A Wise Man Seeks Wise Counsel (no. 2)

The point of this second post on the subject of following wise counsel is how to find it, how recognize it, and how implement it/put it into action in your life.

In the first part of this post (found here), I wrote about the wisdom of considering and following "wise counsel" (advice). I cited the following scriptures, which I will also refer to in this post:

"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he who heeds counsel is wise" (Proverbs 12:15). "By pride comes nothing but strife, but with the well-advised is wisdom" (Proverbs 13:10). "The ear that hears the rebukes of life will abide among the wise. He who disdains instruction despises his own soul, but he who heeds rebuke gets understanding" (Proverbs 15:31). "Listen to counsel and receive instruction, that you may be wise in your latter days" (Proverbs 19:20).

I have a very simple method for finding/recognizing wise counsel, and I call it, "Defer to the superior pool of knowledge." This is not a Bible verse, so remember that when applying this principle: it's not necessarily fool-proof. However, it generally has worked for me (when I was wise enough to apply it).

Deferring to the superior pool of knowledge means, essentially, trust the judgment and advice of people who are speaking from a position of expertise greater than your own. To an extent, you do this already: when their automobile transmission goes out, most people don't try to fix it themselves unless they are transmission specialists. If a restaurant owner is a bad cook, then s/he will probably hire a chef/cook to work in the kitchen. Similarly, a manager at a software company who has no experience in coding software had better hire a good programmer (hint: I am nodding in Rob's direction with that one).

It seems so obvious that, when there is a fire, we should call the fire department, and when someone breaks into our house we should call the police. Of course, I think we can agree that the plumber is the man to call to fix the pipes in our house, but what about the ones in our chest? Who among us after a heart attack hires a plumber to perform open-heart surgery? Any takers on that one?

However, how many of us have tried to save a dime on a home improvement project only to find we made the problem far worse than it originally was? Ever had a problem cost more to fix because you made it worse by trying to fix it on your own? How many people have tried to resolve a legal dispute without consulting an attorney (wink-wink). How many of us have risked being found guilty (or actually been found guilty) of tax fraud because we thought we could itemize our tax return just as well as a tax pro (nodding at my wife)? How many people try to resolve dangerous marital disputes without consulting their pastor (hello - God invented marriage...)? Anyone without a degree in finance or economics feel like playing the stock market without first getting some good advice?

Sometimes, we human beings tend to think that we are an island unto ourselves, capable of tackling any problem. However, most of us don't know everything. I readily admit that there is always someone out there who knows more about a given subject than I do. My wife knows more about preparing tax returns than I could ever hope, and Rob definitely knows more about computers than I do. Neither of them, however, knows more about the law than I do. These differences in skills do not represent a competition between us. Rather, our different abilities represent an opportunity for us to help each other and provide each other wise counsel on different subject matter.

I know enough about income taxes to do my own, and I have done it before, but I would never think that I could do my income tax return better than my wife can. Rather than letting pride be my downfall (see Proverbs 13:10 above), I admit that she knows more than I do, and I defer to her on income tax issues because she possesses a "pool of knowledge" superior to my own on that subject. Similarly, while I know a little bit about computers and programming, if I have a computer problem, then I call Rob. His pool of computer knowledge is superior to my own.

Admitting that people know some things better than I do allows me to get the best information before I make a decision. I try to remember that, "He who disdains instruction despises his own soul, but he who heeds rebuke gets understanding" (Proverbs 15:31). I benefit from the knowledge of the wise, and listening to their advice, on their areas of expertise makes my life easier. Also, according to God's word, listening to this kind of advice is a wise decision on my part.

Perhaps this seems obvious to some, but I know there are many people out their who just do not know how to take advice. Anyone who refuses to listen to advice, however, despises his own soul - it is in the Bible. So, the next time someone who has been happily married for 50 years gives you a tip on how to make your marriage work well, consider listening. Even if you have been married for 60 years, listening does not hurt. After all, time is not the only measure of experience. I am a better attorney than some others who have been practicing much longer than I have, but there are some attorneys who have been practicing for fewer years than I have who are better. There is no shame in admitting that - it's just true.

Admitting and accepting the truth puts me in the best position to identify who has more knowledge or talent on a given subject or issue than I do. Listening to such people enriches my own knowledge on the subject. Even if I do not follow their advice, by listening to it, I will remember it when time reveals who was right. If I was wrong, then perhaps I should have listened and need to reexamine my decision-making process.

I realize that sometimes the cost of hiring an expert is more than some of us can afford. If it weren't for insurance, most of us could not afford the services and expertise of a heart surgeon. Sometimes, wise counsel comes at a high price. Being a good steward of our money requires us to evaluate whether the cost is worth the benefit. I usually handle those situations by considering whether it is possible that I could handle the matter alone successfully. If not, then the expense might well be worth it. If I simply cannot afford the advice of on counselor, then I shop around to find one that I can.

This is also where family and friends come in handy. Your dad may not be a plumber, but if he is 20-30 years older than you, then he has been around long enough to have lived through a few clogged drains. Even if he cannot fix your sink, there is a good chance he knows of an honest plumber who will cut you a deal. Similarly, your mother may not be a lawyer, but she may know of one who can tell you what to do about that traffic ticket you can't believe you received.

Just remember, if you call your dad about that sink and he says, "I have no idea, but you might try taking it apart to see what is wrong," then you might want to get a second opinion before taking a wrench to that sink. Anytime someone admits that s/he has "no idea" about something, the advice that follows should be taken with a grain of salt unless that person's advice is sending you to someone more knowledgeable.

This is all pretty intuitive advice, but just because we all know it is true, does not mean it is easy to implement/use in our lives. So here is the secret: check your pride. Pride is what comes between people and good advice. Second, while you need to be responsible with your money, remember that it isn't very responsible to spend money on unessential things when you "cannot afford" the wise counsel you so desperately need. How many of us would spend $30 on dinner out with our spouse but balk at spending $30 on a phone conference with an accountant to make sure we can afford that dinner? So, not only do we need to check out pride at the door, but we need to check our budgets as well. Plan ahead - we all need advice, but wise advice rarely comes free. I recongize that, even if we budget for it, some of us cannot afford to pay for wise advice. Here's a tip: "Legal Aid" offers low or no cost legal services to those who truly cannot afford them. There are also medical clinics and hospitals that take indigent cases. If you cannot afford wise counsel, then there may be a non-profit entity out there designed to help you get the advice you need at a price you can afford.

I will end this post with a story I heard about from a friend of mine that I think serves as an excellent example of the danger of failing to seek and listen to wise counsel. A medical student was given a very large house in her divorce. She neither hired an attorney nor an accountant to assist her in the divorce. Apparently, her friends told her not to worry about it because the divorce was "uncontested," and the woman could not "afford to pay for advice" while she was already paying for her med school tuition. She also assumed that the "divorce judge" would make her aware of any potential problems. So, this woman read the separation agreement for herself and decided that she was "taking her husband to the cleaners." Because she was a medical student and considered herself to be a very intelligent person, it never occured to her that she might be reading the paperwork wrong or that separation contracts cannot always be read literally as though they were a book in a library.

However, when the property tax and homeowner's insurance bills came due, she discovered that she could pay neither. Her husband also failed to remind her that the house was subject to a mortgage. A reference to the mortgage was buried in the separation agreement and divorce papers.

Had she consulted a wise accountant, he would have told her that a house is never free: there are always hidden costs like property taxes, insurance premiums, and repairs. He would also have told her, most likely, that the bills related to maintaining a house are more than the average full-time medical student can afford.

Had this woman consulted a wise attorney, he would likely have either performed or obtained a title examination of the house, which would have revealed the mortgage (which was also referenced in her divorce papers, which she misread). The attorney would also have told her that judges are prohibitted by law from giving legal advice in the cases over which they preside. She didn't even consider applying for nonprofit legal aid, which would have given her legal counsel at little or no cost, because she thought that she was "smart enough" to handle the matter herself.

This woman lost all the money she received in her divorce settlement trying to trying to pay bills for the house that she could never have realistically afforded. What is the moral of the story? The woman should have gotten some wise counsel, who would have told her not to take responsibility for a house she could not afford. The expertise she needed most was that of a good real estate agent. Had she demanded the house be sold during the divorce, an option she never considered, she might have been able to pocket the difference between the sale price and the outstanding bills.

Was this woman dumb? No. She was very smart. However, she was not very wise. She was too filled with pride and arrogance to seek help. She could not afford to pay for the wise counsel that would have saved her thousands of dollars. Bottom line, we often cannot afford to do without wise counsel.

Arrogance and pride always come with a price tag. Sometimes, "do-it-yourself" is the wisest, most cost-effective course of action. However, before I build a wooden deck or cement porch in my backyard, you had better believe that I am calling my parents and talking to somebody who has done that kind of work before. I may be smart, but when it comes to home improvement, I know that I am not wise. Good thing I know some wise counsellors.

UPDATE: see the next article in this series here.

Why a World?

As Christians, we believe that God the Father created all that is through Christ -- "Through him [the Word, or Christ] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:3) Occasionally it has occurred to me to wonder, why a world? What purpose does the physical universe serve in God's plan? I got many of these ideas from C.S. Lewis, though a few may be original.

What can we learn about God's plan? First, we know that the Father begot the Son -- "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14) The Father is sufficient in Himself; He needs nothing. Everything that is or could be is contained in Himself. We can see that it was good to beget the Son, because God is good and He chose to do so. He did so, in the words of the Nicene Creed, "before all worlds." Therefore it pleased God the Father to create something separate from Himself of the same kind as Himself. Having begotten Christ, the Father says "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." (Matthew 17:5)

Perhaps the most likely reason for God to create what we know is to create spiritual creatures who could share in His glory -- less than Christ, but possessing the free will necessary to choose to love their maker. While of course I can't know for certain, I see no other viable reason for God to do so. I'll proceed from the assumption that this was His motive, to the extent that I'm capable of understanding His reasons.

If many spiritual beings were His intent, why not make many Christs? Well of course when it comes to God it's close to meaningless to talk about "what if" -- for us, if some circumstance had been different, things could have happened differently. For God, things are determined by His unchanging, eternal nature. He is subject to no external forces, and as such could never fail to enact His will. However, even then there is a logical difficulty with the concept of God begetting many Sons. In what way could they differ from each other? Each would be a perfect reflection of the Father; each would be all-knowing and all-powerful, as granted by the Father; each would have the same relationship to the Father. In John 1:1 we read that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." How could there be another Word? How could it be different, when the Word is eternal and unchanging and true? The only thing it could be to allow multiplicity would be "incomplete," in which case it is less than Christ.

We see, then, that the idea that God could beget more than one Son seems a logical impossibility. So, if God chooses to create many creatures capable of loving Him, they cannot be of the kind that Christ is. They must be smaller, less than Christ -- containing less of the Father's essence. They must be created, not begotten. So let us assume that God now chooses to create lesser beings. What form then will these creatures take?

Perhaps we would assume that these creatures could be purely spiritual, in the way that God probably is (though this is not certain; Genesis 3:8 says in part "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day"). This brings up a difficulty, however. Imagine two purely spiritual beings, consciousnesses outside of space or time. How would they interact? If they could "touch" each other at all, how would they distinguish between themselves, with no obvious boundaries between them? How would they process ideas between them, without time? It's difficult to conceive how this could work.

So perhaps in order for minds to communicate with each other, they require some sort of idea of space and time -- space, to allow them to separate themselves from each other; time, to allow them to present ideas, process received information, and produce new statements. This is not enough, however. They still have no method of communication, so we need matter of some kind. These entities need some amount of matter over which they have power to use to communicate with each other. They must not have too much power, however: if one is entirely in control of its surroundings, no other would be able to use those surroundings to communicate. Therefore we need some sort of neutral outer world, which the different consciousnesses can all affect in the same way. That way they can all use the same methods to make sounds through the air or gestures carried by reflection of light which enable communication.

In attempting to envision some way many for souls to exist and interact with each other, we have already arrived at something quite akin to the world we know. As it is with God, the way He made things is the only way they could be, because He is all-powerful and because His nature does not change. So, while this is not a definitive proof by any means, I believe it's a useful theory for why there is a universe and what purpose it serves.

A wise man seeks wise counsel (no. 1).

I found a website discussing the relationship between wisdom and accepting advice from a Biblical perspective. In doing so, I found the following scriptures:

"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he who heeds counsel is wise" (Proverbs 12:15). "By pride comes nothing but strife, but with the well-advised is wisdom" (Proverbs 13:10). "The ear that hears the rebukes of life will abide among the wise. He who disdains instruction despises his own soul, but he who heeds rebuke gets understanding" (Proverbs 15:31). "Listen to counsel and receive instruction, that you may be wise in your latter days" (Proverbs 19:20).

The point these scriptures make, when read together, is not to take every piece of advice that you receive as proven fact/truth. However, these scriptures send a solid message that it IS wise to listen to wise counsel. In other words, it is wise to consider the advice of those wiser or more learned than ourselves before we make decisions or take actions. That advice does not free us of the need to purposefully consider our decisions/actions before taking them. However, prayerfully contemplating the counsel you receive on a subject, make the wisest decision or take the wisest action.

Remember, wisdom often comes with age (Proverbs 19:20 - "...wise in you latter days"). I am smarter than some who are older than I am, but I am often less wise. Perhaps I am wiser than some who are older, but it is generally true that, the longer a person lives, the more experiences that person has, the more opportunities that person has to grow in wisdom. Granted, not every person older than me has seized the opportunities that he or she has received, and some of older persons may even be foolish. Remember, wisdom comes from the Lord first, so if you meet an older person who does not have the Lord in his/her life, then that person has chosen to avoid wisdom in every moment of his/her life. Always look for wisdom in the Bible first: if a person contradicts the Bible, how wise can that person truly be?

However, a person's age, at a minimum, is a good indicator of how much exposure that person has had to wisdom. Those who have lived long lives and accepted the opportunities for growth afforded to them by the Lord could be a wealth of wisdom and good counsel. While my parents, for instance, are reasonably intelligent people, I am sure neither of them has anything on Albert Einstein or Benjamin Franklin. It is my parents' wisdom that compels me to seek advice from them before so many others that may or may not be smarter. My father is a pastor, and my mother was my first Sunday School teacher. I know that every piece of advice they give me comes from a person who has sought wisdom from the Lord for many, many years. Those learned in the Word usually make the best advisors, meaning that they tend to give good advice.

Why does this matter? Whether you believe it or not, none of us knows everything. None of us has everything, and none of us can do everything. We all are imperfect, and we all need help from time to time. The Word of God teaches us that, "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he who heeds counsel is wise." Why would anyone think that s/he is always right? Pride. "By pride comes nothing but strife." However, "... with the well-advised is wisdom."

Do you trust God? Do you trust the Bible? If so, then you should not trust yourself - not in all things. The Bible says that we do not know everything and that we all need to listen. Do you agree? If not, then there is no point in your reading any further - I cannot help you (only the Lord can). If you do agree, then ask yourself this: where do you go for advice? Who do you turn to with your problems? Who do you listen to? Are your advisors wise counselors? Are you willing to give heed to someone else's judgment before your own, even where you disagree?

In my own life, I recently sought advice from a church elder regarding how to handle a situation that I did not feel fully equipped to handle alone. The elder agreed to take over the situation, and my load was greatly decreased for seeking his advice. Other times in my life, I have chosen to follow my own judgment. Sometimes that was wise, and, at other times, it was just stubbornness.

At this stage in my life, however, I take comfort in knowing that I need to be intentionally considering whose judgment is wisest to follow, and the answer is not always mine. It really helps me to get through each day knowing that I am not trying to live my life by my wisdom alone. If you let it, that process will give you comfort. There is an expression that I am fond of: "no man is an island." I think that fits well here. All believers are connected together as the body of Christ. We are the Church - capital "C" - and we work best together. That is how we were made.

UPDATE: See the second article in this series here.

Movie Review: Taken

SCORE

-4 out of 5-

CREDITS

• Brian Mills: Liam Neeson
  
• Maggie Grace: Kim
  
• Famke Janssen: Lenore
  
• Directed by Pierre Morel
• Written by Luc Besson
  

STORY

This film centers on Brian Mills, played brilliantly by Liam Neeson, a former CIA operative who has retired. His career cost him his marriage to Lenore and a closeness to his daughter Kim. In young retirement he is determined to reconnect with his daughter before she heads off to college. His marriage is irretrievable, though; his ex-wife has remarried. This makes it doubly important to reconnect with Kim, because the stakes are higher: if he doesn't make a connection in her life as her father, then she may always think of him as her Dad. Eventually Kim is abducted and Brian returns to work, mercilessly hunting those who have taken her, tracing her with utter singularity of purpose.

Taken does an excellent job where many action movies fail: setting up characters the audience cares about. Shootouts are expected; touching scenes detailing Brian's devotion to his precious daughter are not. Where many films rely on the spectacle of the battles, Taken invests us in the outcome first. Brian is a good man, and we want to see his daughter recognize the good in him that we do. When she's torn away from him, we feel the horror he must feel even as we see all the warmth drain from his eyes as he returns to a job he was very good at.

As action films go, Taken is much smaller in scale and much more plausible than most. The shootouts, fist fights and car chases are not epic in scope, but seem more reasonable. Even a clever trick pulled by Brian to disguise his location consists of taping a walkie-talkie to a cell phone, not one of those magical technological devices which somehow "reroute" or "bounce" the signal, like we're used to seeing. The film largely follows the step-by-step methods Brian uses to track down the people who have his daughter, from one lead to the next.

This is a violent film. Brian shoots, stabs and pummels many people. He also spends time in some of the seedier parts of Paris, so many references to prostitution and drug use are made. It doesn't come across as gratuitous; in fact there is no nudity here where there easily could have been copious nudity. The violence is generally restrained, with no close-ups of bloody carnage, just an old-fashioned blood squib when people get shot. Even the language is far less foul than it could have been. The restraint is valuable and makes for a more watchable and better film.

This is a film where the audience can enjoy watching a good man take out some bad men. It has no real ambition beyond that, and is unequivocal in its support for Brian's methods and aims. I felt the direction was quite good, despite moderate use of the now very tiresome shaky-cam. The action scenes are reasonably well choreographed and are much easier to follow than some recent films (I'm looking at you, Quantum of Solace). The feel is smaller and more intimate than most action films of late, which is refreshing after so many big-scale impersonal blockbusters.

PROS: It's really enjoyable to watch a film every now and then where the good guys are unquestionably good and the bad guys are rotten and evil and deserve to be fought. There seem to be very few films like that in recent years, so apparently it has fallen to the French to make what feels like a quintessentially American film. Taken is well-made and very satisfying, and goes well above and beyond the standard action film by having a big emotional payoff owing to the groundwork well laid in the first part of the film.

CONS: This film is violent and intense. It's not for the squeamish. That's an important point; whatever it says on the banner in the theater this film should not be PG-13. It's far too rough for kids that young.

Final Thought: This is a satisfying and well-made action flick with a compelling lead and surprising emotional depth. Just don't take the younger kids.

Bottom Line: 4/5

UPDATED NEWS: Ben Stein truly is expelled...

UPDATE:

The associated press differs with the Huffington Post. The AP claims Stein withdrew from the commencement, while the Huffington Post claims he was disinvited. Read the reports for yourself:

-Post article.
-AP article.

So, which is it? Was Stein dropped, or did he cancel? So much for accurate, unbiased reporting.


ORIGINAL NEWS POST:

See the report here.

It is amazing, but apparently the University of Vermont felt that it was necessary to literally expel Ben Stein from its commencement. Apparently, supporting intelligent design is not allowed at their institution. So much for open debate, the freedom of thought, and the First Amendment. Liberal colleges have decided that the "Theory" of Evolution is the only truth, and they will entertain no other theories nor tolerate others who disagree. For those who pride themselves on being open-minded, they have acted just like those who persecuted Galileo for his theories. It is a sad day in academia when politics and prejudice rule rather than open debate and scientific inquiry.

DEBATE: black history month vs. year-round unified history?

First, I suggest that you read this article, which encapsulates the pending debate.

The question that I am posing for discussion/debate, both on this blog and in your conversations with others is: "Should we abandon black history month in favor of actively incorporating black history into history courses year-round."

Now, a few ground rules are necessary to limit the scope. The first rule is: don't question whether the incorporation will actually happen; presume that if black history month is terminated, that black history will be incorporated into history classes every day, all year long.

Second rule: don't start a second debate about whether there is a need for "women's history" month or "white history month," etc.; this is a debate regarding, essentially, whether there should be one month set aside per year to study the history of one specific people group or whether there be a unified study of the history of all people groups, all year long.

Third rule: make logical arguments and points only; it is impossible, after all, to debate emotion or prejudice, which brings us to the last rule...

Fourth rule: do not accuse anyone in the discussion of being a racist or prejudiced, as that will bring a halt to any intelligent discussion; throwing out labels is rarely an effective way to be persuasive.

Consider this a challenge, from me to you.

NEWSFLASH: Fisrt Facial Transplant in the US.

Amazing. Praise God that this woman can eat, smell, and breathe normally again.

NEWSFLASH: "The Urgency of Pork."

We're all about to get a lot poorer...

Movie Review: War of the Worlds

SCORE: 1/5.


CAST:

• Ray Ferrier: Tom Cruise;
• Rachel: Dakota Fanning;
• Mary Ann: Miranda Otto;
• Robbie: Justin Chatwin;
• Harlan Ogilvy: Tim Robbins;
• Directed by directed by Steven Spielberg.

BACKGROUND/STORY:

I won't write much here except to say that there is no story here. If you know anything of the prior film or the book, then this movie doesn't really follow them. This movie is about a Tom Cruise running from aliens, and about trying to look cool in the process. The film is clumsy, which is unforgivable from the director who gave us E.T., Indiana Jones, Minority Report (which I own on DVD), and other greats. What possessed Spielberg to run with the script is difficult to understand, but it is entirely lifeless and filled with holes. The movie claims that the aliens have planned the invasion for over a million years, and yet they failed to plan a defense for earth's simplest inhabitants? I won't "spoil" the surprise, but here's a clue: the aliens' nemesis is not human.

Given Cruise's taste for younger women (i.e. Katie Holmes), it also disturbs me to recall shots of him, both on and off screen, constantly holding Dakota Fanning. Couldn't she walk? There were many rumors about the unusually close relationship that they developed, but, in fairness, the rumor mill always turns against Tom Cruise. Still, Cruise has done much in recent years to unnecessarily draw bad press coverage and rumors his way. Given his apparently religious devotion to science fiction, this movie was continually eerie for me. Without any good plot reason, aliens attack mercilessly then utterly fail on grounds completely unrelated to any human effort. Perhaps, because that is somehow realistic, this movie is scarier than it is entertaining.

The acting seems bad, but then the characters have no depth of any kind, so what were the actors to do. Also, bad acting is usually the effect of bad directing. Why would a director put a scene in a movie that is badly acted? I suppose to save time and production cost, but it seems lazy to call a scene finished before a convincing performance has been given by all involved. In this film, however, all the directing in the world could not have caused the actors to deliver convincing performances, I suspect, because all the characters are in the movie for no other reason than that they have to be. None of them accomplish anything that I can tell. Rather than beating the actors to death, Spielberg should have tossed the script or demanded rewrites to give the cast and crew something to work with.

VISUALS:

The special fx and cinematography are the best part of this movie. However, they aren't necessarily realistic or practical from an engineering standpoint. I recall that Ebert's review mentioned flaws in stability for the alien "tripods." However, my gripe is that they just look stupid. Maybe that's the same grip, though, and I just don't realize it? They look convincing, but they also look convincingly stupid to me. If it weren't for what they can do, they would not be terrorizing at all to look at. Somehow, they seem more like confusing modern art wrought from I-beams than alien monstrosities. Oh well, they do turn people to ash. The movie is so graphically gory and gross, that I fear it alienates its sci-fi crowd. Rather, the people who enjoy this film are likely the same audience that rushed out to see "Saw" and its progeny.

PROS: I can think of none. Biblically, the movie offers no moral message or ethical struggles. Survival, as an instinct, is all that really drives this film. I suppose the film made some visual and fx achievements, but they are drowned out in a see of blood and human ash vapor.

CONS: Graphic violence, vulgar language, a bad family values, and horrific themes make this movie awful without using its horror to accomplish anything of value. Watching human being walk through the vaporized ash remains of other humans is, frankly, one of the most disturbing images I have ever seen, and I got no warning of it anywhere before watching this movie. So: you are warned.

FINAL THOUGHT: I didn't like this movie, but more objectively, this movie failed to set any clear goals for itself. It doesn't comment on anything or have a message, and it fails completely to entertain or evoke any emotion from its audience other than disgust and a lamenting for the cost of the ticket, rental, DVD, etc. The movie is beautifully shot, but it is not beautiful. The visuals are gross and terrible.

BOTTOM LINE: 1/5.

Movie Review: The Last of the Mohicans

SCORE: 5/5.

CAST:

• Hawkeye: Daniel Day-Lewis;
• Cora: Madeleine Stowe;
• Chingachgook: Russell Means;
• Uncas: Eric Schweig;
• Directed by Michael Mann.

BACKGROUND:

This film is a very loose adaptation of the somewhat boring novel of the same name by James Fenimore Cooper. To say that I have read the novel would be a lie, because every effort to do so is met with inevitable boredom and disbelief at how horribly written this "classic" is. However, it is a genuine classic, because it tells a story from a period in US history that gets very little attention. The 7 Years, or "French & Indian," War is a most fascinating part of our nation's background that just doesn't seem to have the appeal to writers and movie makers that WW2, the Civil War, or even Vietnam has. Perhaps it has something to do with the weaponry: there are guns, but they are not so advanced yet to replace swords, axes, and war clubs. War movies are defined by the underlying history, which is largely interesting because of its effect on subsequent history. What has had a greater impact on history, particularly military history, than the weapons?

This film did not receive a lot of critical acclaim. It is, perhaps, best remembered for its musical score, which if rated separately would achieve 5/5 (it's not derivative of anything). However, I am more than happy to say that this film is the best example of war movies. Some war movies attempt to be documentaries with stories (see the "Longest Day" as the best example of this niche within the genre), while others attempt to be mostly drama (see "Braveheart," similarly). "Pearl Harbor" betrayed the genre utterly by taking one of America's most solemn moments in history and using it as backdrop for jealous romance.

The Last of the Mohicans has some jealous romance too: Major Duncan Heyward is in love Alice Monroe, the daughter of the famous Colonel Monroe, who in real life was actually an officer in the British army, which for a Scot, was quite an achievement in those days. Cora, however, falls in love with her rescuer, the enigmatic Hawkeye: the adopted white son of Chingachgook, who alongside his blood son Uncas, is one of the last of the Mohican people.

This film, however, is neither about the jealous romance nor the extermination of the Mohican people (the historical accuracy of which is debatable). Unlike "Pearl Harbor," these themes are not center stage, and they serve only as the backdrop or consequences of a much greater story based on historical events involving the struggle of the British colonials and American natives who were swept up in the war between England and France. Some sided with the French, others the British, while our protagonists desperately struggle not to get involved. The prejudices of Colonel Monroe and Major Heyward, stoked by the forbidden romance between Cora and Hawkeye, blinds them to the plight of the colonials, whose families have been left to fend for themselves while there husbands fight for the British at Fort William Henry.

At times, the romance between Hawkeye and Cora Monroe serves primarily as a device to advance the plot: it causes Major Heyward to act in ways most unbecoming a British officer, and it affects the politics driving the war. This can be seen in the film. Other times, their moves to the forefront, but it never consumes the movie entirely as I felt was the case with Pearl Harbor, and creates an interesting context for the story.

To say that the cinematography perfectly captures every moment of this film, especially those where are heroes and heroines are trapped inside the fort, would be a gross understatement. This is one of the most beautifully shot films that I have ever seen. I could go on about the little complexities of the story, but suffice it to say that, while there is romance, revenge, redemption, action, and history aplenty, the real story belongs to the events that we see reflected in the characters' faces, expressions, and dialogue. The horror of every scalp taken, for instance, is captured perfectly in the eyes of Alice Monroe, Cora's younger sister who has never before seen the brutal face of war.

The events of the film, historical and imagined, are like an uncredited character that serves as the antagonist for all involved. There is no side of right or "good" side to the conflict in this movie: the French commander, Montcalm, does not want to butcher the British troops that oppose him. Neither does Colonel Monroe seem to take joy in the death of so many French. This war, historically speaking, may have been the death of the last "gentleman's war," as both sides adopted guerrilla tactics that previously would have been considered dishonorable but continued to be used thereafter.

Possibly the only example of evil in this film would be found in the heart of a Huron-turned-Mohawk Indian played by Wes Studi, but even he is just reacting to the death and pain this story visits upon all its characters. It compells them to act in incredible yet all-too-realistic ways. In the words of one of the characters, "It feels like the world is on fire," both to the characters and the audience, yet they do hope, and they do go on, as all people must, grappling with an ending to events that is bittersweet at best. I suspect that any viewer will feel athat hopelessness, but unlike most films with that effect, somehow the Last of the Mohicans descends to the level of being depressing. Of course, that might be becuase we viewers recongize this conflict as the beginning of a new world, setting the stage for American freedom.

PROS:

This film is based on historical events. Watching it is informative, even if a few parts are more fiction than fact, and it covers an area of history few Americans are familiar with. It entertains, regardless, and brings across many moral themes. Specifically, the film subtly deals with genocide, prejudice, and uplifts the concepts of sacrificial love and honor. Hawkeye, Chingachgook, and Uncas sacrifice the future of the entire Mohican people to love and protect those who cannot protect themselves. In the end, even the most selfish protagonist sacrifices everything that he has to protect those he loves. The film, from that perspective, is very uplifting and inspiring.

CONS:

There is a lot of violence in this movie. I would not say that the violence is unnecessary given the subject/material of the film. However, it is graphic and gruesome in places. This movie is not one for young children (though your high school students may end up seeing it in US history class, as I once did). The language is mild, but sometimes the characters speak calmly about topics such as revenge and murder. This movie is a good example of what an "R" movie should be. There is no nudity, and the language is mild, but the violence and themes, similarly to the Passion of the Christ, are something children could be spared for a few years at least. One of the most disappointing scenes, from a Christian perspective, shows 2 characters in the throws of extramarital passion and implies (without explicitly showing) that they slept together.

FINAL THOUGHT:

This is my favorite movie. It does not fail to provide any element of excellent story-telling and also draws upon actual historical events that rarely get screen time. In the end, this film does a number of things that no other film in the genre or at large does, and it does them very well: the score and cinematography are beyond reproach; the characters are compelling; and the film remembers the dead Mohican people not for their weakness and suffering, but for their courage and capacity to love selflessly. Is this an accurate representation of the Mohicans? Who can say - there are none left to ask or observe, or are there? The debate is irrelevant. Either way, I love to imagine a people whose unfailing courage and hasty flight to the defend the cause of the weak brought them to extinction. There were so many lives taken during the 7 Years War between Britain and France, and there are so many holes in our knowledge from that time period. Who is to say that the answers imagined by the Last of the Mohicans are not accurate?

I admit a certain bias for this film. To me, the Last of the Mohicans is the movie that reminds me why I bother watching movies at all. Michael Mann is also one of my favorite directors. More than any other, he can capture a specific mood onscreen and deliver it to the audience. In the Last of the Mohicans, he delivers a mood and an emotion that I have no words to describe.

BOTTOM LINE: 5/5 (it also receives my unoffical, honorary 6/5 for being my favorite movie).

NEWS: Phil saw his shadow...

Check it out here. I guess that means 6 more weeks of Winter. Oh well, I was enjoying the cool weather anyway, so no big deal. One day, I want to see this festival - it looks like a lot of fun in the movie with Bill Murray.

NEWSFLASH: Zombies Ahead!