Interview: Nati Baratz of ‘Unmistaken Child

Posted on July 2, 2009 at 8:00 am

As they have for hundreds of years, a Buddhist monk goes on a journey in search of the “unmistaken child” who is the reincarnation of his master. The quest is unchanged in its goal and its procedures. But this time the monk is sporting a very modern backpack, traveling in part by helicopter, and the journey is being filmed by an Israeli documentary film-maker.

I spoke to that film-maker, Nati Baratz, as he was traveling through the United States to talk about the film, “Unmistaken Child.”

Tell me how this project came about.

Back in 93 I fell in love with Tibetans, especially the people, and I felt a moral responsibility about the suppression by the Chinese. I went home to study cinema and I wanted for a long time to make a film abut Tibet, to bring to the audience the experience of the culture and the qualities. The Tibetans have this happy nature, they are calm and non-violent and they have developed a lot of wisdom over thousands of years. Most of all, they have this endless commitment to benefit others. You can read about it but to experience it is different. The Buddhist culture is the best thing I have found in my life until today. It is not formal but I am connected to it, more Buddhist than anything else, more than my Jewish background.

And how did you decide on this particular story?

I wanted to make a film about a hidden Tibetan tribe. In the course of this I went to Nepal and joined the meditation to deepen my understanding of Tibetan Buddhism. There I heard this talk about the life of the master who had just died. The lama Tenzin Zopa touched me with his huge heart when he asked us all to pray for the swift and unmistaken return of his master. I knew this is the movie I have to make.

Do you believe in reincarnation? Specific, individual reincarnation of the master’s spirit in one unmistaken child? Do you want the audience to believe in it?

That is a tricky question. I want people to contemplate and think, not just experience the film but engage with it. I tried to challenge the viewer. You see one part of the film and the child looks holy, in another he looks like a normal child. I want to make the audience decide for themselves. That idea is connected to Buddhist teaching. They should not believe anything you say but should examine by themselves.

How long did if take?

It was a 5 ½ year film-making. I moved with my wife and two year old daughter to India, just to give you an example of my commitment. It was great for her to live in the monastery and to play with the reincarnated child. It was tough on my wife but she had a great experience. We were really fortunate that they agreed to allow us to enter into the most private and hidden part of their life and tradition.

How did you get their cooperation?

I told him I am not a formal Buddhist but I have a strong commitment to the Tibetans amd really want to make this movie. It was a chance to show the world the qualities of the master. The Dalai Lama is famous and so many people are benefiting from it. It is not a problem to be famous, it is what you make out of it.

I had to ask permission from a very senior lama. It was a three month journey that really tested my patience and insistence. I passed an astrology check. And it took Tenzin quite a while to really trust me. They are monks so they are not used to the camera, they are modest. He is an amazing example. For me, all the reincarnation is just a narrative motor to have enough suspense and interest in the film to experience Tenzin’s journey of maturity, from a servant to a leader, bringing the treasure back home to the Tibetan people.

As the father of a two-year-old while you were filming, how did that affect the way you portrayed the family asked to give up their two-year-old?

I tried to give an intimate and close look at the story to give people the option to experience a different way of thinking. When the parents give up the child, this is the most touching part of the film for me, because they do it for the benefit of others. It is very inspiring that people give up their most precious thing for the benefit of others. That is what makes the film a feature-like experience. It is a documentary with an amazing character on an amazing journey that is very spiritual, a transformation.

Related Tags:

 

Documentary Interview
The Parents We Mean to Be:  How Well-Intentioned Parents Undermine Children’s Moral and Emotional Development

The Parents We Mean to Be: How Well-Intentioned Parents Undermine Children’s Moral and Emotional Development

Posted on June 25, 2009 at 8:00 am

Many thanks to Richard Weissbourd, author of The Parents We Mean To Be: How Well-Intentioned Adults Undermine Children’s Moral and Emotional Development, for giving me permission to post this thoughtful conversation about parents, children, and what does and does not work in teaching integrity, judgment, and compassion. I especially appreciate his insights into the way that loving and devoted parents sometimes unintentionally send mixed signals that undermine the messages we most want to communicate.

NOTE: A portion of this interview appeared first on the Harvard Graduate School of Education’s website.

Tell us about the title of your book. Why should we be concerned about the well-intentioned parents?

We often focus on the small number of parents who have clearly lost their moral compass. But the problem is much larger. Lots of us, in ways that we tend not to be aware of, can imperil our kids’ moral development. Our research uncovered, for example, that many parents are narrowly focused on their children’s happiness and believe that happiness and self-esteem are at the root of morality. We may be the first generation of parents in history who hold that belief. We think that a child who feels good–and who feels good about herself–is more likely to be good. Historically, parents have thought that suffering, burdens, and sacrifices were an important basis of morality–that through suffering children learned empathy. And in many day-to-day ways, we as parents place our children’s happiness above their caring about others. We are too quick to let our kids write off friends they find annoying. We fail to insist that they return phone calls from friends, or give credit to other children for their achievements, or reach out to friendless children at the playground. Or we fail to interrupt our children when they talk too much when they’re around other kids or adults.

You explore in your book how the pressure to achieve can damage moral development. How so?

We’ve all heard stories about out-of-control parents driving their children to achieve. We interviewed the parents of one high school junior in a school outside New York City who had set up a vocational school in South America so that their daughter could write in her college application that she had started a school in a developing country. But the bigger problem is more subtle. Many of us have unacknowledged fears about our children not achieving at a high level. And because of these unrecognized fears, many of us are quietly organizing our children’s lives around achievement and sending inconsistent and hypocritical messages to our kids. The kids we interviewed talked about these hypocrisies. Kids would point out, for instance, that their parents would tell them they don’t care how much they achieve and then pay jaw-dropping amounts of money for SAT-prep courses. When parents tell teenagers to achieve at a high level so they “can have options,” teenagers sniff out that their parents are talking only about certain options–it’s not really okay for them to be beauticians or firefighters, for example. These hypocrisies undermine us as moral mentors. We should make achievement for our children one theme in the larger composition of a life, and we need to understand our own feelings better so we can have more authentic conversations with our children about their achievements.

You write that parenting should be more public. What do you mean by “public parenting”?

When it comes to what is arguably the most important thing we do–raising moral children–American parents tend to be isolated and dangerously insulated from the feedback of people who may see their parenting most clearly: other parents. Parents are reluctant to interfere in the lives of other families, even when they suspect a neighbor of actually abusing a child. (And of course the wrong kind of feedback can simply anger and humiliate another parent.) But what to do when a friend or sibling is clearly spoiling a child, or making him or her miserable by being crazed about the child’s achievement? In some countries it is routine for parents to give each other feedback. The challenge is to change the culture of parenting so this kind of feedback is expected and the norm. One way to change the culture is for us as parents to invite this feedback. Every parent should, for example, create a kind of “contract” with at least one other trusted parent outside the family–a promise to provide feedback if they are concerned about a parenting practice that might be harmful.

You have a hopeful message about adults’ moral development. What’s that message based on?

In the United States we tend to think that our moral qualities and values are fully formed as adults. Yet the reality is that every stage of adult life can bring new moral strengths and weaknesses, and that these changes have profound consequences for children’s moral growth. “There is nothing noble in being superior to somebody else,” the civil rights leader Whitney Young said. “The only real nobility is in being superior to your former self.” Parenting can spur either great moral growth or regression–think of the large number of fathers who abandon their children. We send a smug and false message to our children when we suggest that morality simply arrives with adulthood and that all they have to do is imitate our moral qualities and values. If we parents work at it, we can greatly increase our own capacity for fairness, caring, and idealism, and our developing morality will be deeply interwoven with our children’s developing morality.

You talk about the perils of parents’ being too close to their children. Why is this risky?

On the whole, I think it’s great that more parents want to be close to their kids. What concerns me is that some parents, based on their own needs, come to idealize their kids and their relationships with their kids. I have talked to parents who find in their relationships with young children exactly what they have always craved: another human being who gives them undivided attention, who overlooks or easily forgives their flaws, who is entirely reliable and trustworthy–and they come to worship and depend on their kids for emotional sustenance. But this kind of idealization makes it hard for parents to discipline their kids, and for kids to idealize their parents. Yet children idealizing parents is key to children adopting parents’ values. Such parents also have a great deal of trouble separating from their kids in adolescence and nurturing their children’s independence, with damaging consequences for children’s emotional and moral development.

You write that too many parents act like therapists. What does that mean?

Parents sometimes try to safeguard children’s well-being by closely monitoring feelings and moods. Some parents may repeatedly ask their children how they are feeling or remark on their moods: “You must be feeling tired,” “That must be frustrating for you,” “That must make you sad.” We rightly want our children to be able to understand and articulate their feelings. But this kind of constant monitoring can cause children to dramatize their feelings, and they often find it intrusive and alienating. It’s like pulling a bandage off a wound every five minutes to see if it is healing. Some parents also play the roles of parent and therapist at the same time. They tell their five-year-old child, for example, that it’s time to leave the playground, and then try to discuss the child’s angry feelings. But it’s confusing for children when a parent is being both a parent (a legitimate object of anger) and a therapist (someone who is “naming” or analyzing the feelings of anger), and it can prevent children from working through their anger toward us.

You write about the “morally mature” sports parent. Why do you think many parents are immature, and what can be done about it?

While a great deal of media attention has been trained on reckless parents and coaches at children’s sporting events, many of us as parents and coaches, if we are honest with ourselves, get far too wrapped up in these events and fail to model for children a basic respect and responsibility for others. I remember realizing that whether my child’s hit slipped by the shortstop or was caught might affect my mood for days, and being furious at a perfectly innocent eight-year-old child who kept striking out my son and his teammates. Sports consultant Greg Dale coaches parents to be alert to other classic signs of their overinvestment, such as saying “we” won or lost the game, regularly occupying dinner conversations with talk about children’s sports or planning family vacations around sports events. Some of us get bent out of shape at these games, of course, because we are looking to our kids to fulfill our fantasies, or because of our competitive feelings toward other parents. But there are many other reasons.

Children’s sports can stir up old childhood wounds and yank us back to old childhood battles–peer and sibling rivalries, difficulties with authority, painful experiences of unfairness and mistreatment, struggles with shyness and self-assertion. For some adults who experience their lives as monotonous, children’s sports can provide an eventful, compelling plot, with their own child as a central character.

You explore the moral strengths of black children and immigrant children. What are those strengths, and how do they differ from those of other children?

In the book I make two main points about race and ethnicity. First, there are great differences in parenting practices, as well as in the obstacles children face to becoming good people, across race, economic class, and culture. It’s vital to understand those differences, because for too long we have tried to apply the same solutions, the same generic prescriptions, to markedly different problems. The challenges to becoming a good person are not the same, for example, in the tony white suburbs of New York as they are in low-income black neighborhoods in Chicago or the Mexican barrios of Los Angeles. Second, popular images and stereotypes have obscured the strong or exemplary moral qualities of many poor children and of immigrant and African-American children across economic classes. Immigrant kids, in their first years in this country, are faring better than American-born kids on almost every moral and academic measure. Immigrant kids are not a threat to American culture, as many people argue. American culture is a threat to immigrant kids. Our research also suggests that African-American kids have moral strengths that have been obscured by the stereotypes. Many white children describe black children as more honest, less hypocritical, more independent-minded, more willing to assert their views, and as less concerned about popularity than about respect in comparison with their peers. Parents across race and class have a great deal to learn from each other about raising moral children.

So what should we do to raise moral children?

Morality is comprised of many attributes–courage, honesty, kindness, a sense of justice, moral reasoning, etc.–and there are many different ways that adults can promote these qualities. We can model appropriate moral behavior, help our children register kindness and unkindness in the world around them, define clearly their responsibilities toward others, listen responsively to their moral dilemmas and questions, hold them to high moral standards, and develop in them from an early age the habit of attending to and caring about others. We can do much more to emphasize kindness rather than happiness–rather than telling our kids all the time that the most important thing is that they’re happy, it wouldn’t hurt to tell them that the most important thing is that they’re kind.

But if I could give just one piece of advice to adults, it would be to focus not on children’s happiness or self-esteem but on their maturity. Maturity, including the ability to manage destructive feelings, to balance and coordinate our needs with those of others, to receive feedback constructively, to be reflective and self-critical–to fairly and generously assess our behavior– is the basis of both morality and lasting well-being. It is these capacities that enable children and adults to appreciate others despite conflicts of interest and differences in perspective, to adhere to important principles and to engage in sturdy, meaningful relationships and endeavors that create lasting self-worth.

Related Tags:

 

Books Interview Parenting
Interview: Rufus Sewell of ‘Downloading Nancy’

Interview: Rufus Sewell of ‘Downloading Nancy’

Posted on June 4, 2009 at 3:58 pm

In “Downloading Nancy,” British actor Rufus Sewell plays the husband of a troubled woman (Maria Bello) who develops a tragic relationship with a man she met online (Jason Patric). Sewell often appears as smoldering, brooding characters and is perhaps most widely known in the U.S. for being the guy who treated Kate Winslet so badly in “The Holiday.”
If I were the casting director for this film, I think I might have asked you to play the other leading male role, the one played by Jason Patric.
And I’d have turned you down! I consider it’s my job to find what casting directors wouldn’t think of me for. People tend to think of me for the same thing but I’m not a type and it would be the wrong kind of type-casting based on parts I’ve played before. That is something I’m just bored with, but it is only in films that would make it across the pond. Here I’ve played a very wide range of characters and feeling comfortable doing so. The character in this film is very far away from what people consider me to be like. In many ways all of the characters are hard to get into the perspective of. People might not like him or empathize with him, but I could relate to him and feel sorry for his predicament.Rufus-Sewell3.jpg
Do you have to be able to have that kind of empathy with your character?
I could even say I didn’t like him but you absolutely need to be able to see through their eyes. You might think he’s making the wrong judgment, but he was not equipped to deal with the situation.
The reason I didn’t feel he was a bad guy is that all of the characters are damaged. The way I could see myself as him is someone who is in a situation with someone who is in a lot of pain. This is his only way to respond because he is ill-equipped. He is blaming himself. He may not be able to express his guilt but you can see how he feels. Everyone has the same store of feelings, they either get caught up inside or come out.
How do you introduce the character in a way that makes the audience forget their past associations with you?
I don’t worry about playing to a particular audience. Some people don’t want to see you a particular way but my responsibility is to myself and the work that I do. It is not any easier to play a good guy than a bad guy. And the only power I have is what work I don’t do. That keeps me from playing the same thing over and over again.
There are ways that this film is very of the moment because of the way the wife meets the other man online but the themes of failure of connection and communication are eternal.
That’s true enough of relationships with people in the same house.
What makes you laugh?
Pretty much everything. I laugh a lot! I find it funny when people think of me as brooding. If there’s one thing I’d like to get a chance to do, it’s comedy.
What is your training and how is it reflected in your process for creating a character?
I went to the Central School of Speech and Drama in London. It is a theater training school, but all drama schools are based in theater, basically it’s acting one way or another. I was there for three years. Coming from my background, artistic but not well-to- do, I had not met any actors. I didn’t know how to go about the business of becoming an actor. I was very, very interested in Stanislavsky and the Method and had read up on my own. I was always very interested in actors like Brando and Montgomery Clift and character actors like Charles Laughton, Anthony Hopkins. It was a far more practical training about getting up and doing it, being loud enough and physically free enough. I have always been very much into accents, too. I am musical and have a good ear, so always loved and had an ability to do accents. I found quite freeing, quite liberating, it concentrates all your tension in one area. When youre given a limitation, your imagination can fly.

Related Tags:

 

Actors Interview
Interview: Mike Nelson of MST3000 and RiffTrax

Interview: Mike Nelson of MST3000 and RiffTrax

Posted on June 2, 2009 at 3:58 pm

Michael J. Nelson is the former host and writer of the Emmy-nominated, Peabody Award-winning Mystery Science Theater 3000 and the author of the hilarious Mike Nelson’s Movie Megacheese. His witty commentary on movies is wildly funny but also very clever and perceptive. He spoke to me about his website, RiffTrax, where you can download his commentary to play along with your own or rented DVDs and upload your own to share with everyone else. He was every bit as much fun to talk to as I hoped.

How did you got started being snarky?

It came from watching movies. Midwestern people are almost by their nature snarky. And I came from a snarky family. My brothers and I always did that kind of thing, making smart-alecky comments about what we were watching. A lot of people do that but it falls away as you grow up and mature. My parents were very strict about bedtime, but they would put us to bed and then my dad would wake us up to watch some late night movie. My mom just rolled her eyes.

Did you get in trouble as a kid?

Well, someone once said, “Do you think you can make a living watching TV?” And I did!

What makes a movie a good candidate for comic riffing?

It has to take itself seriously. And it should probably have Keanu Reeves in it!

The main thing is that it is not boring. A lot of people don’t realize that truly bad movies are really boring and no one wants to watch them. There’s only so much that you can elevate with your comments. The baseline of entertainment has to be there. We’re enhancing and hopefully improving what is already there. I would have thought that sci-fi uniquely lends itself to what we do but if you carefully write something and work on it, it can be done on many different kinds of films. There’s subject matter that you can’t do but we’ve done dramas and other genres.

Are there actors you especially enjoy making fun of?

We’re big Patrick Swayze fans. We also give a lot of grief to Hayden Christienson — he didn’t take to the green screen acting very well.

Is there a movie that has such a devoted following that it can’t be riffed?

We did “Twilight!” That has both passionate fans and passionate detractors. A bunch of guys were dragged to it and wanted revenge on it in some way, to have us rescue it for them. The slow pace, and mopey, gothic overtones made it work — it became one of our fan favorites.

Tell me about RiffTrax.

It’s a full service comedy commentary site. We sell separate commentaries, video on demand, and shorts. People are constantly doing it themselves and wanted an outlet so we let people make their own and post them and compete with each other. That makes it possible for us to check out things we’d never do because the movie is too obscure for us. There are people out there who think we’re just picking on the mainstream and so they do films we’ll never get to.

We’ve been doing it for three years and it is growing. It has exceeded my expectations, and I’m especially happy to see so many younger people on the site. A goal would be to get a team of writers, people who want to do this. It is so much work. It takes so much time, we can’t quite keep up with the releases. A goal is to look at the uploaded tracks to see if there are people we can use, maybe get us close to doing all major releases.

Related Tags:

 

After the kids go to bed Internet, Gaming, Podcasts, and Apps Interview
Interview: Paul Newman biographer Shawn Levy

Interview: Paul Newman biographer Shawn Levy

Posted on May 27, 2009 at 3:58 pm

Movie critic Shawn Levy, author of the superb books King of Comedy: The Life and Art of Jerry Lewis and Rat Pack Confidential: Frank, Dean, Sammy, Peter, Joey and the Last Great Show Biz Party, has a new book about one of the most accomplished and adored movie stars of all time, Paul Newman. He very kindly made time for an interview in the midst of his book tour.

Q: Newman was one of those rare performers who become icons of their eras. What was it about his style of acting and choices of scripts that seemed so particularly characteristic of the post-WWII years?

A: He often played younger than he really was, like many actors, but it was particularly his casting as the failed sons of strong fathers in such films as “The Rack,” “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof,” “Hud” and, in a sense, “The Long Hot Summer” and “The Hustler” that cemented him as an icon. He carried the sensitivity of James Dean into a new era when the promise of a film like “Rebel Without a Cause” bled into mainstream and prestige films. He easily segued into rebel/countercultural figures starting in the mid-’60s (“Harper,” “Hombre,” “Cool Hand Luke,” “Butch Cassidy”). And because he was older than the characters he was playing (he was 38 when he made “Hud”), he also carried a savor of mature authority. He played, in short, equally well to both the establishment and the kids who threw mudballs at it.

Q: Is there a performance of Newman’s that you think is particularly overlooked or underrated?

A: His turn as the stage manager in the Broadway production of “Our Town,” which is available on DVD, is a classic bit of Americana. In movies, “Hombre” is tough and sullen and cool in a way you’d associate more with, oh, Steve McQueen than Newman. Both excellent films.

Q: What did he consider his biggest failing?

A: In acting, he felt he was too mechanical and calculating for the first 25 years or so of his career, and I think I’d agree. You see him pulling poses and striking moods quite deliberately even in such fine films as “The Hustler” and “Hud.” But later in life he ratcheted back and produced some astonishing performances. In life, I think he felt he was a very remote and arbitrary father until he reevaluated himself after the death of his son, Scott, in 1978.

Related Tags:

 

Actors Books Interview
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2026, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik