MANCHESTER BY THE SEA

Patrick in “Manchester by the Sea”. (Lucas Hedges)

Manchester by the Sea” is absolutely the most powerful movie I have seen in a very long time. It just won’t leave me alone. I am not surprised that it has received so many Oscar nominations.

It’s not fast-moving, but rather a character study, observing  meticulously how human beings react under the stressful situations that occur in life. Every detail is critical. You shouldn’t miss, for example, how the sound recording adds to the naturalism:  the familiar beeping and burring of the microwave that is somehow louder than the protagonists speaking. As in real life.

The movie shares its main theme with last year’s 3D drama, “Everything will be fine“, namely, to what extent are we as human beings entirely responsible for the unimaginably painful and dark tragedies that we are capable of causing? I’m pleased to say that the writer-director, Kenneth Lonergan, does not really give us the answer. He leaves it to the audience to delve deep for something remotely conclusive. Which is maybe one of the reasons why the film just won’t leave you alone.

It is not an exaggeration to say that every actor acts to perfection. Just watch the expressions on the face of the hospital nurse (who has almost no lines!) when Lee’s brother dies, or observe the convincing smugness of Patrick’s mum’s new husband. And yes, does his mum, a cured alcoholic, really go and have a quick drink in the kitchen during dinner? Wonderful, how this is all left to the audience to deduct.

I don’t know about you, but I too, like Lee, have made the most awful mistake in my life. The consequences of this mistake have been absolutely devastating for all concerned, and most probably for a lifetime.  As in the movie, it is impossible to avoid the question: how can we do such awful things to those we love the most?

Today in particular, I carry both the pain and responsibility for my actions and would do everything to turn back time. But I can’t.

So what can be done? The answer to this question can be found both throughout “Manchester by the Sea” and in the closing scene. It’s by no means a neat, clean, satisfying answer. It’s messy. It’s a an answer that reveals how a  dynamic web of dysfunctionality kicks in once a major crisis has happened.

My doctor said to me two weeks ago, “As Einstein said, we cannot live in the past. We must live in the future. Every crisis in life, both for the perpetrator and the victims, is an opportunity to learn and to create a new way of living life better. If we are open to that.”

My enduring hope is that she’s right.

 

 

 

 

 

5 GREAT REASONS TO BUY AN APPLE WATCH

Okay, so I admit that I am a bit of an Apple Geek and have been since 1996 when the company looked as if it was about to go bust. It’s not that often in life that I back the right horse!

Anyway, as with most Apple Geeks, I simply have to have everything they produce. Last summer, when I bought my Apple Watch, I have to admit that this was the first item I bought from Apple that, in spite of its elegance, about which I was not so convinced of its usefulness.

A year later, I have completely changed my mind, for the following five reasons:

Health

In the last year I have paid more attention to my health and done more sport than ever before. My Apple Watch challenges me to stand up and move around if I have been sitting down for too long. It reminds me to take time out to concentrate on my breathing and inner well-being. It gives me regular updates about my diet and calorie consumption and challenges me to do more exercise. Since wearing my Apple Watch, I have lost over 10 kilos in weight and am fitter than ever before.

The Apple watch pays for itself within two years

This may only apply to certainly countries, but I have just received 200,00€ in cash from my medical insurance company (AOK) as a result of living such a healthy lifestyle last year. In short, the Apple Watch records my sporting activities and automatically records them within the AOK app on my iPhone. To my amazement, this means that the watch will have paid for itself by the end of this year, and beyond that, I will make a net profit of 200,00€ per year! As well as being much healthier.

Private sphere

Ever get tired of constant interruptions from Telegram, What’s App, Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, Snapchat, Skype, Swarm, Slack, SMS and e-mails? Well, you can set these to pop up on your Apple Watch (or not) so that you can read them, filter them and even reply to them if you wish without the sender knowing whether or not you have even received them. Okay, you can do that on your phone with most apps too, but somehow the ongoing contact with the outside world is less intrusive on your watch than on your cell phone.  Maybe because you don’t have to take it out of your pocket? And filtering becomes more radical too.

Superb for sport

Whether you want to go for a jog or a serious workout in the gym, you don’t need to take your phone with you any more. Nor that uncomfortable sweaty strap thing that your phone sits in on your arm. With wireless earphones (I can recommend Wireless Beats by Dr Dre or of course Apple’s Airpods), you can listen to your music at the same time that the activity app tracks your pace, route, heartbeat and calories burned. So much easier.

Cool fashion

The Apple Watch is beautifully engineered and looks, well … classic, especially a combination such as stainless steel with a black leather strap. All in all, I’d say it’s a good purchase after all. Within a few months, as with so much of the best technology, you will wonder how you ever got along without out it. Even in this respect, the Apple Watch is slightly different because it is attached to your body: technology that is integrated with who you are and what you do. You’ll never walk alone again.

Freedom of movement?

Freedom of movement is something that many of us in the West take for granted. Most of us can get up and leave our home in the morning and travel to work, go shopping or visit a restaurant after work with friends. We can travel around the country without let or hindrance, and, if we have a passport and enough money, we can travel freely to many other nations of the world.

Imagine for just one moment, however, that you woke up tomorrow morning and you were told by the state authorities that you will no longer have the freedom to move around. You will no longer be able to travel to other countries. You cannot leave your town. In fact, you cannot even leave your house. You are to remain imprisoned there until you die, even though you have done nothing wrong. It is simply a legally binding decision made by your government. Failure to comply will result in immediate execution.

How would we feel then? Cheated? Outraged? Infuriated?Rebellious?

Why? Because any restriction in movement is a contravention of a basic human right. It is also at the root of what started the first war. “This is my property, the boundary to my land, and if you set food on it, I will kill you.” It is also a main reason as to why prison is considered an effective form of punishment.

All this is something that Ms. May, Mr. Johnson, Mr Trump, Mr Corbyn et al. cannot understand. In attempting to maintain free trade of goods whilst restricting the movement of people, they are placing material gain higher than human rights.  This is supremely unintelligent and morally despicable.

All in stark contrast to Angela Merkel who understands that you cannot have the one without the other. She also understands that no wall will ever be able to stop unwanted crime and terrorist attacks. She understand that walls simply provoke isolation and racial hatred, not prevent them.

Racism and evil do not run along national borders. They run through the heart of human beings. This is where it all starts and this is where we as individuals can choose to end it.

 

Same love

My last blog entry about God’s conditional love got me thinking about love in general. I find it helpful the way the Ancient Greeks categorised love along the lines of eros (erotic love), philos (the kind of love a parent has for her child) and agape (the selfless laying down of one’s own needs in order to serve others).  As an aside, I would like to know whether these terms have shaped my thinking or whether they articulate something that is real in our society. In other words, does language shape our reality or does reality shape our language? I will come back to that question in a later blog.

This morning on the way into work on the subway, a young woman noticed that I was reading the Bible. To my surprise, she engaged me in conversation and started off with questions about my understanding of love. It turned out that she is a theology student, a believer in God and a lesbian.

I’d like to summarize the main points she shared with me:

  1. Irrespective as to whether you believe your sexual orientation is determined by nurture or nature, you cannot choose your sexual orientation any more than you can choose your eye colour.
  2. As the Bible implies in 1 Corinthians 6:18, your sexuality is not a selectable bolt-on to who you are like your choice of job, car or cell phone. Rather it is an absolute integral part of who you are as human being. Hence, you cannot say, I accept you as a human being but I cannot accept your sexual orientation. Your sexual orientation is an integral part of who you are. And who we are determines what we do.
  3. Hence, if God labels homosexual practices as a sin, He is simultaneously rejecting the human beings (His creation) who live out a homosexual lifestyle. A lifestyle based on a sexual orientation which they never even chose.

When I asked her what did that mean for her interpretation of the Bible or for her personal faith, she replied:

“In Hebrews 11:1, it is written that ‘faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.’ As far as homosexual love is concerned, however, my definition is: ‘Faith is a refusal to believe what it is true.’ Do you understand what I am trying to say?”

Well, I guess I’ll leave her question for you to answer …

Links

Same Love by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis

Conditional love

As I was growing up, I was taught to believe that God loves us unconditionally. That’s part of what makes Him divine, so much more devoted to every human being than any earthly parent.

Yet it struck me that my last blog entry suggests something different, namely that God’s love is conditional.

According to the Bible, it is. If you accept Jesus to be your Saviour, then God guarantees you a place in heaven. For eternity. If you do not accept Jesus as your Saviour, then you are guaranteed a place in hell. For eternity. Two conditional clauses.

This conditional love can be found elsewhere in the Bible. “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose .” If you love God, He will work all things for your good (yes, even the premature loss of a loved one). If you do not love God, He will not work all things for your good. Two conditional clauses.

And what are we to conclude if God’s love turns out to be conditional after all?

What many always knew:  that the Christian faith is essentially selfish because it plays on our most basic human fear: the fear of death, the dissolution of our ego. When I accept Christianity’s conditional offer of the salvation of my soul, I am admitting that the world ultimately revolves around me. Religion owes its ongoing existence to this pitiable flattery of personal vanity.

Think before you vote

I find it fascinating that one of the deciding factors in a US election centres on views concerning abortion and the possession of firearms.

While the Republicans are generally anti-abortion and pro the possession of firearms, the Democrats tend to be for a reduction in the possession of firearms and against restricting the freedom of women to choose about matters of termination.

In other words, the Democrats might stand in the way of you ever being born but will protect your right to remain alive once you are. And the Republicans will fight for your right to remain alive in the womb but shoot you dead or sit you in the electric chair the moment you trespass on their property.

Where does this paradoxical stance come from? I have a hunch that it has something to do with Christianity,  the adopted faith of many US citizens.

For, on the one hand, the Bible maintains that human life is sacred and that it should be preserved at all costs. All humans are made in God’s image and He loves them. Yet the Bible also teaches that all human beings who do not put their faith in Jesus Christ will suffer for all eternity in the fires of hell. That’s right, every sincere Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, along with every atheist.

So, if the majority of us are destined for eternal punishment, wouldn’t it be better if we had never been born in the first place?

According to Jesus Himself in Matthew 26:24, the answer to this question is a clear “yes”.

So I guess that makes Jesus a Democrat?