All is True

It's not often that I review a movie on this blog, but I must. I am a huge fan of the classics, of historical films, of classic literature film, of theater. I thought I'd seen just about everything history and Shakespeare worth seeing. But, as it happens, I accidentally stumbled upon a, possible, perfect film of this genre. A film that feels like a true gem of discovery. All is True.

I don't know how much is true in All is True, or how historically accurate the film is. Nor do I know if accuracy is able to be determined at this point. Webpages and writing exist online discussing this very thing, the truth and accuracy of the story; I won't address that here.

Let's focus on the film, the set, the cast. Let's start with this stellar cast, for it is formidable. Kenneth Branagh as Shakespeare is...quiet and human, yet explosive. I'm a fan of Branagh, have been since Much Ado About Nothing, this affection for him despite his overall cheesiness in general. In this role as William Shakespeare, someone who seems larger than life and legendary, Branagh plays the bard as a very human and flawed individual. Comedy and tragedy, in a single man.

Dame Judy Densch as Mrs. Anne Shakespeare. Ian McKennen as the Earl of Southampton. We're talking a stellar cast here. And the set is basically some sylvan, rustic farming villa, the home of William's wife Anne and children at Stratford on Avon. And a garden.

William Shakespeare has retired from his theater competitions with Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Nash, and others at the Globe Theater. He has retired and has moved back to the discomfort and unfamiliarity of his family home, a place where he has only visited for many years, Stratford on Avon. In these, his final years, William must reintegrate with his wife, his two daughters, and all family at the house. When watching the film, at some parts, I recommend pausing the film and going to learn more about William and Anne's children Susanna, Judith, and Hamnet for the more you understand, the more fully satisfying is the story.

As Anne and William begin to settle into their lives together, William is contacted by the Duke of Southampton, Henry Wriothesley, alerting William of the Duke's upcoming visit to Stratford. Several of William's popular sonnets are said to be written about his love affair with the Duke, so Anne is less than welcoming to this visitor. These scenes are truly among the best in movie making.

Another ongoing drama in the film, at the end of William's life he is belatedly obsessed with his grief over the loss of his young son from years ago, and William's feelings of sincere loss of his son Hamnet and of Hamnet's writing abilities. William is haunted over this loss, weakened by this belated grief, a grief that blinds him and nearly destroys William and the relationships with his remaining family.

The many familial stories woven into this film of the final days of Shakespeare are wonderful and compelling. The simple humanness of the genius William Shakespeare...I loved the film.
I really did. Eight stars.

Skeptical, Not Cynical

Some people think that being skeptical is the same as being cynical. The misunderstanding seems to be that to be skeptical is the same as being scornful or misanthropic or contemptuous. But the truth is, skepticism is nothing at all like that.

For me, being skeptical is completely impartial.
I'm going to need evidence. I'm going to do the research. I have no bias, no prior judgement. No allegiance except to what makes sense and is as clear and is as correct as possible. For me being skeptical means that I require evidence. I am not swayed by emotion, appeals to sympathy, propaganda, or historical tradition. I try to learn about as many things as possible and to form my own opinions on things.
With this strong propensity for skepticism, I would say that I am, in general, about 75% skeptical. 

How about cynical?
When I think of the word cynical, it makes me think of negativity. In fact, maybe paradoxically, cynicism makes me think of a person who does not have the propensity to change their opinions or ways of thinking and who, generally, have a negative view of things. A cynic believes that most people are self-interested and are insincere. It's having a closed mind. Closed to new things.
I would never describe myself that way.


Before having a better understanding of my own nature, I used to think that I was just kind of wishy-washy. Now I understand that my habit of not having an immediate position on things was my of saying I need more information before having or forming an opinion. (Wish I would have realized that sooner...)

Why am I only 75% skeptical?
Because I truly and honestly feel the need to do my own reading, research, and synthesis of information before forming opinions. That means that time limits prevent me from being 100% skeptical simply because there is not enough time to examine every single thing adequately.

So yeah, if you are a first-gen atheist and are exploring yourself and your methods for examining things, consider your own skepticism vs. cynicism ratio. With a little thought, you'll figure out where you stand on the question and how to get where you want to be.

Peace.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You Might Also Enjoy:
Dear Reader
Being an Atheist isn't Enough
Everything Happens for a Reason
Behind the Curve: What Can We Do?

Everything Happens for a Reason

Uuuhhhmmm, NO.

SONS: Bear With Me

The slow roll of time.
It is the exquisite torture of a mother.

When the kids were small, I remember the common knowledge that a parent can't be a friend to their child. Well, I strongly beg to differ, for my children are among my best of friends. And, as time rolls forward, I view them even more and more as my friends. 

When John was a small little guy, it became very obvious to me that he was beautifully left-brained and remarkably right-brained at the same time. That combination makes him an astonishing combination of my husband and I somehow... My amazement with and appreciation for him has grown with his expanding maturity.

John and I spend a great deal of time together. We share stories, laughs, cries, conversations, and adventures. He and I enjoy our road trips and lunches and conversations. We tell each other nearly everything and we respect one another's privacy and space, while having a very comfortable closeness. John and I are best friends.
Yes, this boy has grown up into my dear friend.

Last week John John and I drove a few hours away for a campus tour as we're looking for a place for him to spend his final two years of college, his junior and senior years. We took a few days in the town to see what life would be like there. We saw a parade, saw a show at the theater on campus, had a few meals in town, walked the campus quite a bit, had a meal in campus eateries, and laughed ourselves silly a few times. We even cried a bit...
The campus looks wonderful.

And that is why I've been nigh on tears almost constantly for months now. He will leave. He will grow away. He will go. And I must encourage it, of course I do encourage it.

And in the meantime, time rolls forward.
The exquisiteness of each moment, each second that passes...


In my honesty sharing this here, I know you will do all you can to understand, even if you have a differing opinion from me about befriending your children. Besides, I would defy any of you to not befriend Sweet John John. And YES, of course, my husband is also my best friend and my kids have their own groups of friends with their BFFs. 
😉

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You Might Also Enjoy:
Parents' Weekend
Love and Pride for Elizabeth and John
Transitions
Dear Reader

Little Nothing by Marisa Silver

Is it a fairy tale, a folk tale, an allegory, an ode?
I couldn't say. Perhaps it is all of these.
Unexpectedly.

I stumbled upon this title one day while roaming the shelves of my local library. I had read nothing else by Marisa  Silver, nor had I heard of the book before checking it out.  I had about ten minutes to grab a book from the library as I was going out of town for a few days and needed something to pass some time. Little Nothing by Marisa Silver grabbed my eye based on the unusual story line from the flap.

The basic story began as many childhood fables begin, with a childless couple longing for a child. This older couple from an unnamed country in the later part of the 19th century, I think, takes their desire for a child to a local witch and do, in fact, give birth to a child, a child who turns out to be born with dwarfism. In spite of their love for their child, they do, eventually return to the witch after seeking help from medical professionals, seeking to elongate their daughter. 

Through the black magic from the witch, the little girl, Pavla, experiences a number of transformations, seeking a life worth living. Her experiences, as well as the assistant of one of the country doctors, Danilo, become the central figures in the narration. Pavla and Danilo become strange and wonderful friends and, through the magical transformations and the progression of life, they are drawn apart, far apart, as we long for their reunion and for a happy ending.

Medical quackery and black magic play a part on both the pain and abuse suffered by Pavla as well as in her need to be happy and connected, to find meaning. I don't wish to give away any specifics of the story, but I do highly recommend this wonderful and surprising tale of magic and nature. I enjoyed the beautiful writing as well as the shocking parts. Some of the writing felt poetic and lyrical and that always draws me in. In short, I found Little Nothings to be a surprising tale of magical realism that kept me awake long into the night when I should have gone to bed far earlier. And, for that sleep loss and those pink morning skies with this book before my eyes, I award this novel eight stars. Check it out!

Political Ideologies

Capitalism. Fascism. Libertarianism. Democratic Socialism. Communism. Totalitarianism. Social Anarchism. Anarchy. Oligarchy. Monarchy. Marxism. Liberalism. *

There are many, many ideologies out there and I've been doing what I can to learn about the spectrum. Their main points, how they function, examples in the world, pros and cons, personal and economic issues related to each one, the grey areas, factions. There is so much to learn and digest, I'm sure I'm confused about nearly all of it. 
So pardon me if I sound like an ass:

But there is something that I'm certain of, a conclusion that I've come to on my own: they're all bullshit.

Every single political ideology can be explained and idealized on paper...by somebody. Every single one of these political viewpoint concepts can be rationalized...on paper. But when we take these ideals off of paper and attempt to apply them (all) to human behavior, every one of them goes off of the rails. 

Humans are the problem, I think. So many people, for some reason that I can truly not comprehend, are selfish, lazy, greedy, violent, unfair, dishonorable, corrupt**. It seems to me that anybody who wants leadership in this country, shouldn't have it because the desire for leadership suggests one or more of the previous list: selfish, lazy, violent, unfair, dishonorable, greedy, corrupt.
Power hungry.

I know this post is a bit of a ramble, it's past 4am and my eyes are bleary, but it seems to me that all of the political ideologies that I have studied seem perfectly reasonable and understandable--on paper. It's the carrying out of them in the real world that shows the tremendous deficit in each one of them.

Are you certain that capitalism is the strongest, healthiest, and most reasonable system on the planet? Why do you think this? This capitalistic country is plagued in corruption, greed, violence, selfishness ...our very planet is nearly beyond ecological redemption because of capitalistic notions of what is acceptable. Our very government is responsible for corruption and hateful actions around the world based on the principles of our nation's trade and industry being controlled and justified by what brings the most profit: capitalism. Misery and pain for most, a profit to a few.

Communism, are you certain that it is reprehensible? Communism is a state where the means of production, the trade and industry, is actually owned by the workers. That means that the profit is shared by the workers rather than by the elite 1% like here in America. How can that be wrong? The ideals make perfect sense and are, in fact, rational, and sensible. However, the attempts at actually carrying out this form of government has always resulted in human misery and pain to most, for the benefit of the state.
Because of humans.

Look, I am not smart and I am not erudite about political science or government at all. I simply have a basic awareness that governments of all kinds became necessary when humans began living in collectives, or large groups, in order to have order, fairness, decent living conditions, collective needs met. In the early days of our species, small bands roved around and whatnot until enough of them gathered together in such numbers that it became necessary to have some form of justice, rules to live by, good neighbor policies, I guess. Government. US vs. THEM.

What has happened?
Are there just too many of us on the planet?
Are humans who seek power simply the wrong humans to actually have in power. Am I simply too tired to be writing this blog post***?

I'm convinced that, just like religion, I suppose, governments cost us our humanity. I think people act in blatantly illogical, inhuman, inhumane, short-sighted, uninformed ways based on their political leaning. All political leanings. Are we, as a species, just too weak, scared, or unexamined to make communal living possible? Is there another way?

We all know of political systems in the ancient world that were no less power-hungry than our governmental systems are now and there were far fewer people on the planet at that time. The only thing similar between today's governments and those of three thousand years ago is us. It's our species. We're not at our best when it comes to living together. 

Somebody is always wanting to demonize somebody else. One guy is always trying to exert power or pressure on some other guy. This person needs you to believe as he does. That person needs to take your best stuff for himself. These folks want to take your land because they want it...and they think you don't deserve it as much as they do. These lines must separate us from one another. YOU are different from US. These people would rather close their eyes to problems than look at them clearly. Those people are just fine with treating other humans like crap. You've read history books; you know what I mean.

I mean, with human beings like this, how could any governmental system succeed?

 What do YOU think? 
 How wrong am I? 
 I'm willing to learn 

 *   All discussion and definitions and other stuff on this blog post is in general and not specific.
      You must do your own research.
**  YES, I do recall my last blog post. 
*** YES to this last question, for sure.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You Might Also Enjoy:
My Own Mind
I'm no Economist, But...
The Apocalypse
Libtard Snowflake

My Own Mind

I don't know if you've ever spent any time looking at the masthead on my blog, that part at the top of the blog page with my cheesy pic on the right, next to the quotation by Ralph Waldo Emerson. The quotation reads Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. I chose that quotation in my life and for this blog very deliberately.

Emerson was a 19th century philosopher, writer, lecturer. He wrote and spoke about something called the Transcendentalism movement, a school of philosophy that gained some intellectual popularity in the early- to mid-1800s, probably in response to the anti-intellectualism brought on by various strains of religion. You can read about Transcendentalism in many great places online, so check it out if you are interested in this. Absolutely inherent in the belief system of Transcendentalism is a belief in the goodness of people and of nature. 

Furthermore, these folks believed that society and its institutions, mainly religions, actually impair and undermine the goodness of each individual. If you've ever read Emerson's series of essays called Self-Reliance, that is what he is referring to, the idea that individuals should rely upon their own thoughts, instincts, and opinions rather than conform to those of other institutions. Emerson would say that individuals are best when they are independent, that, were we, as individuals, to rely upon our own minds rather than those of past authors/philosophers/lecturers, we individuals would create our own independent thought and be better people, thus, self reliance.

Don't blindly follow the thoughts and beliefs of others, true independence comes from self-reliance, and nothing can bring you peace except for yourself. That's what Emerson was saying.

SO, I love the basis of Transcendentalism, though, naturally, I don't follow anyone or any doctrine...kind of like what Transcendantalism says to do.  LOL The quotation at the top of this page reflects exactly how I feel about the necessity for questioning, for continued learning, and for absolute respect for the process of exploration and of the unknown. 

The quote is an incitement, a catalyst, an inducement to myself and to all of those who read this blog to cultivate a life of free thought, of questioning, and of integrity.

Good night, Folks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You Might Also Enjoy:
Dear Reader
Humanist in the Making
Are you a First-Generation Atheist or Humanist Parent?
I Got Goosebumps