homeschool – Page 4 – Homeschool Mom Movie Mavin – Type "AUDIO" into the search box for AUDIO version. And remember…EDUCATION DOESN'T HAVE TO ALWAYS COME FROM A BOOK

LAUGHING AT DAD: HOW BACK TO THE FUTURE IS WELCOME COUNTERCULTURE TO THE MEDIA PROPAGANDA THAT DISRESPECTS THE FATHER

At the conclusion of Back to the Future George's new found self-respect in 1955 cascades down to his family, instilling in them a respect for themselves, their family, their own lives, and for George all the way into 1985.

Before Marty's intervention, George was a punching bag – literally and figuratively – for Biff. And that malevolent dynamic followed him into adulthood, destroying his confidence and self-respect – until Marty gave him the chance and incentive to fight back. But self respect does not have to be beaten out of a man. It can be leached out, bit by bit, (paraphrasing Shakespeare) through a thousand unnatural cuts by the very people who are supposed to love and support him. In short – if you want a good leader, you must be prepared to be a good follower. This doesn't mean if your trailblazer does something wrong or stupid one shouldn't address it. But it must, even then, be done with a sense towards building up, not tearing down. But the media today revels in every opportunity to tear down or trivialize the institution of fatherhood.

If you want to undermine someone or something you can use the simple expediency of laughing at it – or him. Gone are the days of

Father Knows Best, Make Room for Daddy, and My Three Sons – all comedies, none took life too seriously and even Dad was occasionally the source of some humor. But it was gentle and respectful, showing that Dad is human and prone to mistakes like the rest of us, but generally demonstrating the importance of Dad in the family. Today the best you might get are shows like Tim Allen's Home Improvement, where Dad is there and involved but pretty much looked at more as one of the kids, but certainly not an especially strong authority figure. And when something goes wrong – who do they blame? Good old Dad. More the kids' pal than their father, he is seen, in today's society, as having all the responsibility but none of the ability to back it up. Kind of like an ill-treated babysitter who is given unruly kids to watch and rules to observe but none of the allowance to discipline which might make establishing some order possible.

Two of the more grotesque and iconic examples of media anti-family propaganda in the guise of entertainment are Married With Children and The Simpsons. Even though the fathers in those shows (Al Bundy in the former and Homer Simpson in the latter) are: married to the mom, faithful, employed, not abusive to their families, not alcoholics or drug addicts, they are shown to be completely idiotic and to fault for the poor upbringing of their children, financial insecurity and lack of social mobility. BUT does it not occur to anyone watching that the woman is not blamed for not stepping up to the plate, for redefining what is arguably a bad family dynamic and socio-economic situation? And, no, I'm not reading too much into these kinds of comedies.

How do you demean, or minimize a person or situation – you laugh at it. When the Dad is regularly the unkind butt of the joke then that diminishes the office of fatherhood. That's not to say that there isn't a LOT of room for humor in any family structure. And a perfectly legitimate sense of fun can be infused into the concept of fatherhood. There have been quite delightful comedies about Dads: the now classic Steve Martin version of

Father of the Bride, the recent

Mom's Night Out, the very charming indie

Chef, just to name a few, all treat fathers and fatherhood in a comic fashion but do so with a sense of respect and appreciation.

BUT, if a strong leader, good father, trailblazing partner is not your cup of tea — if you WANT to create a weenie George in your life – just laugh at him enough. That’ll do it.

Next Up – The Judge – Duvall and Downey, Jr Exchange Heroically Tough Love

Credits for photos in order: collegehumor.com, amazon.com, imdb.com, imdb.com, collider.com, collider.com, thelastalphamale.com, wikia.com

WHAT DO THE SOUND OF MUSIC AND THE KINGSMAN HAVE IN COMMON?

The Sound of Music – this classic iconic tale has children, singing, nuns, the hills of Austria and nuns – did I mention it has nuns? The Sound of Music story hinges on Maria bringing the family Von Trapp back together after the father steps out of the lives of his children following the death of his wife. The solution, if you note, is not the arrival of Maria, but the recommitment of the dad back into the children's lives. Even when Maria leaves in the middle of the movie subsequent to her becoming aware of her infatuation with Captain Von Trapp, the family is fundamentally healed because the Captain has retaken the mantle of father. Maria's return is the icing on the cake but her return is not essential to the children's ultimate well being.

Kingsman: The Secret Service could not be more in contrast. British comedy drama. Over the top semi-spoof, semi-homage to the spy thriller. Extremely violent, full of profanity. Not a nun to be found. Yet here too the theme plays out. Eggsy is the teen son of a deceased member of an elite secret squad of spy/troubleshooters. In the first 5 minutes of the movie his father is killed in the line of duty. When Eggsy's future mentor, Harry Hart (Colin Firth) brings the news to Eggsy's mom, Eggsy is a young child. Nice middle class home. Sensible widow. Fast forward 17 years and the sensible widow is now a slutty co-dependent case book definition of abused woman in a destructive relationship, living in a tenement with Eggsy and her illegitimate child of the live-in abusive boyfriend. Without the Dad – disaster. Eggsy will eventually step up to the plate but only after Harry has provided Eggsy with the desperately needed father figure.

Two movies with drastically different audience demographics. One's a family-oriented, religiously devout musical, the other a futuristic, somewhat dystopian, occasionally sexually crass, graphically violent action flick. (I'll let you figure out which is which. LOL) If you created a Venn diagram of people who would want to see either movie, you would have an intersecting sliver with little more than a tangent line connecting them. (OK – I've seen both but, then I watch a LOT of movies.) You really cannot get much more of a contrast between styles than Sound of Music and Kingsman. The only thing they share superficially is the fact there are British accents in both. But both share, unexpectedly, the EXACT same world-view on the family – that there is no real family without a strong father figure.

How is that relevant? Well, my point here is that there seems to be an instinctive understanding, even in film makers who do not have sensitivity for conventional morals, that a solid father figure, such as Captain Von Trapp in SoM and Harry in Kingsman, who has the best interests of the youth in their care, is vital to the well being of those young people. That a mom, while nice to have around, is NOT the lynch pin that a family should depend on. Sorry ladies. And I am the mother of six.

Next Up: Back to the Father – Part VIII: Laughing at Dad

Photo credits: theguardian.com, fansshare.com, and imdb.com

MARY POPPINS AND THE PACIFIER

By and large, ideally, the most structurally sound family has a strong man at the helm. Strongly principled. Strongly spiritual/ethical. Strongly faithful. Someone who has a vision of growth and protection for those entrusted to him.

When was the last time you watched Mary Poppins? At whom is this movie aimed? Who is it that changes at the end? Who is it who makes the enormous character arc which defines the movie and his family? Well, let's see. His wife, Gwen, is a suffragette – frittering away her time while her children are being raised by nannies. George is a workaholic man who spends so much time at his office he barely knows his children and certainly doesn't understand their interests in kite flying or feeding birds. When George has his epiphany and presents his children with the mended kite, Gwen's contribution of her sash for the kite's tail is a clear indication that the dad has, once again, redefined the family's direction for the better – towards unity and putting their marriage and children above his career or her hobbies.

(Quick quiz: can you name the famous American singer/hoofer/actor who played the British chimney sweep Burt? Hint – had his own rather famous show named after him for years.)

The Pacifier was a movie about a bunch of kids whose father was a never-home scientist. The kids were kind of slackers and whiners. The father then is murdered for a secret invention and Vin Diesel's character is an agent assigned to protect them while the mom goes on assignment to aid the government in deciphering the clues her husband left. Diesel, never married and no kids, takes on the job of organizing the kids. It's a very funny "man becomes sudden 'Dad'" scenario. One of my favorite scenes is when the teenaged boy objects to being woken at 6 am and refuses to get up, Diesel, one handed, picks up both boy and mattress, flipping them effortlessly to the ground. (Reminds me of our tussles getting the kids up for morning mass. LOL) By the end of the movie, because Diesel's character steps into the role that even their biological father didn't, the kids blossom.

Next Up – What do The Sound of Music and Kingsman have in Common?

Answer: Dick Van Dyke. HIs show was, appropriately enough, The Dick Van Dyke Show which ran from 1961 through 1966, not counting the re-creation of it in 1971 and the reunion in 2004 of the surviving members of the original cast.

SORRY YOU DIE HARD FEMINISTS, BUT THE FATHER MAKES OR BREAKS THE FAMILY

"As the king goes, so goes the kingdom," recognizes Arthur in Excalibur.

OK —— I LOOOOVE knowing that my core principles are often politically INcorrect, so, "fellow" girls, try not to get your panties in a wad over the following. Think now – did Lorraine, when George was kind of a weenie, emerge as a stalwart career woman – harried but carrying on? No, actually, her life was destroyed and she was rendered ineffectual and pathetic. It's funny how, no matter how liberal and feminist minded Hollywood claims to lean, they actually GET IT. They understand on a basic fundamental level that it is the husband, the father, who makes or breaks a family.

Now there is no offense intended to single women families – women whose husbands died or abandoned them. My grandmother was a single mom who brought up her three children and struggled through the depression singlehandedly after her husband, my grandfather, died. I also have two friends who lost husbands to early death and soldiered on to raise their children alone.

To me those lone moms are heroes: keeping their families intact, earning a living, being the backbone of their children's lives all the while dealing with grief, loss of income, and spiritual challenges. But is that the way they WANTED it to be? My mother, to the day she died, mourned the fact she did not have a father while growing up. He died when she was 12. I have other friends who are mothers today, divorced, widowed, or alone in other ways. They persevere – and I respect them and thank God every day I did not have to raise my children without a stalwart husband at my side. But is that what these single matriarchs prefer? Do they find now that their husbands were irrelevant luxuries? Not the ones I know.

But what does the media try to convince us that they believe: that men are as useful to women as a bicycle is to a fish, thank you Gloria Steinham. Have you SEEN the shows Married with Children and The Simpsons? The fathers are — well, wastes of space would not be an overstatement, even though they stay with the family and continue to provide for them.

The mantra today is that women do not need men. Women's Lib, government welfare, commercials, movies, songs and TV shows attempt to treat the Dad as jokes – useless, unneeded baggage, or worse: alcoholic, abusive and better off gone. When in fact, if you watch closely, even in the media entertainments which denigrate the father, it is the Dad whose personality informs the family he creates.

A good father/husband, even when gone, leaves a legacy of strength. A bad one leaves his mark too, whether on the moral character, religious faithfulness, work ethic, or respect for the law. And this reality is reflected in the movie media, even seemingly against their own will, to trivialize the very person, for better OR worse, whose personality will primarily shape the persona of the children and wife either in their care or that they leave behind

Mary Poppins and The Pacifier

A NEW POST – A NEW LEAF

In both the reference to a movie of the same name, and as an analogy for the fact we are taking a break from the ongoing much longer blog about Back to the Future and fatherhood —–

We interrupt this multi-post on Back to the Future to bring you – as John Cleese might say – something completely different.

I would venture to say that most, if not all of you, have never heard of the movie A New Leaf. Penned, directed and starring Elaine May, co-starring the iconic Walter Matthau, this is a small budget film made in 1971 based upon the short story, The Green Heart, by Jack Ritchie. The protagonist, Henry Grahame, (Matthau) is a self-absorbed, self-indulgent aristocratic heir who runs through his family fortune until, in his late thirties finds himself without friends or fortune. There is only one person in the world who cares anything about him, Harold (the delightful singer and Shakespearean theatrical actor, George Rose), Henry’s valet, who sums up the basis for his loyalty to Henry in this one speech: “How many men these days require the services of a gentleman’s gentleman? How many men have your devotion to form, sir? You have managed, in your own lifetime Mr. Graham, to keep alive traditions that were dead before you were born.”

Of course, Harold tempers this with the warning that if Mr. Graham continues to be poor, he immediately tenders his two week notice.

Henry quickly realizes that, for him, there are only two options: suicide…………….or marrying rich. With Harold’s aide Henry embarks on a quest to find a rich widow or single heiress who would be tolerable to his refined tastes and isolated ways. He soon discovers that while there are MANY candidates, he can’t stand any of them…until he finds the least suitable one of all. An extremely wealthy but ugliest of ugly ducklings. Shy, socially awkward, clumsy, naive, gullible – she is everything Henry would NOT want in a mate, aside from the money. However, it suddenly occurs to him, she would be quite easy to —— murder.

So begins the courtship and honey-murder, I mean —moon of one of the most charming little comedies I have ever seen. It is ultimately a film about the power of love, redemption and poetic justice, but told in the singularly most UN-conventional and UN-sentimental way I have ever seen demonstrated.

I REALLY am not going to spoil this one for you. You have to see it……if you can. It is quite hard to find and after much searching I located a copy on VHS.

But if possible, I recommend this movie as one of my all time favorites. This movie would be appropriate, with parental supervision, for even younger teens. Henry is quite chaste. There is very little profanity and no sex. Henry’s SOLE vice is avarice. The only questionable moment is when one socialite attempts to seduce him and Henry, in a breathtaking moment of humor, literally runs screaming from her.

Walter Matthau is at his finest in a brilliant example of miscasting gone right. Aside from Hello Dolly, I can’t think of a less appropriate vehicle for Matthau. But – as in Hello Dolly – he is such an amazing actor that he pulls off the deliciously arrogant and thoroughly self-centered Henry while making him – somehow – adorable.

Elaine May is perfectly terrific as the totally INcapable Henrietta Lowell. Vulnerable, dependent, socially oblivious and educated to the point of being a blithering idiot in everything except her one field of interest – botony – May creates a child-like character who is both endearing and extremely annoying at the same time. You come to understand why Henry would consider killing her yet dread her disappearance. May is probably not familiar to too many. She made her biggest mark with Mike Nichols as half of an improvisational comedy duo and did a good deal of stage work. She was in only about a dozen films, including a teensy part in The Graduate, wrote only 10 screenplays and directed only four movies, the last mostly because of her tendency to go way over budget. As an aside, one of her directorial efforts was Ishtar, the biggest financial flop in history at that time.

But she did manage to produce A New Leaf – this beautiful blossom of a movie.

THE FATHER AND FATHER FIGURE IN BACK TO THE FUTURE

Continuing our background on BTTF, Marty is friends with one Emmett Brown, (Christopher Lloyd) local brilliant eccentric inventor. Doc has no family and Marty has no father to speak of. Their friendship is quite touching as Doc is Marty's substitute father figure, but it is ultimately not enough.

(Quick quiz: Did Lloyd and Fox, who had such amazing chemistry together in this trilogy, ever reunite to act together again?)

Fast forward to the end of the movie. Marty has changed everything by getting George to punch Biff while defending Lorraine. George's show of courage by standing up to whom he was most afraid – Biff – has informed the next 20 years of his life, making him a financial success, an inspiration to his children, and even a published author in his spare time. Their two oldest children are confident professionals. And Lorraine has blossomed into a lovely vivacious athletic woman, truly in love with her husband and her life.

The Father Makes or Breaks the Family

(Answer: Yes: Spin City in 1999 and The Michael J Fox Show in 2014. Full disclosure, I have never seen either show but found this info on Wikipedia.)

BACK TO THE FUTURE – LORRAINE (BACKGROUND REFRESHER FOR FUTURE BLOG)

As Lorraine (Lea Thompson) recounts when she fell in love with George, there is a moment of surprisingly deep pathos.

(Quick quiz: This is possibly the best work Ms Thompson ever did. Can you name how many distinct but necessarily similar parts she plays in the course of the trilogy?)

Biff has just brought back their family car in a wreck, intimidated George into doing his office work for him, leers at Lorraine, then departs. George takes his mind off everything by watching an old rerun of Jackie Gleason at the rickety kitchen foldout that serves as the family dining room table. She gazes at her husband and recounts, for the umpteenth time to her three ignoring children the story of how she fell in love with George when they were teenagers. George laughs mindlessly at a TV show. She winds up the overly familiar story with, "…and that was when I realized I was going to spend the rest of my life with him." The loss of their wasted life together etched into the pathetic expression on her face is heartbreaking.

(Answer: In order of appearance: SIX – Middle-aged pathetic Lorraine, young vivacious Lorraine, middle-aged blossoming Lorraine, Elderly Lorraine, Middle-aged BUXOM pathetic Lorraine, Western Lorraine/Maggie. Each has their own individual personalities. Each of the Lorraines, while the same character, are different in the way they move, react, use body language, speak. Middle aged buxom pathetic Lorraine has a raspy alcoholic voice and moves in the halting way you might expect of someone used to dodging blows. Western Lorraine/Maggie is Irish and moves with confidence and dignity but a healthy sniffy suspicion to the young intruder, Marty. You get the drift. Thompson does a truly magnificent job making all the Lorraines alike but different. And yes, there is no real reason that Marty's mother should look like his great great … great? grandmother Maggie unless we are to believe that her family and the McFlys have been intermarrying for generations, which would make Lorraine not only Marty's mother but a distant cousin … but we'll let that one go.)

The Father and the Father Figure in Back to the Future

BACK TO THE FUTURE – GEORGE (BACKGROUND REFRESHER FOR FUTURE BLOG)

SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT

I don't like to give spoilers, but in a review of this kind for teachable moments it is often necessary. Most movie goers have seen the first BTTF, if not the entire trilogy of this rather brilliantly conceived and virtually flawlessly executed time travel/coming of age comedy. The consistency and seamlessness with which Zemeckis has interwoven the characters, story and time travel itself can be the subject of another article.

(Quick quiz: What other Zemeckis film dealt with a fatherless boy who becomes a hero, bringing everyone around him UP against very steep obstacles? Hint: not exactly time travel but the actor character was inserted, by movie magic, into seminal historical film footage.)

But, just for those who need a refresher: In the original time line, George is a cowardly geeky doormat. George is taken advantage of by the school bully, Biff, as a teen, and then still abused by Biff when both are adults and co-workers. Biff gets George to do his homework then office reports, advances over George's footprint tattooed self-esteem, wrecks George's car, and lusts after his wife, Lorraine. Lorraine, a former prom queen type, is now a chubby lush who drinks whisky from an 8 ounce tumbler like it was iced tea. We learn more about the details of how they met and the sparking for her infatuation later in the movie but suffice it to say that Lorraine married George because she felt sorry for him and had futile hopes that he would grow into a knight in shining armor.

Next Up: BACK TO THE FUTURE – LORRAINE (BACKGROUND REFRESHER FOR FUTURE BLOG)

Answer: Forrest Gump

THE REAL HERO OF BTTF

Hang onto your knickers girls. I'm not into political correctness. As a matter of fact, for any of you who have any respect for the N.O.W. gang – you should probably sit down.

(Quick quiz: What year did the first BTTF come out?)

I'm also not into brevity but I AM into being entertaining as well as informative. So I hope you enjoy this tribute to Back to the Future……..

Not all educational moments are for children. This one is for the moms, more particularly wives — or even just women in general. Do you remember Back to the Future – the story of the fairly cool Marty – played by Michael J Fox – who comes from a very dysfunctional family, accidentally goes back in time, inadvertently keeps his parents from falling love and getting married, and puts his own existence in jeopardy? The rest of the movie is about Marty trying to fix this. But have you ever considered that, while Marty is the titular hero, and I suppose he is in a way, that everything really pivots, not on Marty, but on his dad – George?

(Answer: It's the 30th anniversary this year. I remember seeing it with my Dad at the movie theater. Boy do I feel old.)

Up next: Refreshers

Ree/eal Life – THREE THROUGH FIVE OF FOUR REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD WATCH MOVIES — WAIT?! WHAT?

REASON NUMBER THREE OF FOUR

Another reason movies are fascinating and why you should watch them is that they compress experience into condensed versions of that REAL life to which my husband alluded in the previous posts. In a well made movie nothing happens except that which forwards the vision/theme/goal of the film. One of the basics of screenwriting is: if it does not forward the motion of the plot then, even if it is a really good scene, cut it. It's called "killing your darlings". A painful but necessary process. If you have a story about a baseball pitcher, then having a long interlude on how his wife reconfigured the family recipe for orange muffins may not be in the best interest of the story, no matter how cute or well written. You want to stick to the thread of your idea and not wander too far off the trail that will get you from Point A to Point B. Films are not the lengths of real lives (though I have sat through some that were so dull they SEEMED to be closing in on that long). They are, by and large, a maximum of 120 minutes. So getting to and staying ON topic is pretty essential to good story telling. As a result, often what you see is fairly intense – intensely felt love affairs, exciting car chases, pivotal incidents in an otherwise mundane person's life, watershed moments, historic turning points. The rest is left on the cutting room floor. What you see in REEL life is a purer, or at least concentrated, experience than what you would normally have in REAL life.

REASON NUMBER FOUR OF FOUR

Another reason I find movies worth the time is that watching a protagonist or antagonist face a decision gives you an opportunity to test your own mettle – what would you do in that situation? Of course, you do not personally have the vested interest of stepping into a boxing ring, or racing from an exploding volcano. But if the film maker has any skill at all and you are the least bit cooperative in the effort, he will help you become emotionally invested in the scenario: Will the guy admit to the girl he loves that he is the biological father to over 500 children? Will the Olympic champion have the moral courage to refuse to run on Sunday? Will the man step into an apparent abyss to save his father's life based solely on the instructions written in his father's diary? What would you do in each of those cases? Would you: Admit? Refuse? Step forward? (Quick quiz: name each of the movies those scenarios come from, answers below.)

Now while it is unlikely one would face ANY of those specific situations, we likely WILL be asked to choose between: admitting a hard truth or adopting an easy falsehood, deciding on something we want versus God's Will, going forward with something that frightens us for a loved one or turning your back in fear. Were they clever? How did they work that courage up?

We are all interested in how others face challenges. Family stories of Grandpa's fishing expedition or how a cousin approached a job interview or how your best friend proposed to his girl can be the inspirations to how you will face your own challenges. Movies help expand our pallet of experience. And getting an opportunity to preview that issue, to get a good example or observe a horrible warning are helpful REEL life exercises running up to the REAL life lessons we will face.

REASON NUMBER FIVE OF FOUR ……WAIT??!!…WHAT?

That's four reasons there. But are there any others? Well – yeah! Of course!!! Because they are darned FUN! They make us laugh, cry, jump in fear and shiver in admiration. The best of them can make us proud to be American, thoughtful about the weaknesses of being a human, awe struck by the power of God or the capacity of people to be selfless. They can also take us out of ourselves for a while to offer us perspective or simply a vacation from our daily stresses. Or they can reinforce the importance of the simplest most mundane actions of decent people.

These are some of the reasons movies are important to me and why I think you should watch movies. But the impact – long and short – they can have on our attitudes, our psyche or even our children's dreams are why it is important – as one of the characters in the quick quiz warns – to "choose wisely". See you at the movies!!!!!

Answers: Starbuck (story stolen by Delivery Man), Chariots of Fire, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

And — FYI, the caution to "choose wisely" comes from the knight of antiquity in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. But you'll have to watch it to find out why.