Go see Cinderella Man. Quickly. It's a great movie, so says the Chairman in the movie review below. You may beat me there, so please enjoy it doubly.

But it's not just about enjoyment . . . this is, after all "Politics in Real Life" here at Reasoned Audacity, so you knew I was going to sneak in the political subtext. Oh, yes.

The Chairman reports that this is a wonderful movie that celebrates family, doesn't mock people of faith, and is for grown-ups, as well as the coveted teenage boys market. Nice for a change. But according to Box Office Mojo, the movie had a "disappointing" opening:

Director Ron Howard's $88 million Depression-era drama starring Russell Crowe as boxer James J. Braddock got off to a wobbly start, delivering an estimated $18.6 million at 2,812 venues in fourth place.

So those of us who would like Hollywood to make movies that are inspiring and uplifting need to support this one -- we need to send the message that positive, wholesome movies sell theatre tickets.

The following from the Chairman . . .

“You want to go see what?” I said.
“Cinderella Man,” she said.
“But that’s a boxing movie,” I said.
“I know. What time shall I reserve the tickets for?” she said.

Hey, if the birthday girl says she wants to go see a Depression-era boxing movie, I’m gonna take her to see it even if it does star bad boy Russell Crowe who doesn’t do much for me. Well, okay, Gladiator wasn’t bad but . . .

I can’t pinpoint the moment when my reservations about the flick began to fade away. It didn’t have a lot to do with the chemistry between Crowe and Zellweger; she isn’t my cup of tea either. Mostly it had to do with the fact that Crowe played Jim Braddock not as some swaggeringly tough fighter, but as the quintessentially good family man . . . from start to finish . . . without a blemish. This fact alone is probably what allowed me to care about him and his wife and his children.

He made me care because he was just so decent. It left me wondering how a man could be so decent and yet be such a slugger in the ring. He was a ferocious fighter, but I never got the sense that he had any malicious feelings toward his opponents . . . well, maybe Max Baer was the exception.

Boxing was just Braddock’s talent, his profession. Most importantly, it was a means of providing for his family. It never became his life. Braddock’s family was his life.

I understand how his comeback after a year out of the ring earned him the moniker “Cinderella Man,” but given the story told by this movie, it might more aptly have been titled, The Passion of the Family Man. At the outset we are shown how injury and the Depression stripped Braddock of nearly everything: his career, his home, everything but his character and values. We see the family’s desperate fight to survive and stay together during the depression . . . and their decency remains intact when everything else lies in ruin. And we care about them.

I became so gripped by the story that I lost sight of what the actors were doing. The cast was totally believable so they never got in the way of the story — some of the credit for this goes to the director, Ron Howard. I would never have believed that Russell Crowe could have acted the role of Braddock with such a low-keyed, self-effacing dignity.

There are several great scenes in this movie that will always stick with me. But one scene is particularly powerful. On the comeback trail, Braddock is asked by a reporter: “What are you fighting for?”

Continue Reading »

Posted at 11:22 PM | Permalink
Comments (0)

Much more to come on women in combat. I will give the Pentagon meeting report, as promised, but that is still a developing story. Please check back in. (Or subscribe on the left sidebar for email updates.)

Meanwhile, the weekend is here! And the Chairman gives us a review of The Interpreter. . .

Took the love of my life to see The Interpreter last evening. Found it very entertaining at one level, but not entirely satisfying at another.

Seeing aerial footage of New York was a great delight and who can complain about seeing a lot of Nicole Kidman. Plus, my wife works periodically at the UN so it was fun hearing her reactions to seeing the various places inside the UN –– the General Assembly auditorium, the delegates’ room and others. Also, though I really dislike his politics, I liked parts of Sean Penn’s performance.

But here’s where the movie fell short.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 11:54 PM | Permalink

The question of "time," and the pain we feel at our futile attempts to slow its rapid passage, always reminds me of C. S. Lewis' observation that our discomfort in the temporal is proof of our reality as eternal beings. He wrote in a letter to Sheldon Vanauken in 1950:

Do fish complain of the sea for being wet? Or if they did, would that fact itself not strongly suggest that they had not always, or would not always be, purely aquatic creatures? Notice how we are perpetually surprised at Time. ("How time flies! Fancy John being grown-up and married! I can hardly believe it!") In heaven's name, why? Unless, indeed, there is something about us that is not temporal.

With that as introduction, here is a guest blog from the Chairman of the Board that expresses the problem of time just beautifully.

If I could take the hours

That once I spent with you

And mint them into coins of gold

What would I buy

That equaled their full worth?

Ah, love, another hour with thee.

- Ailene Gilbert Crouse

Lovers measure time by the hours they are apart. When they are together . . . they do not know time.

Mothers and fathers measure time by the brief moments of relief while the baby sleeps, by the treasured fleeting days of a child's innocence, by the cycle of outgrown shoes, of the school year.

Ailene's Great-Grandson, and her husband's namesake. . .

Grandmothers and grandfathers measure time-present by the intervals remembered of time-past. From birth to graduation to marriage, all now yesterday, passed in a moment . . . but, if God be pleased, again from birth to graduation . . .

Humanity measures time by the cycle from Spring to blossoming Spring . . . and from the progress of the grass and trees reclaiming yesterday's shrieking battlefields and silent cemeteries.

And what of the God of the "eternal now?" The Word compared Him to a father waiting longingly, hopefully, relentlessly, for his wayward son to come to his senses . . . and home to the father's love.

And now abides faith, hope, and love, which do not know time . . . but the greatest of these is love.

Posted at 1:28 AM | Permalink
Comments (0)

This just in from the Chairman of the Board, a guest blogger who wishes to remain anonymous. It meant a lot to me, so I share it with you:

This morning I saw a familiar sight walking from the train station to my office: a robin searching for worms. Not just searching, but finding. As I watched the bird pulling a very large worm out of the ground, my first thought was what an amazing feat of hearing by the little bird to be able to detect the worm's presence.

Then as I continued walking I became aware of all of the ambient noise of city life the robin had to filter out. It was a little past the peak of rush-hour traffic, but still a considerable number of vehicles passed up and down Constitution Avenue, less than 50 yards from where the bird searched for its breakfast. This realization made the robin's feat seem all the more amazing.

And then . . . then I thought of the awesome inventiveness of the One who created the robin with such incredible hearing.

Like the bird, I have to cope with filtering out a lot of distractions in order to focus on the task God has laid before me. And I have to let go of the empty goals my pride and ambition drive me toward, and instead value the opportunity I have to do the garden-variety, common and ordinary stuff that I do have enough talent to accomplish.

By the time I neared the office, the phrase "consider the lilies of the field" was echoing through my mind.

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor yet for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are you not much better than they?

Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take you thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, [shall he] not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that you have need of all these things.

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

-Matthew 6:25-34

** Editorial note: see here, for interesting discussion of the robin's ability to hear earthworms! Although the abstract emphasizes sight hunting, the text and conclusion also underscores the importance of hearing.

Posted at 1:26 PM | Permalink