Although the film has no narrative tension it does portray a manipulative politician who pursues power under the guise of a rationalized “good deed/mission/fight” Perhaps this is an unwritten law of political life – I hope not.

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 daughters’ responses and handling of these difficult circumstances 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.

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

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.

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.