The Life of David Gale.

Making your life count - that is an important question that anyone with half a brain and a social conscience will address at some point. It has been disturbing me for a while.

There are many related questions: "What is your calling?" "Does the life you lead and gifts you possess match?" "Is this what you want to do with the rest of your life?"

I think the question of happiness rests somewhere here as well. If you are not feeling fulfilled, you are not in a sense acting according to your own nature.

"The Life of David Gale" explores these questions. Combining a social conscience with the question of human meaning, philosophical issues are explored through the lenses of a convicted murderer (Kevin Spacey) and an investigative journalist (Kate Winslet). What was most thought provoking was how the issue of capital punishment rests to a large extent upon competing philosophical anthropologies. Are we at bottom selfish individuals, kept in check by the blunts instruments of carrot and stick? Or are human beings capable of a higher calling - one that on occasion demands self sacrifice and so explicitly recognizes a greater good?

This is not the greatest film ever made and it would not be in my top ten. But the issues explored are significantly important and the performances good enough to warrant a watch.

"That's mean!"

When we suggest that something is 'mean', we tend to disassociate the meaning 'to be average' with nastiness, lack of generosity or cruelty.

But if we think about it - these terms are linked. When we lack generosity we might only be giving the average and not over stretching ourselves. When we are being nasty, we are detracting from an abundance of possibilities and belittle that person. When we are cruel, the cruelty lies in hindering the other person, stopping them from fulfilling their nature or full potential.

To be mean is about control. By controlling something, we limit and inhibit. That 'the mean' is one form of average used in math, indicates something about the nature of mathematics and the naming of entities.

Think of the following statement: "On average, a UK citizen will cheat on their spouse twice in their lifetime."

This tells us nothing of the many instances of 'cheating', nor about the various reasons why people might actually cheat. The statement lacks imagination. Nor does it question what is meant by cheating or why couples choose to make a commitment to each other. This statement really is mean.

"You're an idiot!"

There is little more idiotic than calling someone a idiot. What exactly is the name caller trying to do? Consider a few possibilities:

(1) The person being called an idiot really is stupid. So what? What would such affirmation actually achieve, apart from upsetting the victim?

"Gee, thanks, I really never thought about it that way before. Cheers for your feedback!"

(2) Then name caller feels a little insecure and can't work out why 'the idiot' is talking and behaving in a certain way. In these circumstances, the fault lies with the person doing the labeling. If you cannot understand someone, this does not mean they are behaving in a stupid way - the contrary might actually be true.

(3) The name caller probably has an emotional insecurity and needs to reaffirm his supposed superiority. Yet, this stance actually betrays the name caller's lack of authority. If one person is less intelligent than another, this does not make them a lesser person. The most clever person may have evil intentions, forever finding creative means of manipulating people. But this very person, becomes less lovable, because of how they behave.

Given a choice, I would take affection over intelligence any day.

"Taking Ownership' and other corporate double-speak.

The tyrant wants to be all encompassing. He wants to control your physical movements, how you spend your time and even what you think.

In 'The West', we now believe that we have a large measure of political freedom. Yet, our lives are very much controlled by the small number of global businesses that have huge sway, even over national governments.

Tyranny have become more subtle. It is not people's lives or families that are physically threatened. Rather, people are managed through the the arousal of non-essential needs, the counter part of which is readily available credit to the most compliant of consumers.

People's 'souls' are at risk.

Competition is encouraged. By wanting to 'better' our neighbors, impetus is given to the buying mechanism. Technological development means that the desire to have the latest gadgets are short lived. If on Tuesday, we have the latest and greatest new mobile phone in the market, by Saturday our neighbor may have upgraded to the newest car model.

In competition, winning is short lived. Yet, the fear of failure is all-encompassing.

In the workplace, our boss may whisper in our ear about 'taking ownership' for our performance. The notion of taking ownership, however, can so very easily be a form of double-speak. It may mean, accepting all directives from above without question. All this term actually means, is taking responsibility for arbitrary targets, set in a artificial meeting room by middle managers, who on the whole manage statistical outcomes, not people.

Large business may also have a commitment to charity. The whole notion of charity is a superficial one. It does not concern itself with the notion of social justice, but with delivering outcomes for the most impoverished or needy of world citizens. The 'caring side' of business, must therefore be taken with a huge pinch of salt. It is against big business interest to have the open wounds of the most impoverished in our society uncared for. This would raise questions would about the structure of the society in which we live. That is against big business interest.

"Don't bite the hand that feeds.'

The ambiguity of a caring-exploitive framework is sure to confuse. 'You say that we exploit our workers and our customers but the business every year donates twenty million to charities." "You say that we are unconcerned about our workforce but we have support mechanisms, such as contributory health schemes and a free counseling service available to everyone."

One of the biggest lies is that thinking positively can change your life. One of my favorite film scenes is Monty Python's 'Life of Brian.' Brian, at the end of the film is on the cross. He and the others being crucified start singing, "Always Look On The Bright Side of Life.' It is the equivalent of putting your head in the sand. Whistle and ignore the pain and things will get better, remembering to ignore the centurion hammering the nail through your bloody and quivering hand.

Life can be tough but taking responsibility does not mean taking ownership for pre-subscribed outcomes.

Like Jesus in the market place, it is okay to be angry. Anger can be fueled by the injustices that we witness in our everyday lives.

Taking ownership means having a commitment to truth. To be committed to truth is about developing a questioning frame of mind; not in order to display a superior intelligence, so that we might advance in our career- but so that we can learn to appreciate the beauty of the simple things and be in awe of our very existence.

It is always easier not to question. We might then resemble happy people.

Film: No Country For Old Men

As is often the case, when you first stumble upon something great, you might barely recognize it. Like a casual conversation with a psychopathic killer, one probably won't recognize the individual as a psychopath. This film adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's novel - is such an occasion. On first viewing the film, I thought the movie was clever but unessential.

Still, something kept drawing me back. It just wasn't the raving reviews of many friends. Behind this story about an unexplained killer - there was something lurking that I had not understood.

The first clue is that Javier Bardem's character Anton Chigurh has no sense of humor. Everything is taken with deadly seriousness. What this demonstrates is an overbearing vanity. If one was to incarnate an argument for determination within one individual, it would come in the form of Anton Chigurh. Before several killings. Anton will toss a coin - leaving the responsibility to fate. This refusal to take personal responsibility is suggestive an individual who might believe that he is carrying out a mission on earth. The killer is ultra confident..., what happens is meant to be.

One can contrast this outlook with Tommy Lee Jones character, Ed Tom Bell, a police sheriff close to retirement. Despite his years and expertise, he is unsure and uncertain about the nature of the new threat to his community. It is also a personal journey for Ed. He is aware of how events in life can appear random. Often investigations have to remain unexplained. To ponder upon the nature of life and come up short of answers, demonstrates humility and a caring attitude. But in one telling scene, Ed confesses that he thought that when he grew old, he might find God.

This failure to find God - and the psychopathic killer, is no mere coincidence. The demonic nature of Chigurh, a man without a soul, centres around the theme of 'soulfulness.'

To be soulful is to question and not always understand. To be soulful means taking responsibility for one's own life, despite random occurrences, in the knowledge that even the best laid plans can be ruined.

Ed Tom Bell's failure as a police sheriff and as a man, lies in his inability to put everything at risk.

His search for an explanation for Chigurh's activity is doomed from the beginning. By trying to understand the soul-less nature of the killer, the very possibility of a godless universe would open up, putting at risk his very own soul.

The failure to take that risk, demonstrates a lack of faith.

This film is utterly profound.

Wake up!

"Wake up! How many people really know that they are alive!" So bellowed Jim Morrison in a live concert recording of The Doors in my youth, thirty years after the recording took place.

The appeal of this sermonizing from a Rock God, lay in all what was unspoken in my life as a sixteen year old. The unquestioned necessity to get a job ASAP. In my household, the issue was making a living, full stop. Questions about fulfillment were never even discussed. The music raised the questions no one was asking.

The question about human fulfillment is a difficult one, for it creates uncertainty. There is the possibility that you will start working against other peoples' expectations.

Maybe the factory job is not what you want to do with your life. Nor is the marriage and the 2.4 children. Perhaps family and friends will resent the fact that you even dare question the ways in which they are living. Wanting to do something else may be viewed as a veiled form of criticism.

Eighteen years on and I finally know what I want to do. It will take a little time to prepare the funds to jump. I have to hold back from the temptation to escape every weekend. I will hold firm, knowing that in a short period of time - I will have finally started living my own life.

Philip Roth: Everyman

This short novel starts with a funeral. Friends and family of the departed are gathered, standing by a grave in a Jewish Cemetery. The most remarkable observation is just how ordinary this scene is. The most obvious fact of our life is that one day, we too will have died. This fictional beginning is paradoxical. This fictional beginning touches upon the end of our facticity.

The book then describes a life of mistakes, of unthinking self interest and ultimately grace. Throughout this very ordinary life, there is no real security as everything is in flux. Broken marriages, sibling rivalry and sexual desire liter the pages, describing a half formed life not fully lived.

There is also an allegorical quality to this work. The main character is a secular Jew. Yet, for all the disasters that happen, allusions are made to the Book of Job. Every disaster signals a stripping away of perceived security.

This allegory links the religiosity of Judaism with a secularist American outlook. Indeed, the title of the book, Everyman, is the name given to a Jewelry shop stripped of a Jewish signifier. This book therefore deals with cultural aspects of Jewish society, describing how one family integrated itself.

Still, it would be wrong to suggest that this is a book is primarily written for American Jews. As the title suggests, the book is for everyman. The disasters described are part of a process of learning humility and finally accepting death.

This small book is poetical. Words grace the pages and read like a hymn.