Author Archives: herbert j. cohen

Belle (2013), directed by Amma Asante

belle_xlgGrowing up in the 50s and 60s, dating for marriage was a very straightforward process. You met, dated for several months, and then came the moment of truth. Do you propose marriage or move on to dating someone else?

Nowadays, the dating landscape is different, especially in very religious Orthodox Jewish circles. I have granddaughters who live in Orthodox communities in America; they tell me that they have to prepare resumes that are submitted to matchmakers, who then work on their behalf to find suitable matches. I do not know if the system works, but it is very different from my own experience many years ago.

Although good character is still the key factor in determining the suitability of a match, finances also play a role. Will the prospective parents of the groom and bride be able to support the couple for a few years while the boy continues his Torah studies before entering the work force and will the parents help with buying a home as the couple morphs into a family with children?

Arranged marriage figures prominently in Belle, the true story of Dido Elizabeth Belle Lindsay, born in 1761, who was the natural daughter of Maria Belle, an enslaved African woman in the West Indies, and Captain John Lindsay, a British Royal Navy officer. When Belle’s mother dies, Captain Lindsay takes her to England in 1765 to live with his uncle William Murray, the first Earl of Mansfield and the Lord Chief Justice of England. Lord and Lady Mansfield raise Belle as a free gentlewoman.

As a mixed-race child in a white household, her marriage prospects are dim. That changes when Belle’s father dies and leaves her an inheritance of 2000 pounds a year. Suitors do not run to her door, but marriage now becomes possible. In truth, Belle is no fool and is not interested in marriage for its own sake. She understands that she has the money to remain independent. But a vicar’s son and apprentice to the profession of law, John Davinier, captures her attention with his sincerity and devotion to worthy causes.

Tension arises between Lord Mansfield and Davinier when Davinier pressures him to make a controversial ruling that would make moral sense but would put the nation at great economic risk. Belle becomes aware of the rift and works behind the scenes to help Davinier. She does this is spite of being torn between affection for Davinier and loyalty to her guardian Lord Mansfield. The story, a gripping footnote to black history in England, is the background for Belle’s efforts to marry for love rather than for financial convenience.

Judaism has much to say about arranged marriages. To be a matchmaker is a good thing, and parents were the primary matchmakers throughout much of Jewish history. To find the right marriage partner is God’s work, but parents were God’s surrogates in the quest for a suitable marriage mate.

The patriarchs of the Jewish people took a major role in finding the appropriate wife for their child. The Bible recounts in detail how Abraham appointed his trusted servant Eliezer with finding a spouse for Isaac. The focus was on the potential mate’s spiritual qualities and good character. Being wealthy was not one of the criteria they sought.

Belle provides a fascinating look at the marriage market in the eighteenth century. Considerations of wealth and political position were uppermost in the minds of parents looking to move up socially through the marriage of a daughter to a person of rank. However, sensitive parents were not immune to the entreaties of children who wanted to marry people of good character rather than people of prestige and economic power. Belle and Lord Murray ultimately see eye to eye on this most important of matters.

Purchase this movie from Amazon.com.

Sicario (2015), directed by Denis Villeneuve

sicario posterI live in Israel where I often read about the moral dilemmas faced by the Israel Defense Forces as they fight terror that threatens the fabric of daily life. There are no simple answers to these complex questions. I reflected on this reality as I watched Sicario, a tense and unsettling look on law enforcement in America as it tries to control illegal drug trafficking in Mexico, a drug trade that infiltrates the southern border of the United States.

The story begins with an FBI SWAT raid of a home used by Mexican drug cartel kidnappers. Agent Kate Macer and her partner Reggie Wayne discover dozens of dead bodies, presumably executed by drug dealers. Kate’s boss thinks highly of her and recommends that she participate in a special task force put together by the Defense Department and the CIA to ferret out the people who caused these horrific murders.

The leaders of the team are CIA agent Matt Graver and his partner Alejandro Gillick, who are joined by U.S. Marshals and an elite cohort of Delta Force soldiers. Their target is Manuel Diaz, one of the major players in the drug cartel operation. As the mission progresses, Kate wonders what the true purpose of the mission is. Gradually she learns that Diaz is only important for his connection to the drug lord Fausto Alarcon.

In order to reach him, many may die. CIA agent Graver believes that collateral damage is worth it if they achieve the goal of disrupting the flow of drugs into America. Kate sees it as using immoral means to attain worthy goals. She is uncomfortable with the mission, which expects her to compromise truth in order to attain the desired results.

Jewish tradition asks us to consider the moral calculus before embarking on a mission that involves compromising one’s integrity. The litmus test is whether the action fits within the parameters of the Torah and Jewish Talmudic law, which offers general guidelines as to how to deal with these very thorny moral questions.

In an article on battlefield ethics based on sources in the Talmud and Codes of Jewish Law, Rabbi Michael Broyde outlines the conditions that allow for a theoretical “license to kill.” One may not kill an innocent third party to save someone’s life. One may not compel a person to risk his life to save another. One may not kill a person after he has already committed an evil act, and one may not use more force than is minimally needed. Moreover, before waging battle, one must first try to establish peace. Of utmost importance is killing only combatants, not innocent people. They must be given a chance to leave the battle theater. Once these conditions are met, then one has a theoretical “license to kill.”

When one considers these givens of Jewish tradition as guidelines for proper conduct, we see that the good guys in Sicario operate in morally ambiguous terrain. It is not easy to live in this environment, which continually tests our sense of right and wrong.

Understanding this reality, Alejandro advises the morally sensitive Kate to leave: “You should move to a small town, someplace where the rule of law still exists. You will not survive here. You are not a wolf, and this is a land of wolves now.”

Sicario is not a typical action flick, although it has its share of tense and visceral action scenes. The film also makes us think about the complexity of law enforcement in an environment where there is no respect for the law. There are no easy answers for someone with a conscience. Kate Macer is thrown into chaotic universe with no moral center, and it unnerves her. Watching Sicario unnerves us as well.

Purchase this movie from Amazon.com.

Goal! The Dream Begins (2005), directed by Danny Cannon

goal the dream begins posterI once heard a quotation that was reputed to be first said by Eddie Cantor, a celebrated comedian in the late 40s and 50s, which was “It takes twenty years to become an overnight sensation.” It was a piece of wisdom that caught my attention many years ago and that remains with me today. It is advice that I share with young people trying to make a mark in the world and who encounter setbacks, but I also tell myself and other seniors the same piece of advice. Let me explain why recently I have this adage on my mind.

For the past several years, I have taught in two schools in Israel. I enjoy teaching. I enjoy the fact that I am not totally anonymous as a senior citizen. I even enjoy parent-teacher meetings, which allow me to forge friendships with adults who are in the midst of defining themselves and shaping the lives of their children.

But there is one challenge. Frontal teaching is tiring, and I felt I needed to find other work that was less physically taxing. The question is what to do. After much thought, I concluded that since I enjoy writing and have had some success over the years in writing, I would try to develop an income stream around that skill. So it was with that in mind that I started to write film reviews, first in a blog, then in newspapers, and finally in a book entitled Kosher Movies: A Film Critic Discovers Life Lessons at the Cinema.

 Speaking about the book in various communities both in US, in Europe, and in Capetown, SA, has led me to another goal: creating a cable TV program on “Kosher Movies’ patterned after the successful “Siskel and Ebert” show which ran for many years on public television in America. This vocational journey is still in progress and has taken almost five years so far, a journey that has reinforced my belief that success comes gradually and only after much hard work and effort.

This was a lesson I learned when I was a much younger man. However, it is lesson that still is with me today; and it is the crux of the inspiring movie Goal! The Dream Begins. Goal is the story of a soccer player who begins his path to success as a small child in Mexico who loves playing soccer, and whose story ends many years later in the soccer stadiums of England where he plays for the Newcastle professional team.

Santiago Muñez plays soccer in Los Angeles for a local Hispanic team. He has little hope to play professionally because he does not play in a college league and he comes from a very poor family. However, one day, he is spotted by Glen Foy, a former soccer player and scout, who encourages him to come to England to try out for a professional team.

Working in the kitchen of a Chinese restaurant and in his father’s gardening business, Santiago gradually saves up money to make the trip to England. But a problem arises. His father, feeling his son’s soccer aspirations are unrealistic, surreptitiously takes his son’s hard-earned money and uses it to buy a truck which will allow him to build up his own gardening business and to provide a livelihood for his son. Santiago’s dream is shattered, but then his grandmother comes to his rescue and gives him the money for the trip.

Arriving in Newcastle, he tries out for the team, but does not perform well. Again, he is rescued by a friend, who pleads with the team management to give him another chance. As a result, Santiago is given a month’s trial. Santiago has more setbacks during this trial period, but he has many stellar moments as well. Over time the coach recognizes his extraordinary talent, paving the way for Santiago’s success as a professional player.

Judaism values perseverance, staying on task and showing commitment in the face of obstacles. The patriarchs of the Jewish people–Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob–all exemplified this trait. Maimonides mentions Abraham specifically because of the ten tests he endured during his lifetime. Those tests included, among others, the experience of being exiled, the abduction of Sarah, his wife, the binding of his son, Isaac, and his battle with the four kings.

One of the commentators observes that he was able to overcome these challenges because his perseverance was rooted in hope, in a positive outcome after many years of struggle. Abraham believed that things would get better, and, therefore, he was able to withstand the obstacles.

Santiago Munez in Goal! The Dream Begins almost loses hope, but his innate sense of optimism and hope for the future enables him ultimately to triumph. For him, the impossible dream becomes possible.

Purchase this movie from Amazon.com.

Spotlight (2015), directed by Tom McCarthy

spotlight posterDuring the course of many years of serving as a school principal, there have been occasions when I had to publicize bad stuff within the school community. It was something I never liked to do; but when it came to matters of health and safety, I felt I had to go public if that is what it took to protect other students.

I recall one incident involving a student caught for drug usage in high school. It was grounds for expulsion, a grave infraction that might prevent the student from attending another Jewish school and thus not have the opportunity to learn more about his faith. It was a stressful time of decision-making, but I expelled the student to protect the rest of the students from potential harm and to reassure parents that the school’s “no tolerance” for drugs policy was taken seriously.

Discovering and publicizing someone for inappropriate behavior is at the core of Spotlight, a visceral narrative about a four-person cadre of Boston Globe reporters who decide to investigate charges of abuse by Catholic priests in Boston. The year is 2001, and the Boston Globe has a new editor, Marty Baron. At an early meeting between Baron and the staff, Baron brings up the case of a Catholic priest who molested many children over a period of 30 years. A lawyer for the victims, Mitch Garabedian, argues that Cardinal Law, the senior cleric in the city, knew about the molestations but did nothing about it. He even cites the existence of sealed documents that prove the Church’s negligence. Baron suggests taking the Church to court to compel the unsealing of the documents.

As the Spotlight team does more research, they discover that there is a three-year statute of limitations in molestation cases, which does not allow for a thorough investigation of abuse claims. Moreover, the children feel shame and guilt and do not want their peers to know of the abuse. Furthermore, the settlements for damage are capped at $20,000, a miniscule sum in light of the emotional and psychological damage done.

The Spotlight team is persistent and eventually they get access to victims, whom they interview. More investigation reveals that the problem is systemic and not limited to Boston clergy. Clergy who molested children did not lose their jobs. Instead, they were sent to other parishes where the same abusive behavior re-emerged. In the church employment directories, priests who moved from parish to parish were simply designated as on “sick leave” or “absent on leave.” There was no mention of the egregious, corrupt conduct, which prompted their relocation.

At the end of the day, many suffered because of this conspiracy of silence. Few people wanted to tarnish the image of the church, and so there were many victims. As Mitch Garabedian, one of the victim’s lawyers said, “if it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one.”

Jewish law has a clear approach to determining whether one can reveal confidential information. It is based on the passage “do not stand by while your brother’s blood is being shed (Leviticus 19:16).” This commandment obligates one to shield another person from harm. If revealing private information protects other people by securing their health and safety, then it is permitted.

Interestingly, this commandment comes directly after the prohibition against talebearing. The commentators explain that telling tales about other people is tantamount to shedding their blood since serious damage can be done by disclosing private information. Therefore, the spreading of confidential information is, for the most part, only permitted when the goal is to prevent harm to others.

Spotlight, a film that shines a light on abuses in the clergy, has a larger message; namely, that we have a responsibility to publicize wrongdoing that affects our community in order to protect its citizens from harm.

Purchase this movie from Amazon.com.

Brooklyn (2015), directed by John Crowley

brooklyn posterI was born in Mt. Vernon, New York, a small bedroom community bordering the Bronx and only 25 minutes by train to Grand Central Station. To me Mt. Vernon was home. My family lived there as did many of my aunts, uncles, and cousins.

The next major move in my life came when I was married. My wife and I moved to New York City where we lived in Washington Heights in upper Manhattan near Yeshiva University. New York City was now my home. A number of years later we moved to Atlanta where I had accepted a job as a synagogue rabbi and later as a school principal. I stayed there for 27 years and felt that Atlanta was now my home.

How does one define a home? Is it simply a specific location or is home a place where your loved ones are? Brooklyn, the emotional odyssey of Ellis Lacey, a young woman who travels to America from Ireland in the 1950s to chart a new direction in her life, considers this question.

The film opens as Ellis prepares for her journey. The family is on the brink of poverty and Rose, Ellis’s sister, has contacted a priest in the United States who will sponsor Ellis as a new immigrant. As she leaves on a ship, her sister and mother tearfully bid her farewell.

On arriving to America after an arduous sea voyage, she takes up residence in a girls’ boarding house in Brooklyn and finds a job in a department store. These early days of her American experience are filled with homesickness and anxiety, but she eventually finds her stride and even enrolls in a bookkeeping class in night school at Brooklyn College.

At a dance in the neighborhood, Ellis meets Tony, an Italian-American, who is infatuated with Irish girls. Their relationship blossoms over time as they share their dreams with one another. She wants to become a bookkeeper and eventually an accountant; he is a plumber who wants to develop a thriving business.

Tony asks Ellis to marry him. Then tragedy strikes when she receives the news that her sister Rose has died, leaving no one to care for their mother. Ellis feels she must go home to be with her mother even for a short time. It is here that a dilemma develops. Does Ellis remain in Ireland, her family home, and build a life there or does she return to America and forge her destiny there with Tony?

Real estate agents utter the mantra of “location, location, location.” They refer to being in the right neighborhood, but in a metaphysical sense the phrase resonates in Judaism. The Ethics of the Fathers states that a person should live in place that is a place of Torah, a place where a person can grow spiritually. That is the key determinant of where one should live. If being in one’s parental hometown does not allow one to grow spiritually, then one should relocate. A home is not just where you live; it is a place where you grow.

Judaism has many recommendations about where to live and all of them relate to intellectual and spiritual growth, not to material surroundings or comfort alone. It is important to live with good neighbors in a moral environment, to place a mezuzah on the door to protect those who live there, to bring books of Jewish learning into the home, and to place a charity box in a prominent location in the home. All the above testifies to living in a home where one can grow emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually.

In Brooklyn Ellis is compelled to decide whether a familiar, comforting environment trumps the new opportunity for love, connection, and growth. Her decision makes us evaluate our own ideal of what home should be.

Purchase this movie from Amazon.com.

Becoming Bulletproof (2014), directed by Michael Barnett

becoming bulletproofMy sister Carol, of blessed memory, was six years older than me. She had Down’s syndrome, and as a kid I vividly remember going with Carol and my mother to Teen Town, a Thursday night social get-together where developmentally disabled teenagers could mingle socially, form friendships, and plan outings together. It was there that Carol met Sam Berniger, who also had Down’s syndrome.

Carol and Sam were an item in those days, often flirting with one another. At first it was strange to observe because I viewed my own sister as disabled in some way and not capable of romantic relationships. However, after witnessing Carol and Sam’s obvious affection for one another, I realized they were no different from other teens I knew. They wanted human connection. They wanted to feel love and affection, and that desire is common to all people, not just the developmentally disabled.

I thought of their romance as I watched Becoming Bulletproof, an arresting documentary about a cohort of disabled people from all over the United States, who come together once a year to make a movie.

Some background information is in order. Zeno Mountain Farms has an annual project of making a film using people with disabilities of all kinds as actors. Although their disabilities are wide-ranging, the young men and women come together in the service of art, making a movie that somehow transcends the limitations of their disabilities.

The project takes place in their summer camp program, and this year the project is to produce a short western movie by the camp’s residents. Period costumes are used, some paid for and some donated. The key scene is the confrontation between the hero and the villain in a shootout on a deserted street. The entire cast serves as bystanders to the imminent bloodshed. The camera pans over the worried faces of people in the crowd and then focuses on the guns in the holsters of the antagonists, who are about to draw their weapons against one another. It is a scene reminiscent of many classic western movies.

Working with the campers are people without disabilities who relate to the disabled as normal human beings. They see the disabled as significant others; and by doing so, they discover their common humanity, and forget about the disabled label. Watching the residents learn their lines and act their respective parts is both very heart wrenching and inspiring. What is especially noteworthy is how the staff relates to the residents as regular friends and family, even though the disabilities that distinguish them are glaringly evident.

Although there is an implicit message embedded in the movie, the movie is not preachy. The message: the disabled want to be recognized as people of value, who have an independent identity, who want to be taken seriously. This harks back to the Biblical notion that we are all created in God’s image; therefore, we all have infinite value regardless of our physical disabilities.

Jewish law recommends treating the disabled as regular members of the community as much as is humanly possible considering the idiosyncratic nature of each disability. As a synagogue rabbi, I recall vividly a father who painstakingly taught his developmentally disabled son how to recite the Torah portion for his Bar Mitzvah. In the father’s eyes, it was very important that his child experience the same rite of passage as other young men.

Becoming Bulletproof is testimony to the fact that the disabled are part of the human family, and want to be treated as such. Stigmatizing someone as disabled may be a necessity in the world of therapeutics, but labels should not define a person in the world of human discourse.

 

 

Still Alice (2014), directed by Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland

still alice posterA friend of mine in his seventies was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s several years ago. At first it was indicated by minor forgetfulness; but over time, the symptoms became more severe. His wife confessed to me after a couple of years that her husband was no longer the person he once was. He barely recognized her or the rest of his family. Indeed it was a sad and disturbing reality that the family confronted.

This mental decline is the subject of Still Alice, the unsettling narrative of Alice Howland, a top-flight professor of Linguistics at Columbia University, who discovers she has early onset Alzheimer’s when she is 50 years old.

At first we observe her forgetting little things, sometimes losing her train of thought while speaking. Later she loses her sense of direction and gets lost after an afternoon run. When she goes to a neurologist for help with her memory problems, the doctor, after giving Alice a number of tests, concludes that she has early onset Alzheimer’s Disease.

Although she is loved by her husband and children, both have difficulty dealing with the reality of a wife and mother whose memory is deteriorating each day. There is no cure. The crisis in the family brings some of its members closer together, but it is a strain. At the end of the day, they must accept a difficult and painful reality.

Although Still Alice is about how one woman deals with a terrible disease that takes away memory, the film indirectly informs us how important memories are. Near the beginning of her mental decline, Alice gives a powerful speech to an Alzheimer’s support group, which captures the dissonance between who she is now with who she once was: “All my life I’ve accumulated memories – they’ve become, in a way, my most precious possessions. The night I met my husband, the first time I held my textbook in my hands. Having children, making friends, traveling the world. Everything I accumulated in life, everything I’ve worked so hard for – now all that is being ripped away. But it gets worse. Who can take us seriously when we are so far from who we once were? Our strange behavior and fumbled sentences change other’s perception of us and our perception of ourselves. We become ridiculous, incapable, comic. My greatest wish is that my children, our children – the next generation – do not have to face what I am facing. But for the time being, I’m still alive. I know I’m alive. I have people I love dearly. I still have moments in the day of pure happiness and joy. And please do not think that I am suffering. I am not suffering. I am struggling. Struggling to be part of things, to stay connected to whom I was once.”

In the English class I teach, we recently discussed how biographies are different from autobiographies. The key difference is that the author of the autobiography relies heavily on memory to write his life’s story. I shared with my students the background behind my first book, The One of Us, which recounted my year in Israel as a student over thirty years ago. I was able to write about it only because I saved all the letters (aerograms, in those days) that I wrote and that my mother sent me, and they jogged my memory about events that took place during that year. Memory allowed me to re-experience the past and make it meaningful in the present.

Judaism values memory. Each year Jews experience a cycle of holy days that remind us to focus on past memories in order to appreciate and understand the present, and to navigate the future. Remembering the past is what makes us who we are today. Without memory, we are adrift spiritually and socially. Memory connects us to our history and to each other. Shared memories are an expression of our human connections which transcend time and space. Still Alice reminds us to treasure our memories and the human connections that matter along our life’s journey.

Purchase this movie from Amazon.com.

Hombre (1967), directed by Martin Ritt

hombre posterRelatives recently visited us in Israel. While here, we visited the celebrated Museum of the Blind, which is part of the Israel Children’s Museum in Holon. The exhibit is called Dialogue With the Blind, which offers an hour experiencing the world of the blind with a sightless guide.

Besides giving me an experiential understanding of the plight of the blind and making me feel so thankful for the gift of sight, I was reminded of how important it is to help our fellow human beings who are going through tough and challenging times. As I wandered in the dark and occasionally lost my footing, the blind guide helped me get back to a stable surface by getting my attention with his friendly and supportive voice and then grabbing my hand to point me in the right direction. He reminded me of how meaningful it is to know that you have a friend who will support you in moments of crisis, who will prevent you from falling. It is comforting when you know that friends are thinking about you and feeling responsible for your welfare.

Feeling responsible for other people is a narrative crux of Hombre, a revisionist Western that hinges on whether someone will step forward and deal with calamities when others cannot. The central character is John “Hombre” Russell, a white man raised as an Indian, who is the object of racial prejudice and alienated from the white man’s culture.

When Russell’s white stepfather dies, he inherits a boarding house owned by him. After inspecting the boarding house, he decides to sell it and return home. He and several other passengers take the stagecoach to Bisbee. The passengers include Jessie, the landlady of the boarding house, Audra Favor and her husband Alex, an administrator of Indian lands and, sadly, an embezzler of Indian reparation funds, and Cicero Grimes, a coarse bully with an agenda of his own.

Grimes’ agenda becomes clear when his cohorts show up to rob the stagecoach. Specifically, they want the embezzled funds carried by Alex Favor. In the ensuing melee, Grimes kidnaps Audra. As they ride away, Russell shoots two of the robbers and recovers the saddlebag of cash. To avoid pursuit by the outlaws, they head through the mountains and stop at an abandoned mining camp.

It is there that a moral dilemma emerges. When Grimes and his crew catch up with Russell and the other travelers on the stagecoach, Grimes offers to trade Audra for cash. To encourage a response, he ties up Audra in the hot sun, knowing that she will die if no one comes to aid her. Alex, Audra’s husband, does not want to risk his life to save his wife. Only Jessie expresses a willingness to help. At that moment, Russell steps forward, knowing that he is the only one who can save Audra and stop Grimes.

Jewish tradition clearly states: “we are all responsible for one another.” The Talmud suggests that this mantra of being responsible for one another means providing for the basic needs of another such us food, shelter, and physical safety. When we see someone in trouble, we need to act to help that person. We cannot simply turn our eyes away and mistakenly think that things will get better on their own.

Hombre is the story of one man who decides to risk his own life in order to help those in trouble. It is not an easy decision for John Russell, who has been exploited as an Indian for many years. However, his essential humanity prevails in a moment of crisis where only he can enable the others to survive.

Purchase this movie from Amazon.com.

Avatar (2009), directed by James Cameron

avatar posterFor many years I would listen to inspirational tapes on my way to and from work. Most of the tapes were transcriptions of lectures from Rabbi Avigdor Miller, a contemporary Jewish ethicist, and Zig Ziglar, an icon in the field of motivational speakers. I gleaned insights from both of them, but one insight of Zig’s, in particular, resonated within me as I watched Avatar, a science-fiction tale of an exploratory expedition to Pandora, an Earth-like moon on which live the Na’vi, a human-like species, together with an incredible feast of plant life.

The film opens as Jake Sully, a crippled war veteran and ex-Marine, wakes up in a spaceship on its way to Pandora. We soon learn about the Avatar program. Although humans cannot breathe the air on Pandora, the Avatar program enables a human to connect with his own avatar, a genetically-produced hybrid of a human and a Na’vi, and function as a regular Na’vi on Pandora. On Pandora, Jake, although paralyzed on Earth, can walk and breathe in his Na’vi body.

The purpose of the expedition, run by the Resources Development Administration, is to mine for the mineral unobtanium, a powerful energy source selling for millions per kilo that can return affordable energy to Earth, which is rapidly losing all its energy resources. The strategy of the earthlings is to persuade the natives to cooperate with their planned objective by injecting avatars into Na’vi society, who will convince the local natives to cooperate with the intruders from Earth.

As Jake ingratiates himself in the Na’vi world, he slowly begins to understand their worldview, which involves possessing a reverence for nature and not exploiting it for profit. This perspective conflicts with the view of the military head of the expedition, Colonel Quaritch, who is prepared to destroy the Na’vi civilization if it does not cooperate with him.

Jake’s conflict intensifies when he bonds with Neytiri, a Na’vi girl who rescues him from fierce animal attacks. Miraculously, the spirit world in which Neytiri lives confirms Jake as a pure soul, enabling him to be fully accepted into the Na’vi society. Meanwhile, he is still giving valuable information to his human counterparts and, at the same time, trying his utmost to persuade them to give him more time to convince the natives to leave the area in which the treasured mineral unobtanium is found.

Unfortunately, time runs out without a workable resolution to the conflict. Casualties pile up on both sides as war breaks out. The humans lack the patience to seek a compromise solution in which every interest can be preserved, and so they attack ferociously. Jake leads a counter-attack to prevent destruction of the Na’vi and their way of life. The outcome of their final battle is unclear until many lives have been lost. This failure to negotiate a compromise brings about catastrophic consequences.

Let me return to Zig Ziglar. One of his strategies to obtain good outcomes whenever two parties have different opinions is to imagine yourself sitting on the same side of table as your adversary. If you sit on the same side of table, it means that you understand the perspective of the adversary even if you do not agree with him. When you sit on the same side of table, you are likely to compromise, avoid extreme positions, and find a way that works for both parties.

Judaism stresses the avoidance of extremes and seeking the golden mean. Moreover, people in positions of influence are encouraged to pursue peace. Often times in Jewish jurisprudence, people are encouraged to pursue the paths of peace, darkei sholom. Even if one thinks his opinion is the correct one, it is sometimes better to accept another’s point of view in order to avoid conflict. In Avatar, we see the terrible consequences of unmediated conflict. It is a reminder that it is sometimes important to be patient and find a way where we can create a win-win situation in which all parties to the dispute are sitting on the same side of the table.

Purchase this movie from Amazon.com.

Everest (2015), directed by Baltasar Kormakur

everest posterI recently was in Zimbabwe touring Victoria Falls, one of the world’s great natural wonders. Members of the group had the opportunity to take a helicopter ride to view the Falls. Such a ride was not on my bucket list, so I passed. But many members of my group took the trip, discounting any possible risk. When they returned from the flight, they all were exhilarated about taking the helicopter ride. It appealed to their sense of adventure and they felt that this was a once-in-a-lifetime experience that they wanted to enjoy.

On the plane ride back to Israel, I watched Everest, the dramatic true story of an ill-fated climbing expedition on the tallest of mountains. Watching it reminded me of the thirst for adventure that drives man to do dangerous things.

The film ominously begins by informing the viewer that one in four people who try to summit die in the attempt. The film then shifts to 1998 when Rob Hall, CEO of Adventure Consultants, gathers together a team to climb the mountain. Among the team members are Beck Weathers, an experienced climber, and Doug Hansen, a climber who has attempted Everest before but without success. Doug expects that this will be his last expedition so he is determined to reach the summit no matter what is his physical state.

Rob informs his climbers that writer Jon Krakauer will be joining them on the expedition. Krakauer is a celebrated journalist and book author, and his presence on the trip creates the possibility of great rewards for Rob’s company if Krakauer writes a complimentary article about it. The safety of the climb, however, is Rob’s primary concern and so he explains the risks his climbers will face on their ascent because of the altitude and freezing temperatures.

As they move from Base Camp to Camp II, Krakauer asks the members of the team why they want to summit Everest. Doug sees himself as an ordinary guy and he wants to show the world that an ordinary guy can do extraordinary things. A woman climber wants to be the first woman to climb the mountain.

As they approach the summit, some team members get sick. Beck, in particular, has vision problems because of a surgery that he experienced a year before. In spite of hardships, some climbers do make it to the top, but then bad weather sets in making the return highly problematic and extremely dangerous.

The descent down the mountain is fraught with obstacles, the main one being the lack of oxygen tanks that were supposed to be placed along the way down. Climbers become dizzy and cannot handle the rarefied air. Hypothermia sets in creating more problems. In the end, not everyone survives, and those who do are left with emotional and physical scars.

Judaism recommends a calculus for risk-taking. When risk-taking is a part of everyday life, we take risks. We take risks when we drive an automobile, when we traverse a pedestrian crosswalk, when we go for a swim in the ocean, when we walk on a broken sidewalk. That is generally considered acceptable risk. Moreover, there is the notion, expressed in the Book of Psalms, that God is watching over us and protecting us from small risks.

Furthermore, Jews have an obligation to protect themselves and others from harm. There is a commandment to build a fence around any flat roof to prevent someone from falling. Similarly, we are bound to keep our dogs on leashes so they do not frighten visitors, and we are bidden to provide a safe home environment so that people in our homes will not fall and hurt themselves. The Sages clearly forbid activities that are dangerous, such as bungy-jumping.

Judaism, however, recognizes that one may take on increased risk if the task is performed to earn a living. The key is to be sure that the risk is reasonable and does not put one’s life in danger. Indeed, the definition of an acceptable risk is not precise, and the job of the individual is to assess the danger inherent in the task and then make a decision, keeping in mind that the preservation of life is paramount.

Everest depicts men who push the envelope and take on extreme physical challenges. The ascent of Mt. Everest involves great peril and the Sages of Jewish law would probably forbid it. It simply is too risky. The minor risks involved in everyday living are acceptable; the risks involved in serious mountain climbing are not.

Purchase this movie from Amazon.