Movies with Meaning, by Brent Marchant, TGMN Movie Correspondent

How Perseverance Makes the Impossible Possible

For some of us, there’s no stopping when it comes to seeing through on a mission of vital importance. The circumstances compel us to continue, no matter what challenges, obstacles and odds are against us. And, even if we can see that, there’s something driving us that won’t let us pull back or stop. So it was in 1938, when a mild-mannered but dedicated English stockbroker selflessly kept forging ahead with a plan that many saw as doomed to failure, a story chronicled in the new, fact-based historical drama, “One Life” (web site, trailer).

In 1987, at the age of 78, retired businessman Nicholas “Nicky” Winton (Anthony Hopkins) was looking back on his life with decidedly mixed feelings. He was living a comfortable life with his wife, Grete (Lena Olin), in the idyllic market town of Maidenhead, England, not far from London. But, despite his marriage to a loving wife and the impending arrival of a grandchild, he was noticeably unsettled and often distracted.

Over the years, the written records of his life and work had piled up in his home to such a degree that there was almost no available space in his study. In some ways, he had almost become a hoarder, a subject of concern for Grete. And, because of this and his scattered, often-anxious demeanor, she had come to believe that there were unspoken aspects of Nicky’s past that were troubling him and that he was unwilling to address. She finally gave him an ultimatum to clean up his office when she was about to embark on a trip out of town, a task that he undertook begrudgingly and with a certain amount of dread.

So what was making Nicky so mysteriously angst-ridden? In recent times, he had been reflecting back on an audacious project he launched in 1938, a time when the winds of World War II were beginning to blow with ever greater force. And, as he began to sort through the voluminous papers in his study, this action brought the memories of that time flooding back to him, almost as if he were reliving that time of his life all over again.

At that time so many years ago, Nicky’s younger self (Johnny Flynn) began work on a plan to help children flee Czechoslovakia as the threat from Adolph Hitler’s Third Reich began to intensify. Shortly before he undertook his mission, Germany “annexed” the western Czechoslovakian region of the Sudetenland, an appeasement proposal that Britain, France and Italy believed would help to forestall war on the continent. However, these European powers were duped by the German dictator, and this annexation was the first step toward the Nazi invasion of the country and the eventual onset of open conflict.

When this annexing occurred, countless refugees (many of them Jewish) fled the Sudetenland into still-sovereign areas of Czechoslovakia, most notably the City of Prague and evacuee camps on its outskirts. But this mass flight to freedom put a strain on the nation’s resources, and hopes for helping escapees leave the country grew progressively dim. Indeed, how could these individuals make their way to safety? And how could they be ignored?

Outsiders, such as members of the British Committee for Refugees from Czechoslovakia, both on the ground in Prague and back home in London, sought to provide assistance, but the deck was stacked against them. However, when Nicky heard of their plight, he couldn’t let himself stand idly by. He felt compelled to travel to Prague to get involved, jeopardizing his career and possibly his life. As a descendant of German Jewish ancestors who fled their homeland in the run-up to World War I, Nicky believed he had to act, no matter what the cost might be, as events began to escalate, threatening the well-being of so many innocent people.

Once in Prague, Nicky saw the deplorable conditions of the camps, where refugees were starving and becoming susceptible to devastating illnesses. He believed that something had to be done to alleviate their suffering. Even if he couldn’t get the adults out of Czechoslovakia, he was determined to come up with the means to aid the children. But, despite his zeal to accomplish this, he was facing an uphill battle, and his BCRC colleagues, Trevor Chadwick (Alex Sharp), Doreen Warriner (Romola Garai) and Hana Hejdukova (Juliana Moska), didn’t offer much hope. What’s more, despite Nicky’s Jewish ancestry, he was strongly cautioned by a Prague rabbi (Samuel Finzi) that he should not attempt to undertake something he couldn’t finish, words that rang in the young humanitarian’s head at the time and for many years thereafter.

Specifically, Nicky’s collaborators were convinced that the organizational efforts required to launch the evacuation program were unmanageable. The organizers faced resistance from a reluctant British bureaucracy, intolerant prejudicial attitudes at home and difficult border-crossing obstacles in their attempts to arrange protective train transport across Europe to secure the safety of the young refugees. But Nicky would not allow himself to be deterred.

He set about developing plans for the evacuation on the ground in Prague, interviewing escapee candidates and their families and developing lists of those in the greatest need of assistance. At the same time, he contacted his mother, Babi (Helena Bonham Carter), back in London to intercede on his behalf with British government officials. Even though she was concerned about Nicky journeying to Prague in the first place, she quickly came around to his way of thinking when he explained his reasoning, a rationale based on the experience of their own immigrant ancestors. Nicky also knew that she could be quite headstrong and persuasive when needed, so he believed that she was the perfect homeland-based spokesperson to make his case to English officials, many of whom he believed were dragging their feet when it came to the plight of Jewish Czech refugees.

The tireless work of Nicky and his Prague-based colleagues, along with the steely determination of his mother, paid off. Over the course of the next year, they managed to secure freedom for 669 children, most of them Jewish. In many respects, he became the English counterpart of Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg and German industrialist Oskar Schindler, both of whose comparable efforts saved the lives of thousands of Jews. But, for as much as Nicky and his peers accomplished, years later, he felt guilty that he was not able to do more, especially once the war began with Germany’s invasion of Czechoslovakia and attack on Poland in 1939. This remorse weighed heavily on him, even 40 years later. And his efforts at cleaning up his home study only served to remind him further of what he perceived as his “failures.”

However, while doing his long-overdue housekeeping, Nicky’s fortunes and outlook began to change. The story of the British effort to assist the young refugees – although a big deal at the time it took place – had largely been forgotten by the 1980s. And, along with it, the humanitarian work of Nicky and his colleagues had been lost to time as well. However, while going through his papers, Nicky came across a scrapbook left to him by his peer Trevor, a document that chronicled the work of the BCRC, including the names of those who benefitted from its benevolence. During a meeting between the elder Nicky and another of his colleagues from his Prague days, Martin Blake (Jonathan Pryce), he showed his friend the scrapbook, who believed that the forgotten story needed to be revisited and remembered. It was a meeting that would change Nicky’s destiny, one that finally helped him realize what he accomplished – and that would finally give him the peace he had been looking for and the recognition he deserved.

Tackling massive undertakings like the one Nicky Winton envisioned often poses daunting challenges. Where does one begin with a project like this? The planning alone can seem overwhelming. In this case, Winton and his colleagues had countless logistical considerations to overcome, such as arranging transportation across Europe at a time when traveling was becoming increasingly difficult due to passage restrictions, document requirements and closed borders in occupied areas. Then there was the challenge of securing sufficient numbers of valid travel visas, documents that were becoming scarce and going for a premium. Since the children would be relocating without their parents, the planners of this exodus had to find enough volunteers in England who would be willing to foster the young arrivals, not a particularly easy task given apprehensions about the country being flooded with a wave of new immigrants, many of whom came from ethnic backgrounds that faced tremendous prejudice (and a government that wasn’t always particularly sympathetic to their circumstances). And, of course, all of this took money, a resource that was difficult to raise at a time when the Great Depression still had the world in its grasp. Indeed, how could all of this be overcome?

There were no readily available answers to any of this. Yet Nicky and his cohorts saw a need that desperately had to be fulfilled – somehow. So, armed with little more than their convictions, they pressed on in the belief that they could accomplish their goal. And understanding that is crucial to how they got the project under way. Their beliefs were all they had to work with, but these intangible resources proved to be powerful tools for organizing, launching and carrying out this effort. Their belief in their ability to find a way to make things happen would fuel their work, creating the means to achieve their goals. They may not have heard of this school of thought, but, based on what they ultimately accomplished, they certainly understood how to draw on its power to realize their objectives.

Fundamentally speaking, Nicky and his colleagues had tremendous faith in achieving the outcomes they sought, an underlying belief in itself that supported all of the other notions they developed and came to rely on. This foundation thus provided them with the basis to devise the practical means for bringing their plan to life.

For instance, given the restrictions they were up against, Nicky and his peers had to get creative in coming up with innovative ways to amass the tangible resources they required and to generate the public and government support needed to bring their plans to fruition. In particular, this called for them to manifest ways to overcome the limitations they faced, a quality that, of necessity, had to be incorporated into all of their undertakings, as well as the beliefs supporting them. Likewise, they had to draw attention to their efforts, especially back in England, to raise funds and to get the ear of those in officialdom, efforts that called for comparable measures of limitation-liberating creativity.

Considering the scope of the work involved in this, Nicky and the members of the BCRC also had to put considerable stock into their beliefs related to cooperation and collaboration, all aimed at carrying out the practice of co-creation. This was apparent through the joint efforts of the volunteers on the ground in Prague, as well as those who kept the initiative alive in London. This is perhaps best exemplified in the film by the tireless work of Babi in generating attention in the press and twisting the arms of government bureaucrats to get the ball rolling. She was also instrumental in raising much-needed funds for the program and in finding foster parents to care for the children upon their arrival in England. Without these beliefs in dedicated teamwork, there’s no telling whether the initiative would have turned out as successfully as it did.

Then there was the oppressive matter of overcoming one’s fears. Those based in Czechoslovakia faced the encroaching and ever-growing threat of the Nazis overrunning them and their efforts, a menacing influence that continually hung over them and left them with a constant sense of uncertainty. Danger was everywhere at that time, even before Germany invaded the country, necessitating the prudent practice of perpetually keeping an eye over one’s shoulder. In light of this, it was imperative that those working on the refugees’ behalf develop firm beliefs in courage and determination to get them through their daily routines. Not only was this important to keep them focused on and committed to their work, but it was also essential to prevent their efforts from falling through. As a form of belief in itself, fear can undermine one’s manifestation plans, and, under the conditions depicted here, that could have had the potential to affect the volunteers both individually and in their collective undertakings, in each case with potentially disastrous consequences.

Fortunately, Nicky and his colleagues were able to come up with the right mix of beliefs, intents and actions to attain the results that they did. And their impact was reflected not only in the lives of the 669 children they saved at the time, but also years later in the families that they would go on to raise in the safety of the UK, a number estimated at approximately 6,000 refugees and their descendants. As a result of this, Nicky accomplished more than he may have realized – and had nothing to feel guilty about. He believed in what he wanted to do, and he did it.

Winton’s earnest efforts to aid those in need is truly an inspiring story. Director James Hawes tells a compelling tale in his debut feature film, detailing the lengths that Nicky and his volunteers went to in realizing their goal. This is largely made possible by the powerful performances of Hopkins, Flynn, Bonham Carter and a host of supporting players, along with fine period piece production values. Regrettably, though, this release could use some much-needed shoring up, especially in the film’s sluggishly paced, overly talky and occasionally meandering opening half. The picture’s back end, however, considerably makes up for these deficiencies, evoking genuine, well-earned, heartfelt emotions, qualities that could have made for a better offering overall if they had been employed more fully earlier on. “One Life” ultimately delivers a message that we could all stand to hear more often, not only in supporting monumental undertakings like those depicted here, but also in being giving of ourselves in general, no matter how great or small the efforts or ventures might be. The world would certainly be a better place for doing so – and for the work of the Nicholas Wintons that reside within all of us. The film is currently playing theatrically.

Taking on the seemingly insurmountable may be so imposing that we automatically turn away from such tasks without a second thought. But, when we consider the stakes involved, can we really do so in good conscience? That was the choice that Nicholas Winton had to face when deciding whether or not to assist the Czech refugees facing certain tyranny if nothing were done. He chose to get involved, a decision that showed him just how much could be accomplished when backed by the belief that the impossible could truly be made possible. Thanks to the commitment and perseverance of this courageous individual and his peers, thousands of lives were ultimately spared – and there’s indeed much to be said in favor of such dedicated efforts, a lesson we can all learn from.

A complete review is available by clicking here.

New Movies for April

Join yours truly and show host Frankie Picasso for looks at six new films, as well as a glimpse at a new film festival, on the upcoming movie review edition of the Frankiesense & More video podcast, to begin airing Thursday April 18 at 1 pm ET. Tune in on Facebook or YouTube for all the fun and lively discussion!

Questioning the Validity of Entrenched Beliefs

Adjusting to new outlooks that override established beliefs can be difficult for some of us. We’ve become so entrenched in certain ways of thinking that it’s hard to embrace new ones. We may not understand the revised concepts, either because they’re too radical or esoteric for us to grasp or because they’re not explained in easily comprehensible ways, perhaps too vague or too overly intellectualized. Or we may simply be unwilling to adopt such new thoughts because they make us feel uncomfortable. But, then, there are also those who take to them readily, either out of curiosity or an undeniably instinctual awareness. Those are the notions that surface in the new, fact-based biographical and sociological drama, “Origin” (web site, trailer).

It should be noted up front that the narrative of this unconventional film is somewhat intricate, one that requires concerted viewer attention and can’t realistically be treated casually to fully appreciate it. In taking on this ambitious project, writer-director Ava DuVarney tells a complicated story, largely from the personal (though somewhat fictionalized) biographical perspective of an author as she seeks to write a book with some enlightening new views about significant sociopolitical concepts that challenge established beliefs. It’s a combination that might seem somewhat unusual and unlikely at first glance, but, when taken in its totality, nevertheless presents a compelling watch that’s likely to evoke profound thought and leave a lasting impression, one that might even change our ways of how we look at the composition of society.

The central figure in this saga is journalist and author Isabel Wilkerson (Aunjanue Ellis Taylor). At the film’s outset, she’s promoting a book that took her years to research and write, but, after working on such a prolonged undertaking, she’s ready to spend some time attending to personal matters, such as caring for her aging and increasingly feeble mother, Ruby (Emily Yancy). However, before being able to catch her breath, she’s approached by her friend and New York Times editor Amari Selvan (Blair Underwood), who asks Isabel to write about the recent death of Trayvon Martin (Myles Frost), a 17-year-old African-American man who was killed by an overzealous White neighborhood watch volunteer. Selvan contends that there’s ample compelling material to draw upon to write such a piece and makes an enthusiastic pitch in which he says she’s the perfect candidate to tackle such a project. Isabel turns him down, however, citing her need to address the personal issues in her life, but the prospect of taking on such an assignment naggingly lingers in her mind.

Isabel proceeds to get her mother set up in senior housing, but thoughts of writing about the Martin case continue to gnaw away at her, particularly in terms of the deeper implications of the incident. She regularly confides her feelings about this possible venture to her cousin, Marion (Niecy Nash-Betts), and her loving and supportive Caucasian husband, Brett (Jon Bernthal), as well as Ruby, who’s quite outspoken about the outcome of this tragic episode. She’s also approached about taking on this assignment by a book editor (Vera Farmiga). All of which serve to further fuel Isabel’s interest in the subject. It seems that writing about this kind of racial and social injustice just won’t leave her alone.

Not long thereafter, a series of tragedies occurs, leaving Isabel devastated and unsure of her future. Ironically, though, she finds renewed purpose in her life through her writing, taking on the task that has been steadily nudging her forward for some time. As she begins looking into this emotionally charged subject, however, she comes across some surprising revelations that further stoke the fires of her interest – and her commitment. Isabel begins to discover that, when it comes to incidents like the Trayvon Martin killing, there may be more behind them than just the racial prejudice typically associated with them – and that the problem may go deeper – much, much deeper – than she or anyone thought. Thus begins Wilkerson’s odyssey to write a book that would go on to have sweeping racial, social and cultural implications, including ramifications extending beyond American society, spanning the globe and time frames reaching far back into history.

As the film unfolds, it follows Wilkerson as she explores her subject and seeks to explain its components in the book she would eventually write. She starts with a basic question: Why do different segments in society face more prejudice and ridicule than others? In viewing this question from an American perspective, she observed that such distinctions have historically been believed to be based almost exclusively on racial considerations. However, in examining the experiences of other cultures, she found that the same kinds of prejudice and ridicule existed there, too, but are (and typically have been) based on defining traits other than race. To be sure, the impact of these conditions in those cultures is and has been comparable to that of the American experience, but why is it based on race here and on other considerations there? Indeed, if the bottom line is essentially the same in both cases, how could race account for these results in the US when it isn’t a factor elsewhere? That realization intrigued Wilkerson, and it served as the springboard in writing her book.

As examples of this hypothesis, Wilkerson looked at the historical experiences of Jews in Nazi Germany and at the historical and contemporary experiences of India’s “Dalit” (“untouchable”) community. Both the Jews and the Dalits suffered under their oppressors, but, racially speaking, there were no discernible differences between them and their persecutors. In Germany, both the Jews and the Nazis were almost exclusively White, while, in India, both the Dalits and the members of other segments of society were almost exclusively Brown. So, Wilkerson postulated, if race really was the supposed defining trait responsible for the prejudice and ridicule inflicted on the oppressed, how could those atrocities have occurred in its absence?

To bolster her argument, Wilkerson examined the findings of other researchers in the US, Germany and India in the past and present. For example, she looked at the studies of African-American researchers Elizabeth and Allison Davis (Jasmine Cephas Jones, Isha Carlos Blaaker), who lived in Germany during the rise of the Third Reich before returning to the US to collaborate further with Caucasian investigators Mary and Burleigh Gardner (Hannah Pniewski, Matthew Zuk). Through their work with the Gardners, the Davises discovered that there were many parallels between what was happening in Germany and the US when it came to prejudice and ridicule, even though race was not a common denominator in both instances.

Wilkerson also conferred with Suraj Yengde Ph.D (playing himself), an Indian scholar who has risen to prominence despite having been raised under the discriminatory pressures of the Dalit community. He cites the experience of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar (Gaurav J. Pathania Ph.D), who was born in the Dalit community but managed to combat the prejudices against his people, fighting for their rights and eventually becoming India’s first Minister for Law and Justice, an uphill battle considering his background.

It took quite an effort for Wilkerson to wrap her hands around all of this material to find the commonalities. But, when she boiled it down to basics, she found that the discrimination experienced by African-Americans, German and European Jews, and India’s Dalits was not fundamentally attributable to matters of race but, instead, to matters of caste. In all three of those cases (as well as in countless others around the world cited in passing), the oppressed underwent persecution as a result of artificially imposed societal distinctions that were derived from differing defining characteristics, be it race, ethnic/cultural/spiritual backgrounds, or class distinctions, among others. But none of these experiences were attributable to the same trait in all instances. Rather, they arose as a result of qualities defining the inherent nature of their respective stratified societies, with the treatment that one received depending on the caste layer from which one emerged.

Those findings were ultimately documented in Wilkerson’s 2020 best-selling book, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents. This treatise outlines how caste systems arise, what makes them work and how they’re perpetuated, regardless of the defining traits on which these systems are based. And the film explores these notions in detail, showing how they become so embedded in society that we often don’t recognize their presence, taking them for granted and superficially attributing their existence to the defining traits in and of themselves and not on the underlying premise upon which they’re all based, regardless of what prompted their origin in the first place.

To some, this might sound like unexpectedly heady material on which to base a film, and that argument admittedly has some merit. However, it also gives us pause to think about what we believe about the nature of our society – why it is the way it is, why it persists as it does and what underlies its continued existence, considerations we generally might take for granted without a second thought. And it’s important to recognize those considerations, because they feed directly into the beliefs that we hold about ourselves and our society at large, elements that contribute to its nature, perpetuation and receptiveness to change, for better or worse.

This is important to recognize in light of the role that our beliefs play in the manifestation of our reality. It’s not clear how many of us are aware of this school of thought, but, when we consider its fundamental principles – especially those related to how we fuel them with our thoughts, beliefs and intents – it becomes obvious what a powerful notion it is, particularly when imbued with the backing of our collective input. This makes potent collaborations possible – even on a society-wide basis – truly impactful acts of co-creation.

One need only look at the examples cited here and in Wilkerson’s book. They illustrate the outcomes that arise from widespread, widely held beliefs about “how things are” or “how they are supposed to be.” Because of the considerable belief power being fed into these conceptions, it’s no wonder that they have tremendous fortitude, persistence and resilience, not to mention resistance to change, especially when their true nature is purposely obscured or skillfully camouflaged. It enables those who wish to subjugate a particular caste to do so with impunity, often for enduring periods of time and with the unwitting backing of those who are unable to recognize that such actions are transpiring, simply because they’ve bought into the conventional wisdom (and the prevailing beliefs driving them).

Sadly, this is illustrated in the film through the heartbreaking story of young Al Bright (Lennox Simms), a gifted little African-American boy from Youngstown, Ohio, who was not allowed to celebrate with his teammates at a picnic and pool party when his Little League team won a local championship in 1951. He was the only team member who was prevented from joining in the celebration, simply because he was Black. He was forced to sit outside the pool fence and watch with sympathetic teammates bringing him food. And, when others boisterously protested his exclusion from the festivities, he was reluctantly allowed to to “participate” by being pulled around an emptied swimming pool on an inflatable raft by a lifeguard, provided that he didn’t touch the water. (So much for the liberalism of the North.)

However, this is not to suggest that these manifestations are unchangeable, especially once we become aware of the true nature of the beliefs driving them. Awareness of what drives them makes them more receptive to change. And that’s a crucial objective underlying this film and its source material. By awakening the unaware to concealed beliefs and what they’re being used to materialize – in this case, the existence and nature of the caste system itself in all of its various permutations – we have an opportunity to change the nature of the game, which, in this instance, could have significantly beneficial implications.

This is apparent in the film, for example, through what Dr. Ambedkar was able to accomplish. Being able to rise up from the so-called “untouchable” class to assume one of India’s most prestigious administrative positions is quite an accomplishment, one that theoretically shouldn’t have been possible on the basis of one’s caste designation (at least according to the conventional thinking and prevailing social beliefs at the time).

This is also illustrated here by the relationship of August Landmesser (Finn Wittrock) and Irma Eckler (Victoria Pedretti). They lived in Germany during the days of the rise of the Third Reich. She was Jewish; he was not. Before they met, August was a member of the Nazi Party, but, after he met Irma, out of his feelings for his beloved, he turned his back on the fascists. He even supposedly went so far as to refuse giving the mandated Nazi salute at a mass gathering, an illegal act of defiance that was captured in a now-famous photograph. Circumstances didn’t turn out well for him as a result of his brazen insolence, but Landmesser planted a seed that would sprout later, showing that it’s possible to stand up to caste-based social orders in need of change – and that beliefs are indeed alterable to bring about much-needed reform.

“Origin” also shows how we can use our beliefs to set ourselves in new directions personally. Isabel was at a low point in her life when she undertook the writing of her book. She knew she could not stay locked in despair and had to find a way to get her life back on track. Her belief in the need to shed light on the foundations of institutionalized prejudice and ridicule became important enough to her to take meaningful action on the subject, a conviction that rejuvenated her and led to the research and writing of Caste, an eye-opening work that has given us much to ponder, especially in these troubling and polarized times. Let us hope we hear her message and employ it in reshaping our society for the future.

Those who unconditionally believe that race alone is the cause of social prejudice should probably give a serious look at this release from writer-director Ava DuVernay. Best known for her superb historical drama “Selma” (2014), the filmmaker’s latest examines how organic prejudices are actually a worldwide phenomenon that may or may not have anything specifically to do with race. While the picture primarily examines this issue from an American perspective, it also addresses the dictates of caste employed elsewhere in which race was/is not an inherent issue. Admittedly, the multiple story threads involved in the narrative and the way in which they’re organized could have used some tweaking for greater clarity and smoother connectedness, and the author’s theories could have stood to be presented a little less overly intellectually at times. However, in the end, the movie’s themes successfully come together to create a captivating hypothesis that we’d all be wise to consider seriously. What’s more, the depiction of Wilkerson’s personal story is filled with a series of strongly emotive moments that are sure to tug heartily at the heart strings, so keep the hankies handy. In addition to the superb portrayal by Taylor, the film also features an array of fine, small-role supporting performances from the likes of Underwood, Whitrock, Farmiga, Frost and Simms, as well as a cameo by Nick Offerman.

“Origin” was a late entry in the field of awards season contenders, with support from numerous Hollywood heavy-hitters, including JJ Abrams, Ryan Coogler, Guillermo del Toro, Colman Domingo, David Oyelowo, Steven Spielberg and Oprah Winfrey. There were also high hopes that it would garner some noteworthy recognition, though, unfortunately, it failed to receive any nominations in the major competitions. Moreover, the picture failed to gain much traction at the box office and among critics, despite high praise from some notable reviewers. However, this is definitely a worthwhile, thought-provoking watch, and, thankfully, it’s now available for streaming online.

This is one of those films where it’s easy to walk away from it with mixed feelings. On the one hand, the revelations exposed here could well make one sad for the needlessly sorry state of the world. But the picture also provides a deeper, more insightful understanding of what’s fundamentally wrong with humanity, providing us with a key that just might help us find our way out of the current social morass with a solution that could potentially help us finally fix things for good. As they say, knowledge is power, and the clarified awareness to come out of this film could help lead us to new levels of comprehension and compassion, elements we could certainly use in abundance these days.

A complete review is available by clicking here. 

Copyright © 2024, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.