a cart, breaks open, and the money is swept away by the wind. Fay urges Johnny to flee, but he refuses, stating that there is no use trying to escape. The film ends with two officers coming to arrest him. [edit] Cast Sterling Hayden as Johnny Clay Coleen Gray as Fay Vince Edwards as Val Cannon Jay C. Flippen as Marvin Unger Elisha Cook Jr. as George Peatty Marie Windsor as Sherry Peatty Ted de Corsia as Policeman Randy Kennan Joe Sawyer as Mike O'Reilly James Edwards as Track Parking Attendant Timothy Carey as Nikki Arane Joe Turkel as Tiny Jay Adler as Leo the Loanshark Kola Kwariani as Maurice Oboukhoff Tito Vuolo as Joe Piano - motel manager Dorothy Adams as Mrs. Ruthie O'Reilly Three members of the cast, Hayden, de Corsia, and Carey, had appeared together the previous year in the low budget noir film, Crime Wave. “ I give Stanley a free hand to create, and he leaves the money problems to me. ” —James Harris[2] [edit] Pre-production “ We want to make good movies, and make them cheap. The two are not incompatible. ” —Stanley Kubrick[2] Harris, a "prosperous young television distributor" and Kubrick's "Maecenas,"[2] set up Harris-Kubrick Films with the writer/director; the two convinced United Artists to put up $200,000 for the film, with Harris adding $120,000.[2] The film was the first of three on which Harris and Kubrick collaborated as producer and director in a span of less than ten years; Harris got the rights to the novel after Frank Sinatra, who had approached the author before Harris, hesitated during negotiations.[1] Working titles for the film were Clean Break and Bed of Fear.[1] The art director, Ruth Sobotka, was Kubrick's wife at the time.[1] [edit] Reception [edit] Critical response The film performed poorly at the box office and was in general, not critically acclaimed,[1] in spite of Time magazine's prediction that it would "make a killing at the cash booths" and its assertion that Kubrick "has shown more audacity with dialogue and camera than Hollywood has seen since the obstreperous Orson Welles went riding out of town on an exhibitors' poll."[2] A.H. Weiler, film critic for The New York Times, wrote, "Though The Killing is composed of familiar ingredients and it calls for fuller explanations, it evolves as a fairly diverting melodrama. ... Aficionados of the sport of kings will discover that Mr. Kubrick's cameras have captured some colorful shots of the ponies at Bay Meadows track. Other observers should find The Killing an engrossing little adventure."[4] Variety magazine liked the acting and wrote, "This story of a $2 million race track holdup and steps leading up to the robbery, occasionally told in a documentary style which at first tends to be somewhat confusing, soon settles into a tense and suspenseful vein which carries through to an unexpected and ironic windup...Hayden socks over a restrained characterization, and Cook is a particular standout. Windsor is particularly good, as she digs the plan out of her husband and reveals it to her boyfriend."[5] Years later, The Killing gained a "cult" following.[1] For example, Eddie Muller placed the film at 15th among his top 25 favorite noir films, saying "If you believe that a good script is a succession of great scenes, you can't do better than this. Hey, that scene was so good, let's do it again from somebody else's perspective.".[6] In his 1999 book Dark City: The Lost World of Film Noir, Muller wrote, "With The Killing, Stanley Kubrick offered a monument to the classic caper film, and a fresh gust of filmmaking in one package. Who knew when he wrapped it, that it would be the last amusing movie he'd ever make?"[7] In 1999, film critic Mike Emery wrote, "Kubrick's camerawork was well on the way to finding the fluid style of his later work, and the sparse, low-budget circumstances give the film a raw, urgent sort of look. As good as the story and direction are, though, the true strength of The Killing lies in the characters and characterizations."[8] The same year, director Peter Bogdanovich, writing for The New York Times, noted that while The Killing did not make money, it, along with Harris-Kubrick's second film Paths of Glory, established "Kubrick's reputation as a budding genius among critics and studio executives."[9] [edit] Awards Nominations BAFTA Film Award, Best Film from any Source, USA; 1957. [edit] References ^ a b c d e f "Notes for The Killing (1956)". Turner Classic Movies. http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title.jsp?stid=17624&category=Notes. Retrieved 2010-07-21. ^ a b c d e f "Cinema: The New Pictures". Time. June 4, 1956. http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,867001,00.html. Retrieved 2010-07-21. ^ The Killing at the Internet Movie Database. ^ Weiler, A.H. (May 21, 1956). "The Killing: New Film at the Mayfair Concerns a Robbery". The New York Times. http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9E03E3D9123BE333A05752C2A9639C946792D6CF. Retrieved February 7, 2008. ^ "The Killing". Variety. 1956. http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117792301.html. Retrieved February 7, 2008. ^ Muller, Eddie. "Endless Night: 25 Noir Films That Will Stand the Test of Time". Muller's official website. http://www.eddiemuller.com/top25noir.html. Retrieved 2010-07-21. ^ Muller, Eddie (May 1998). Dark City: The Lost World of Film Noir. p. ?[page needed]. ISBN 0312180764. ^ Emery, Mike. The Austin Chronicle, film review, March 15, 1999. Last accessed: February 7, 2008. ^ Bogdanovich, Peter (July 4, 1999). "What They Say About Stanley Kubrick". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/04/magazine/what-they-say-about-stanley-kubrick.html. Retrieved 2010-07-21. [edit] External links The Killing at the Internet Movie Database The Killing at the TCM Movie Database The Killing film trailer at YouTube

STANLEY KUBRICK Single-Page After Stanley Kubrick died in his sleep of a heart attack on March 7, even the New York tabloids reported the news with an auteur slant, headlining the director's generally bleak view of life. Words like ''secretive,'' ''reclusive,'' ''strange,'' ''mysterious'' and ''cold'' were repeatedly used to describe him. It's true that the 13 feature-length films he made over 40 years present a disenchanted, sardonic and generally pessimistic view of humanity, but the lifelong friends, intimate associates and family members I spoke to conjure a far more complicated picture of a man who could be deeply reserved but also outgoing, meticulous and laid back, loving and self-absorbed. The precocious son of a Bronx doctor, Kubrick became a staff photographer for Look magazine at 17, but from the start he was captivated by the movies. He began as a kind of one-man band, financing, directing, producing, writing, shooting and editing three short documentaries -- Day of the Fight'' (1950), ''Flying Padre'' (1951) and ''The Seafarers'' (1953) -- and then doing virtually the same thing for his first two extremely low-budget features, ''Fear and Desire'' (1953), backed entirely by an uncle, and ''Killer's Kiss'' (1955).

In 1954, having already run through two marriages, Kubrick moved to Los Angeles and formed a production company with his friend James B. Harris, through which he made his first two professional pictures, the film noir ''The Killing'' (1956), with Sterling Hayden, and the powerful antiwar drama ''Paths of Glory'' (1957), starring Kirk Douglas. While shooting ''Paths of Glory'' Kubrick fell in love with and wed the German painter and actress Christiane Harlan, with whom he would rear two daughters along with Christiane's young daughter from an earlier marriage. ''The Killing'' and ''Paths of Glory'' did not make money, but they did make Kurbick's reputation as a budding genius among critics and studio executives. In 1960, Kirk Douglas hired Kubrick to replace another director on ''Spartacus,'' the only all-Hollywood production Kubrick would ever make, and his first box-office success. He hated the experience. Disenchanted with the industry and having developed a phobia about flying, the director soon afterward moved with his family to England, never again to travel far from home.

http://filmsnoir.net/film_noir/still-cause-for-alarm.html

ANTI FASCISM AND THE WaRNINGS -JOURNEY INTO FEAR ERIC AMBLER

Noir is subversive. Noir lifts the veil of normality to reveal the chaos below. The underbelly of reality. The insanity of sanity. The furtive destructiveness of obsession. The truth behind the lies. The disaster of success. The ‘ghost in the machine’. Many of the artists of the classic noir cycle, from the writers of the hard-boiled fiction of the 20s, 30s, and 40s to those involved in the making of the films noir of the 40s and 50s, were ‘subversives’. Artists whose art was a politic statement, a social critique, a thesis on the nature of freedom and social responsibility. Novelists like Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, Ira Wolfert, Graham Greene, and Eric Ambler. Screenwriters like Dalton Trumbo, John Paxton, A. I. Bezzeridis, and Carl Foreman. Film-makers and actors like Abraham Polonsky, Jules Dassin, Orson Welles, Edward Dmytryk, Adrian Scott, Joan Scott, John Garfield, and Marsha Hunt. A number of these artists were vilified and their careers destroyed during the ‘red menace’ years of HUAC and the blacklist. What was ignored then and largely forgotten now is that these men and women were united and largely animated by a common cause: anti-fascism. These liberals and leftists were warning of the dangers of fascism well before the outbreak of WW2, when many of the rightists that later prosecuted the anti-communist hysteria of the immediate cold-war period were apologists of fascism. Eric Ambler was a thriller writer whose best work was written during the late 30s and early 40s. His novels Journey into Fear (1943) and The Mask of Dimitrios (1944) were made into films noir during the war. In 1938 Ambler published ‘Cause for Alarm’ – not related to any movie with the same title – a story about a British munitions engineer, Marlow, haplessly caught up in espionage in Fascist Italy. The protagonist is aided in his escape from fascist death squads by a mysterious American, Zaleshoff, who may be a Soviet spy but is definitely a socialist. Caught in a snow storm just before crossing into Yugoslavia to freedom, the pair is given shelter for the night by an artist and her elderly father. It transpires that the father is a mathematician, a Professor Beronelli, whose career was destroyed after he refused to pledge a loyalty oath to fascism. The trauma has plunged the man into insanity. The two fugitives discover this after a reviewing the professor’s notes on a perpetual motion machine, and after they realize the daughter is helping them even though she is aware of their fugitive status. After the old man goes to bed, Zaleshoff says to Marlow: ‘Sure! That’s right. What a tragedy! We’re horrified. Hell! Beronelli went crazy because he had to, because it hurt him too much to stay sane in a crazy world. He had to find a way of escape, to make his own world, a world in which he counted, a world in which a man could work according to his rights and know that there was nobody to stop him. His mind created the lie for him and now he’s happy. He’s escaped from everybody’s insanity into his own private one. But you and me, Marlow, we’re still in with the other nuts. The only difference between our obsessions and Beronelli’s is that we share ours with the other citizens of Europe. We’re still listening sympathetically to guys telling us that you can only secure peace and justice with war and injustice, that the patch of earth on which one nation lives is mystically superior to the patch their neighbours live on, that a man who uses a different set of noises to praise God is your natural born enemy. We escape into lies. We don’t even bother to make them good lies. If you say a thing often enough, if you like to believe it, it must be true. That’s the way it works. No need for thinking. Let’s follow our bellies. Down with intelligence. You can’t change human nature, buddy. Bunk! Human nature is part of the social system it works in. Change your system and you change your man. When honesty really is good business, you’ll be honest. When rooting for the next guy means that you’re rooting for yourself too, the brotherhood of man becomes a fact. But you and I don’t think that, do we, Marlow? We still have our pipe dreams. You’re British. You believe in England, in muddling through, in business, and in the dole to keep quiet the starving suckers who have no business to mind. If you were an American you’d believe in America and making good, in breadlines and in baton charges. Beronelli’s crazy. Poor devil. A shocking tragedy. He believes that the laws of thermodynamics are all wrong. Crazy? Sure he is. But we’re crazier. We believe that the laws of the jungle are allright!’Read more: http://filmsnoir.net/film_noir/still-cause-for-alarm.html#ixzz1ILMYAt9Q Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

What They Say About Stanley Kubrick
By Peter BogdanovichPublished: July 04, 1999
Correction Appended
var articleToolsShareData = {"url":"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2010\/09\/01\/world\/middleeast\/01settlers.html","headline":"4 Israeli Settlers Killed in West Bank","description":"The Israelis were killed on Tuesday evening when their car was fired on near the settlement of Kiryat Arba.","keywords":"Israeli Settlements,Murders and Attempted Murders,West Bank","section":"world","sub_section":"middleeast","section_display":"World","sub_section_display":"Middle East","byline":"By ISABEL KERSHNER and }
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Single-Page
After Stanley Kubrick died in his sleep of a heart attack on March 7, even the New York tabloids reported the news with an auteur slant, headlining the director's generally bleak view of life. Words like ''secretive,'' ''reclusive,'' ''strange,'' ''mysterious'' and ''cold'' were repeatedly used to describe him. It's true that the 13 feature-length films he made over 40 years present a disenchanted, sardonic and generally pessimistic view of humanity, but the lifelong friends, intimate associates and family members I spoke to conjure a far more complicated picture of a man who could be deeply reserved but also outgoing, meticulous and laid back, loving and self-absorbed.
The precocious son of a Bronx doctor, Kubrick became a staff photographer for Look magazine at 17, but from the start he was captivated by the movies. He began as a kind of one-man band, financing, directing, producing, writing, shooting and editing three short documentaries -- Day of the Fight'' (1950), ''Flying Padre'' (1951) and ''The Seafarers'' (1953) -- and then doing virtually the same thing for his first two extremely low-budget features, ''Fear and Desire'' (1953), backed entirely by an uncle, and ''Killer's Kiss'' (1955).

THE ORAL LAW IN MAN'S HANDS AND THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE SAGES

Torah is greater than priesthood and kingship, for kingship is acquired with 30 qualities, priesthood is acquired with 24, whereas the Torah is acquired with 48 ways. These are: ... (22) trust in the Sages..." We're now up to Part III of a topic which many find one of the most difficult to accept about traditional Judaism -- trust in the Sages. The Torah seems to insist that we accept the words and decisions of the Sages to be on par with Scripture itself. We are told to "trust" them -- even beyond what we understand or agree with, even if "they tell you your right is your left and your left is your right" (see again Deuteronomy 17:8-13). The question we have been dealing is: Were the scholars of the Mishna and Talmud perfect? As great as they were, were they infallible? And theoretically if they did err, why should I (who somehow knows better) be bound by their decisions? Is what they wrote "Torah" per se -- or is it merely their own imperfect attempt to make sense of the same Scripture and tradition we can understand ourselves? Let us briefly review the discussion up until now before we arrive at the final hurdle. As we explained, most of our tradition was given to us orally rather than in written form. Originally, only Scripture itself was recorded in writing. Most of the explanation -- the Oral Law -- was memorized and passed from teacher to student until the period of the Mishna and Talmud many centuries later. We explained that the Torah had to be in an oral state. The world is an ever-changing and developing place. New societies and situations arise; new technologies develop. There is no way a written work could tell man how every person should act in every possible situation from the Revelation till the End of Days. Rather, G-d gave us a *dynamic* Torah -- in a state we would have to explain and interpret ourselves. Man would have the task of understanding the Torah's eternal truths and applying them to myriads of people and situations. The Oral Law, as a living document, would bridge this gap. It would be the tool through which man would take G-d's infinite and absolute knowledge and apply it to the relativity of the physical world. SETTLING DISPUTE BY THE MAJORITY OPINION The key to this arrangement is that G-d placed the Torah in man's hands. Since we were entrusted with the mission of understanding the Torah and applying it to mankind, G-d would have to *give* us the Torah as well. Could G-d have us interpret and live by the Torah, yet fault us if we make mistakes? G-d gave us the tools for understanding the Torah, the various methods of interpretation, but at that point the Torah was no longer in the hands of Heaven. It was ours to understand and apply. And if we would err -- after -- and only after -- our greatest efforts -- that is the only Torah G-d gave us, and it is the one we would have to live with. (In addition, the Torah provides guidelines for settling debates among the Sages -- primarily by following the majority opinion. It also provides criteria for defining who is a true and authentic scholar -- although that has not gone uncontested over the ages.) We then introduced the final issue. We quoted the passage in the Talmud (Bava Metziah 59) in which during a debate a Heavenly voice spoke up in favor of R. Eliezer's opinion, yet the remaining scholars (who were in the majority) rejected it, stating that the Torah was no longer in Heaven's hands to decide. To this we asked that we might accept the Sages could make an occasional mistake and it would be binding upon us. But here the scholars *knew* they were wrong -- their understanding of the Torah was not in accordance with G-d's original intent. If so, how in the world could they have persisted? We now arrive at an even deeper issue. The task of the sages of each generation is not merely to "figure out" what G-d meant in the Torah. And if they err, it is not just simply a matter that their mistakes can be forgiven. Rather, the task of the sages is infinitely more profound: to bring down the Torah from the heavens to the world of man and to fathom how their particular generation relates to the Torah. What does the Torah -- in its many possible interpretations -- mean to *us*, not what did it mean to G-d in heaven? As we explained above, it is the task of man to bring G-d's Torah down to this world, applying its timeless principles to the relativity of man and the physical world. This is the charge of the greatest scholars of each generation. They must take the Torah from the level of the abstract to the down-to-earth. They must ascertain what the Torah means to *them*, and what particular messages and applications are most relevant to their times. This is because the Torah does not and cannot on its own reside in the world of man. The Torah is eternal and infinite; the world physical, finite and relativistic. It is the task of the sages to bridge this gap, to understand the Torah as they are best able, and to fathom what particular messages are most relevant to their day and age. Thus, amazingly, when the sages rejected R. Eliezer's opinion, they were not interested in how G-d understood the Torah. The Torah was truly no longer in heaven. It was theirs. They realized they were the leading scholars of the age. They were entrusted with the task of bringing the Torah down to their generation. They were not studying the abstract law of heaven, but the practical law of man. And so, as great as R. Eliezer no doubt was, the sages decided to -- in fact they had to -- reject his opinion. If anything, he was *too* right. His arguments were perhaps too sharp and profound for them to grasp, and he touched upon a level of truth they simply could not comprehend. And they recognized that his opinion was just not one their generation was worthy of. (Based in part in thoughts heard from my teacher R. Moshe Eisemann.) WE CAN NEVER BE TOO SURE OF OURSELVES It should also be borne in mind that the Sages tell us there are many valid interpretations to the Torah. The Midrash writes that there are 70 "faces" (facets) to the Torah (Bamidbar Rabbah 13:15). There are many valid ways of understanding each part of the Torah -- some more literal and some more profound -- but all valid according to the legitimate methods of Torah study handed to us. Thus, the Sages who contested R. Eliezer did not consider themselves "wrong". Perhaps their opinion was not the most profound in an absolute sense. But they correctly recognized that it was the only explanation their generation could fathom. I'd like to illustrate this principle with yet another fascinating episode from the Talmud (Shabbos 12b). I recognize this topic is one of our most profound and to be honest, most difficult to explain. Hopefully another illustration will shed a little more light -- and then we'll call it a day. The Sages of the Mishna forbade reading from the light of an oil lamp on the Sabbath for fear the reader will tilt the lamp to adjust the light (causing the fire to burn better on the Sabbath). R. Yishmael son of Elisha responded: "I will read and I will not tilt." He felt, no doubt rightly, that he was so cognizant of the Sabbath that it could never possibly slip his mind. He went ahead and ignored the decree and the inevitable occurred: he found himself tilting the lamp. a peron cannot dissociate himself from his generation My teacher, R. Yochanan Zweig (www.talmudicu.edu), however, saw a much deeper lesson. One person cannot disassociate himself from his generation. Just as the sages of a generation bring down the Torah according to their ability, they also recognize precisely how it applies to their generation. This is a part of their mission of applying the Torah. They define the reality of Torah for their day -- what precisely is the Torah their generation is privy to. If the Sages correctly see that their generation requires an extra safeguard for Torah observance, they are defining how their generation (and future generations) relate to Judaism -- in this case, to the Sabbath. The Sages of the Mishna saw that as a whole, their generation did not have the same awe of Sabbath that previous generations did. There was the need for an additional fence or decree. They had therefore defined their generation's relationship to the Sabbath. And that was now the Sabbath that existed for them. And so, no individual, no matter how great, could relate any differently. We now have an inkling of the magnitude of the Sages' mission -- then and today. They see Torah, they define it, and they bring it to man and the world. Over the generations, our greatest leaders have seen the need for new concepts and new stresses within Judaism -- for Chassidus, the mussar (ethics) movement, better education for boys and girls, more emphasis on family harmony, etc. (Not, of course, that they introduced something foreign to Judaism, but the Sages saw need for new stresses or safeguards.) Each generation would then have its own unique approach to the Torah, and each would make its own contribution. And so, the Torah in all its wonder and eternity, would assume greater freshness, relevance and vitality in each and every generation