Movies with Meaning, by Brent Marchant, TGMN Movie Correspondent

Seeking the Cure for Dysfunction

An old saying maintains that we can pick our friends but not our family. But is that really so? It might seem that way at times, especially in situations where we struggle mightily to get along with them and put up with their annoyances and quirks. However, one could also contend that the individuals we incarnate with are present in our lives to help us learn valuable lessons in areas like cooperation and forgiveness. Admittedly, those often aren’t easy undertakings, but how else might we address these issues if by not being put through tests like these? Under such circumstances, we might simply have to just sit back and do our best to work our way through them, devising solutions that ultimately get us the wisdom we seek – and need. And that’s the point behind the multilayered story served up in the excellent new indie comedy-drama, “All Happy Families” (web site, trailer). 

As the film begins, viewers are greeted by the opening line from Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina (1878), an observation that sets the overall tone for the picture: “All happy families are alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” And, when it comes to the dysfunctional family portrayed here, that’s certainly the case – and in multiple ways at that. However, if one were to follow the author’s logic – that family happiness stems from everyone being alike, working together harmoniously and on the same page rather than at odds with one another – the potential for circumstances being very different is definitely there. The question is, can unhappy family members make the effort to bring this about? That’s the underlying theme that runs through this picture.

So who are the unhappy souls depicted in this story? They’re the members of the Landry family of Chicago, all of whom are “unsettled” in their own respective ways, fittingly reflecting the sentiment expressed in Tolstoy’s famous quote, both individually and collectively. And, together, they make for quite a patchwork of eccentrics.

• Out-of-work actor Graham Landry (Josh Radnor) has been unemployed for quite some time, and the few callbacks he receives generally don’t go well. To make up for this, he spends more of his time working on writing projects, a skill at which he appears fairly adept, even though it’s not really what he wants to be doing. When not writing (or lazing about), he tries to work up the energy to renovate the first-floor rental apartment of the two-flat in which he grew up and continues to live. But Graham isn’t especially handy, and both the unit and the building overall need quite a bit of work, as he finds out from Phil (Antoine McKay), a genial plumber who does his best to deliver the bad news (and helpful advice) in as affable a manner as possible. However, that’s small comfort considering the mounting expenses that Graham now faces.
• As Graham tries to sort out his challenges, he receives an unexpected visit from a surprise house guest – his brother Will (Rob Huebel), a television actor who has been considerably more successful at his craft than Graham has been. But his arrival is not particularly welcome; Will has returned to Chicago from Los Angeles in an attempt to escape the fallout of an on-set scandal in which he finds himself squarely at the center. Graham reluctantly offers him a place to hide out in exchange for help with the building renovation, but getting his brother to live up to his promise is nearly impossible with all of the burgeoning chaos that has followed him. Not only does the pandemonium involve the aforementioned scandal, but it also includes issues involving his teenage daughter, Evie (Ivy O’Brien), who makes an unscheduled appearance of her own on Graham’s doorstep. It’s been suggested that there’s no such thing as bad publicity, but, as Will quickly finds out, there’s definitely truth in another old adage that maintains “when it rains, it pours.”
• The household gets even more crowded when the brothers’ parents pay a visit to assist with the renovation, a gesture borne out of apparently good intentions but one that makes for more unexpected complications. The boys’ mother, Sue (Becky Ann Baker), has recently retired from her job and has plenty of time on her hands to help out. By contrast, their father, Roy (John Ashton), has to be coaxed into joining in the project for reasons that aren’t entirely clear but that apparently carry undisclosed secrets. Needless to say, these circumstances have prompted some tension between mom and dad. Sue is concerned about what Roy is hiding, and she’s become weary of the growing sense of complacency that he’s begun to exhibit. What’s more, Sue is wrestling with an issue of her own that arose at her retirement party at which her longtime boss, Jerry (David Pasquesi), made a highly inappropriate sexual advance toward her. Talk about a full plate.
• And, if all of this weren’t enough, Graham is in for yet another surprise when his first prospective tenant shows up to look at the apartment – and it turns out to be his old college flame, Dana (Chandra Russell), whom he hasn’t seen in years. Like Graham, her acting career didn’t pan out as hoped for, so she changed paths and decided to become a chef, a profession in which she’s still trying to establish herself. But, despite the passage of time, some of the old feelings between the two are nevertheless present, a development that throws Graham for a loop. He’s not quite sure how he wants to proceed, yet he invariably manages to mess up whenever he tries to impress her, particularly when it comes to showing off his innately woeful handyman skills. It seems he’s all thumbs when it comes to things other than his acting career.

These scenarios are quite a lot to handle by themselves, but, as the film unfolds, they often become intertwined with one another as well. What’s more, other figures become caught up in the fray, too, adding more ingredients to an already-jumbled recipe for disaster, including those contributed by Jerry’s wife, Maureen (Cassie Kramer); Evie’s mom, Claudia (Liz Cardenas); Dana’s boss, Aaron (Luigi Sottile); Sue’s former co-worker, Connie (Eliza Shin); a country music singer (Rodney Crowell); and a neighborhood bartender, LeAnn (Lena Drake). And, serving as a sort of de facto narrative commentator, there’s Olga (Natalija Nogulich), Graham’s nosy Eastern European next-door neighbor, who conveniently chimes in with her own brand of pointed but valuable insights just when they’re needed most.

To detail how matters play out would reveal too much, but, suffice it to say, the various story threads force the Family Landry into coming to terms with their respective challenges. It takes a lot to transform an unhappy family into a happy one, and these characters have their work cut out for them. But circumstances like these are not insurmountable when we turn to the truth as the means for sorting them out, even if it takes quite a boatload of it to make that happen.

The Landrys clearly have a lot to sort out for themselves, too, both individually and with each other, as well as with some parties outside the family. How they reached that point is not entirely apparent, but, based on what transpires in their story, there are some clues about the origins of these issues. And, in virtually every case, it comes down to their beliefs, an important point to recognize considering the role they play in the materialization of their existence. It’s unclear if any of the characters here have heard of this way of thinking (based on the circumstances, though, probably not), but, if they ever hope to straighten out their lives, they had better brush up on its principles and start putting them to use.

Based on the aforementioned clues, several recurring themes appear to be part of their beliefs. Perhaps most importantly, they drift through their everyday lives without paying much attention to them and the impact they carry. The family members seem to move from one incident to the next without giving much thought to the beliefs that inspired those events. As a consequence, they’re nearly always relegated to response mode when circumstances manifest in their lives. Granted, responses are indeed required in these situations, but, given that this appears to be the primary way they deal with their conditions, they’re always “catching up,” never getting out in front of matters. And that, unfortunately, lessens the chances of them using their beliefs to create what they want rather than simply relying on them to get themselves out of yet another jam. Is that really the way anyone would want to try and take charge of his or her life?

Consider the situations of the two brothers. Graham and Will both perpetually react to what happens rather than taking control over their destinies. Is it any wonder, then, that their lives aren’t turning out as hoped for? And this applies to both their individual circumstances, as well as their relationship with one another, a scenario in which they’re again relegated to reaction mode than proactive mode. One can’t help but wonder when they’re going to dig themselves out of this rut. But, if they don’t have the means for figuring this out in the first place, it’s easy to guess where their futures may lie.

Secondly, it appears that many of the characters are locked into a pattern of wishful thinking rather than realistic expectations, holding on to beliefs that don’t suit them and aren’t likely to get them where they want to be. This can be quite an impediment to one’s personal satisfaction and fulfillment, especially when their erroneously embraced beliefs prevent them from tapping into more appropriate intentions, those that align more closely with their true selves and are much more likely to take them where they should and want to be.

In Graham’s case, for example, he’s almost certainly not destined for a career as an actor, no matter how much he aspires to it. However, if he were to put more faith into his beliefs of becoming a writer, he may place himself in a stronger position with far greater potential for his future.

Likewise, Will seems to think that his success will always carry him through no matter what challenges may arise in his professional and personal life, but is celebrity (and his belief in it) enough to save the day? After all, a publicist can only do so much. He’s obviously created situations where he needs to take some responsibility for what has resulted, given that those materializations originated with him and his beliefs in the first place. But will he recognize the need for this, or will he continue to blissfully and blindly float through his circumstances in hopes that something will turn up? If that’s not wishful thinking, I don’t know what is.

A significant remedy for such conditions is to leave oneself open to alternatives, options that strip away limitations and provide possible answers to getting on with one’s life. There are influences that the characters can draw from, too, sources of inspiration that can help show them the way to effective solutions. Sue, for instance, can see that things aren’t right in her life, both in her marriage and in her dealings with Jerry, and she’s willing to step up to the plate and consider alternative options, setting a good example for those around her. The same is true for Evie, who’s having questions about her gender identity but isn’t afraid to examine possibilities that better suit her than the expectations that others may have summarily thrust upon her (smart kid). Then there’s Dana, who realized that acting wasn’t for her (despite her love of it) and refocused her beliefs on charting a new career path rather than holding out hope for something unlikely to succeed. Even seemingly casual, off-the-cuff observations, such as those offered up by Olga and Phil, can help provide direction on how to proceed (provided that their recommendations are listened to, that is).

Pursuing a radical change in focus can prove useful, too. Graham, for example, seems to have placed much of his attention on promoting his career, fostering family harmony and dutifully carrying out the building renovation. But what satisfaction have these activities afforded him? He seems to be continually burdened by them, never devoting much attention to what gives him any personal pleasure, something that undoubtedly has contributed to the ongoing Tolstoy-esque unhappiness in his life and family. Maybe Dana’s resurfacing is a way of changing all that, a development that he may have unwittingly drawn to him through beliefs with which he’s yet to fully get in touch. Perhaps further exploration of this possibility is what’s called for, a change that could have implications both in Graham’s life and, eventually, that of the Landry family overall. At the very least, it’s something to consider in light of how things have been going.

The big question that remains, of course, is, will the Landrys become one of those happy families that the picture’s title suggests? That depends on a lot, particularly recognition of the role that their beliefs play in their lives, making an effort to discover which particular intents are prevailing, ridding themselves of and rewriting those notions that aren’t working for them, and getting better in touch with the fulfillment they really want (and the beliefs that help make that possible). That sounds like a template for happiness in my view. And, even if the family members don’t always get along, that doesn’t mean they can’t work at trying to figure out how to put such a plan in place. That kind of harmonious cooperation can go a long way. If you doubt that, just ask Leo Tolstoy.

Movie portrayals of family life often leave much to be desired when it comes to authenticity (especially for offerings like those found on such outlets as the Hallmark Channel). So it’s genuinely refreshing when a film comes along that depicts these stories with honesty while being thoroughly entertaining at the same time. Such is the case with writer-director Haroula Rose’s second feature outing about a Chicago family going through a variety of difficult transitions that become ironically (and often hilariously) interconnected, all served up with sparkling wit and an excellent array of one-liners that are undeniable zingers but without being hurtful or nasty. The construction of the narrative and its accompanying screenplay are meticulous and economical, moving along with a steadily sustained pace and never getting bogged down by prolonged sequences that languish or lose their zest, much in the style of director Nicole Holofcener’s works. All of this is brought to life by a finely assembled ensemble cast, especially its five principals (Radnor, Huebel, Baker, Ashton and Russell) but also in its palette of intriguing, eminently well-chosen supporting players. What’s more, the film does a superb job in its depiction of Chicago’s people and neighborhoods, presenting an authentic look and feel of the Windy City, one that residents of the filmmaker’s hometown will especially relish and appreciate. “All Happy Families” is one of those offerings that aren’t widely seen (or made) anymore, but it’s one of the best I’ve screened in a long time.

This cinematic charmer has primarily been playing the film festival circuit, such as at the 2023 Chicago International Film festival, where it made its debut. However, the picture is headed into limited theatrical release on September 20, with on-demand streaming to begin in October. The picture has been warmly (and deservedly) received by audiences and critics, earning a number of festival awards and nominations. Be sure to look for it.

No one ever said family life is a piece of cake, as many of us can probably attest. Making things work when there are different and potentially contradictory agendas in play can be nearly impossible. And, of course, there can be other diverse considerations involved based on relationship dynamics and longstanding family history. But maybe that’s the inherent challenge, to see what can be created out of such seemingly disparate elements. The results may surprise us in the end, bringing us unforeseen happiness that we hadn’t expected or even thought possible. And what a joy that would be. 

A complete review is available by clicking here.

New Movies for September 

Join yours truly and show host Frankie Picasso for looks at four new films and a few other surprises on the upcoming movie review edition of the Frankiesense & More video podcast, to begin airing Thursday September 19 at 1 pm ET. Tune in on Facebook or YouTube for all the lively chat and movie fun!

Ode to a Cinematic Dynamic Duo 

 

In the annals of filmmaking, few cinematic collaborations can match the accomplishments of Merchant Ivory Productions, the brainchild of producer Ismail Merchant and director James Ivory, whose work together yielded a prolific 43 movies. While perhaps best known for such iconic period piece offerings as “The Bostonians” (1984), “A Room with a View” (1985), “Maurice” (1987), “Howards End” (1992) and “Remains of the Day” (1993), the duo was also responsible for many other releases primarily filmed in the US, the UK and India, often with the participation of a “family” of regular contributors, including screenwriter Ruth Prawer Jhabvala and composer Richard Robbins.

The duo’s work is now showcased in this insightful documentary, “Merchant Ivory” (web site, trailer), from director Stephen Soucy. The film features contemporary and archive interview footage with this team of iconic creatives, along with numerous movie clips and the observations of various crew members. It also incorporates conversations with a stellar lineup of actors featured in their productions, including Emma Thompson, Anthony Hopkins, Vanessa Redgrave, Hugh Grant, Helena Bonham Carter, James Wilby, Rupert Graves, Samuel West and James Fox. It all makes for quite a loving tribute to their work.

However, this offering goes beyond presenting a mere litany of accomplishments, providing an in-depth examination of the sensibilities that characterized this team’s output and the back stories of how these productions came into being (often on shoestring budgets and under rigorous, sometimes-contentious filming conditions). The film also looks at the personal lives of its two principals, who were romantically linked as one of the movie industry’s first gay power couples at a time when such relationships weren’t looked on with the same degree of tolerance and acceptance that’s in place today. What’s more, much of this material is punctuated with a healthy sprinkling of wry wit, providing viewers with many laugh-out-loud moments, a quality not often seen in documentary releases.

Fans of these tremendous talents are sure to enjoy everything that’s on offer here, while those unfamiliar with their work can savor an excellent introduction to one of the movie industry’s formidable creative teams, as well as an array of film classics well worth seeing. In an age where cinema has been experiencing its share of letdowns, it’s heartening to see a showcase for the repertoire of what truly great filmmakers are capable of, giving avid moviegoers hope that this is not a declining artform but one that’s innately capable of great accomplishments, one that we can only hope will be sustained and revived through the work of artists inspired by the likes of this immensely gifted duo.

Film Festival Season Is Here!

   

It’s that time of year again – film festival season! Even though some events have already been held, this is the time of year when festivals kick into high gear. I’ll be attending two of my favorites in coming weeks, including Reeling: The 42nd Chicago LGBTQ+ International Film Festival, to be held theatrically and virtually from September 19 to October 6, and the 60th Chicago International Film Festival, to be held October 16-27. I also recommend the 33rd Annual St. Louis International Film Festival, to be held November 7-17, an event that I attended several times in the past. Festivals provide an excellent opportunity to see a variety of films, including some that may not be available for screening any other way.

If you’re an avid cinephile in the Chicago area or will be visiting the city during the aforementioned festival dates, consider checking out the great screenings at these events. And, if you can’t make it in person, look for my wrap-up blogs about the films I watched and what I thought of them.

Coping with the Nature of Change

Change often carries a cost. At the same time, though, it’s also frequently accompanied by unexpected rewards. In either case, however, we may not recognize what’s coming, what it might entail and how it could affect us. What’s more, a lack of awareness of what’s unfolding can place us in a seriously compromised position, leaving us unable to determine how to respond. So what are we to do then? That’s the dilemma posed to a working class family (especially its primary breadwinner) in the engaging new drama, “Mountains” (web site, trailer).

When an established community (and its associated culture) begins to disappear, its constituents (particularly those who come from an immigrant background) start to experience a palpable sense of passing into oblivion. At the same time, however, some of the residents of those neighborhoods are faced with the dilemma of having to ask themselves, “Am I part of the loss or part of its cause? And, in either case, how do I deal with the outcome and my role in it?” Those are perplexing questions, to be sure, and answers are often elusive, making it difficult for those caught in the crossfire to determine a course of action.

Such is the case for Xavier (Atibon Nazaire), a structural demolition worker who resides in Miami’s Little Haiti neighborhood with his wife, Esperance (Sheila Anozier), a crossing guard and dressmaker, and his adult son, Xavier Jr. (Chris Renois), an aspiring stand-up comedian who works a day job that he almost never discusses. Xavier relishes the good money he’s making from his work, a position that provides him with many opportunities for pulling down bundles of cash. He’s contemplating using those funds to purchase a small but nicely renovated house that’s recently gone on the market, one that’s not particularly elaborate but that definitely represents a step up from his current residence. In many ways, it’s an embodiment of the American Dream, something that many first-generation immigrants – like Xavier and Esperance – aim for.

But will the couple get a shot at fulfilling their ambition? The reason why Xavier is getting so many opportunities for work is that Little Haiti is rapidly and aggressively becoming gentrified. Nearly every home that’s put up for sale is subsequently being bought up and hastily torn down to make room for new upscale development. Ironically, though, Xavier has trouble seeing past his paycheck. He either can’t or won’t acknowledge the impact that this trend (and, consequently, his job) is having on the nature and continuity of the community. It’s almost as if he’s blind or indifferent, even with the appearance of the changes all around him, such as those raised in local radio reports and conversations with immediate and extended relatives at a family party. Discussions of these emerging changes come out in detail, but Xavier conveniently looks the other way – that is, until the impact of these developments begins hitting closer to home, giving him a lot to think about, both in terms of what may be happening and what, if any, role he may be playing in it.

His growing awareness of the shifting character of his community, in turn, prompts him to assess other aspects of his life. Did he make the right decision coming to America? Once here, did he pursue his hopes and dreams, or did he just stick to doing what he needed to get by? Does he now regret the choices he made, especially when he sees Junior making a concerted effort to follow a different path than he did? But what if his son fails at what he’s doing – will he befall a fate not unlike his dad?

In addition, these changing circumstances prompt Xavier to contemplate the future of his community. What will they mean for his family, friends and fellow countrymen? Will the distinctive and vibrant culture of Little Haiti become lost to time? And will the long-held prejudices inflicted on those of Haitian descent endure, saddling those of future generations with some of the same indignities that their forbears suffered?

The biggest concern for Xavier in all of these areas is, what, if anything, can he do about it? Can he make a difference? Or will he, too, be swept away in the flood of change? These probably aren’t the kinds of questions that he thought he’d be asking himself when he left Haiti and at this point in his life. Indeed, as he approaches the second half of his life, what is he to make of it? And what will it be like for him, Esperance and Junior going forward?

In devising responses to circumstances like these, it’s crucial to examine one’s beliefs, for they determine how matters will ultimately play out, given that these intangible resources are chiefly responsible for such outcomes. However, that may be challenging in a scenario like this, especially if one is unclear about what those beliefs actually are to begin with. If someone, like Xavier, is uncertain whether he is a victim of, or a part of the cause of, such a situation, it’s difficult to decide what to do, as these results are each governed by a different set of underlying beliefs. What’s more, determining one’s beliefs can be particularly problematic for those who are fundamentally unaware of this way of thinking: How can one respond to a particular set of circumstances if one is unfamiliar with how it arose in the first place? That can be more than just a little puzzling, to say the least.

Even with a vague sense of what might be transpiring in a situation like this, it can still go unresolved if conflicting beliefs are involved. If someone believes that he or she could be both a victim and an instigator of such circumstances, the result could be a stalemate, one in which an overarching feeling of paralysis is in place. Indeed, how could one move forward toward resolution with an inherent contradiction such as this holding sway?

For much of Xavier’s story, these conditions are firmly entrenched. He occasionally experiences some vague passing moments of awareness that something is going on, but certainty about its nature is far from in place. So how can he reconcile these circumstances for himself?

Clearly, Xavier needs evidence of what’s truly afoot, and this starts to become apparent through the synchronicities he draws to him, the seemingly tailor-made “coincidences” that miraculously appear in his world and offer insights into what’s occurring. These “signs” serve as guideposts to give him hints as to what’s transpiring and the direction in which his unfolding existence is heading. They’re meant to help shed light on what’s happening, to capture his attention so that he can get a more definitive picture of the emerging nature of his reality. And, one would hope, those clues can also help to illuminate the nature of his beliefs, as well as how to define and react to them and their resulting physical manifestations. That’s particularly true where, as here, conflicted notions are in play; such enhanced, enlightened lucidity can help him to decide what’s most important to him, spotlighting what deserves greater attention in reconciling his internal conflict and thereby guiding the external outcomes arising from that inner resolution.

The aforementioned synchronicities take a variety of forms, too: conversations and media reports related to community changes, a growing preponderance of for sale signs on neighborhood properties, and unsolicited telephone calls from strangers asking about whether Xavier’s current home is up for sale, among others. Individually, these developments may not seem especially significant in and of themselves, but, when considered collectively, they begin to form a pattern, one in which all of these seemingly unrelated occurrences show a connection to one another – and, in this case, one indicative of the fundamental changes taking place in the neighborhood.

With his newfound awareness in place, Xavier can draw upon it in assessing his beliefs to resolve the internal contradiction he’s wrestling with. And practice at that skill, in turn, can help him address the other unresolved beliefs he harbors about his life, such as his discontent related to the life choices he’s made, the regrets he holds and his underdeveloped plans for his future, considerations that all weigh heavily upon him – almost as much as those related to his concerns about the changes occurring in Little Haiti.

In many ways, the emergence of his awareness of these issues raises more questions about the nature of his beliefs – and more considerations to resolve. However, given the experience he gains with this process in the foregoing areas, he becomes more adept at applying it in connection with these other issues. For example, he knows when to reach out for guidance when needed, as he does in many of his conversations with Esperance. That’s quite helpful, considering that she seems to possess a certain innate wisdom when it comes to addressing these types of situations. For instance, when Xavier expresses doubts about how effectively he has been able to provide for the well-being of his family (particularly where housing is concerned), Esperance observes that “home is where the heart is.” To some, that might sound like a simplistic greeting card sentiment, but, for Xavier, it resonates deeply, making all of the other more “logistical” concerns that he worries about seem rather superfluous and irrelevant by comparison. And that realization, in turn, provides the comfort and clarity he needs to get a better handle on his core beliefs – and how they affect the world he creates for himself and his family.

The foregoing concepts may sound like basic common sense to some, and that view definitely has merit. However, it may be easy for these notions to go unnoticed, almost as if akin to not being able to see the forest for the trees. And that can carry significant consequences, particularly in situations where important impending changes are involved. If we’re unable to determine where we stand in relation to such scenarios, we may not be able to effectively react through our beliefs until it’s too late. Or we could easily become oppressively overwhelmed by what transpires, unable to determine our way out of such potentially daunting developments. Given that possible impact, then, it’s crucial that we develop an awareness of what we believe and how it may be contributing to the unfolding of an emerging, potentially significant scenario before the changes become too much for us to handle.

There are undoubtedly many communities and constituencies out there that can relate to the narrative portrayed in “Mountains.” Writer-director Monica Sorelle’s debut feature quietly yet powerfully tells a story typical of many urban ethnic neighborhoods and the effects such transformations have on the local culture, depicted here through a vibrant panorama of sights, sounds, music and colors, as well as the emotions of those who live in these areas, and what those individuals stand to lose as a result of these changes. Their expressions of hope, joy, disappointment and regret are poignantly displayed through simple gestures, revealing facial expressions and telling body language, often speaking volumes without saying a word. While the picture can at times feel a little too “slice of life” for its own good (and leaving viewers wondering where the story may be headed), it ultimately conveys its messages through its fine acting ensemble (particularly Nazaire’s breakthrough performance), gorgeous cinematography and skillful film editing. As the nominee of two Independent Spirit Awards (including a win for the director in the competition’s “Someone To Watch” Award category), as well as numerous film festival award victories and nominations, this offering is an impressive start for a filmmaker who clearly has much to say and a knack for knowing how to effectively say it, especially when it comes to speaking for those who may not have a readily accessible voice of their own. The film is currently playing theatrically.

Itʼs been said that the only certainty in life is change (death and taxes notwithstanding). Some of us welcome it, but many are intimidated by it, even going so far as to reject it out of hand. But, no matter how readily we embrace or dismiss it, one thing is for certain: its inevitability. Given that, then, it’s something that we should at least attempt to prepare for, particularly our response to it, as that will often determine how comfortable we are when it finally arrives. This is a process that begins with us, for our beliefs will determine our reactions and, ultimately, how those responses mesh with the new conditions that emerge. Our input may even have a meaningful impact on how that change manifests (one would hope to our advantage). However, if we stand on the sidelines and make no effort to shepherd these circumstances into place, we could easily be swept away with the tide. As the Haitians are known to say, what’s behind the mountains before us are more mountains. And they’re likely to be there no matter what we do, but the route we choose to take in traversing them is up to us. May we select a path that suits us, one that gets us to the peaks with the least resistance and the best outcomes obtainable.

A complete review is available by clicking here.

Copyright © 2023-2024, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.