I recently had the experience of viewing two new films; MONEYBALL (2011 directed by Glen Miller and written by Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin) and A SEPARATION (2011 directed and written by Asghar Farhardi).

The difference between the way adolescent daughters facing separations between their biological parents is quite striking. Certainly the circumstances for these young adolescents – approximately 12 years old – are not the same; one set of parents are divorced; the other are temporarily separated perhaps leading to a permanent one. Yet the portrait of the daughter’s response and handling of this difficult circumstance could hardly be more different.

In the Hollywood film MONEYBALL, the daughter appears to be an enthusiastic smart youth who is also a songwriter who composes a piece about her dilemma, which she also beautifully sings. She is open, clear and articulate.

The Iranian daughter, who actually witnesses much of the parental conflict throughout the film, is portrayed as a serious student with a curious mind who tries to please both of her parents.
However throughout much of the film, she looks like she is deeply conflicted and can barely contain her sadness.

Has a Hollywood film ever portrayed a similar situation to such a searing and devastating affect as in the Iranian film? Perhaps, but one has to credit A SEPARATION for portraying the potentially damaging impact of martial conflict on children like I have never seen before. A hard situation beautifully dramatized.

I do not want to spoil the experience of his new film THE SKIN I LIVE IN for anyone. However I just wish Almodovar had incorporated some of the character complexity which arthur miller distilled in his Eddie Carbone of A VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE. Had he done so the movie would have been truly remarkable. Any thoughts?

I urge all to read this column by my colleague and friend Miles Zaremski

Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-j-zaremski/the-odd-couplesteve-jobs-_b_1003346.html

This entry refers to the recent production of King Lear presented by the Brooklyn Academy of Music  (BAM) and the Donmar Warehouse Theatre of London England

Seeing Derek Jacobi ‘s rendition of King Lear is a rewarding experience and seeing the play again prompted me to reflect on the issue of self-awareness.

This seasoned professional has a soaring vocal and emotional range that is rare among contemporary actors. He brings to the Lear role an honesty that beautifully displays all the contradictions, narcissistic demands, wounds and physiological manifestations of psychological panic and despair that any adult theatergoer can relate to.

In addition to Jacobi, the actor, one of the production’s few strengths is the portrayal of the relationship between Lear and his fool.  In all previous productions viewed these two characters are at odds from their first interaction. Lear’s quicksilver temper is focused as rapidly at the fool as it is on Cordelia and Kent.

In this otherwise mediocre production, Lear displays a dependency and a seeming “need” for his fool that I have never experienced before and which somehow helped me understand his childishness – as if the fool was part of himself – his shadow self.

The fool’s entrance provides immediate jocular interaction and seems to comfort the king and relieve his temper – as if the experience is “all in fun.” It’s as if the king is saying to the fool, you are joking as always, and this is what I need and want!

Of course what the fool is also doing is voicing the unspeakable, the unsaid and a more truthful perception of the situation at hand.

Only as Lear’s panic and disappointment grow does he find the fool’s comments difficult to accept. And yet he still longs for his companionship which generates yet another conflict for the king.

This ambivalent relationship reminds me of the internal dynamics we have within ourselves.  Can we objectively look at ourselves when we think of doing or actually do destructive or foolish things? I hope so.

Since most of us cannot afford professional fools as former rulers did (and possibly those who could afford them would not want them) we have little choice but to supply this function ourselves. However the reality is that we all resort to “bad behavior” once in a while and use the denial mechanism of  “ that’s not me” as well.

Its good to realize that we don’t need to be royalty in order to keep ourselves amused, to laugh at ourselves and to keep at least one foot, however fleetingly, in reality. Our ability to see ourselves as we fluctuate from moment to moment is one aspect of our own insight. Hopefully, unlike Lear, we don’t need someone else to keep us going with humor, agonizing insight and awareness of ourselves.  Maybe we are not as vulnerable to madness because of this. Unlike Lear we have not “scarcely known ourselves” for a good long while.

In today’s WSJ (6/20/2011) the Managing & Careers section features a story about the defense secretary and his tenure leading the department.

What is most striking is Gate’s adaptability, humility and his realistic expectations of others. When he first took office he decided to meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in their conference room as opposed to summoning them to his office.  Showing respect to the professional who staff and help lead an institution is critical Mr. Gates said.  The article also states that Gates has an open leadership style and doesn’t dominate meetings, but relishes making decisions at their conclusion.  A former deputy defense secretary states, “He encourages participation, so people have a lot of say,until the decision is made and then, like all good leaders, he expects people to toe the line.” He also worked to ensure that his ideas were embraced not just by the top generals but also mid-ranking and junior military officers To do that he teaches classes at the service academies and gives speeches to the various war colleges. The standard opinion is  that the military is an exclusive command and control culture. Maybe it was but it seems that Gates, at least now, has made a change creating a more empowered, engaged and motivated workforce.

A client truly has an impossible job in that he does not have adequate talent with his department to execute work, does not have a supportive manager, continually is pressed to delivery faster better work and is monitored to ensure that he does not continue or create a hostile work environment. Recently he stated I need to :”raise above it” – Raise above it? – That is the last thing I told my client to do.  He must stay in it – in all the difficult sticky mess of it all – try to manage realistic expectations, pull on her inner resources and find external resources both within the company and outside, that she can give and get support from.  By trying to raise above it I fear that the client is trying to minimize the chaotic and difficult and demanding situation. If a situational depression is the result of this current state so be it but to deny it or not face it on a moment to moment and day to day basis would serve no one particularly himself.

One trait that seems to afflict a major of managers is avoiding conflict.  Conflict is inevitable and can be just the beginning of some valuable interaction. Yet why do some many avoid it? The wish to be liked, fantasies of great anger and or violence? Perhaps, but ask yourself, do you constructively address conflict when there is a need? I usually do but not always and I think that is about as good as it gets.

A recent NY Times Sunday piece focused on how Google develops good managers and leaders. Not surprisingly they discovered the eternal truth about managers and their employees  reporting to them. These bosses and managers do not have to be as deep technically as the people they work with. What their people need is empowerment, an interest in their success and well-being and being there to both listen and share information. These activities seem so simple and yet are they evident in the manager/employee relationships you know?  In maybe 50% of situations you know? That would be high. Simple but not easy – that is exactly what these activities are. Perhaps not that different from a  ”good” parent but it does get trickier if there are two (alleged) adults working together. I will discuss some of the relationships I have observed and what gets in the way of good management in the future.