ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

based on a book

The Subtle Art of Not Giving a #@%! – What is worth caring about?

by Leave a Comment

“Happiness is a problem.”

The self-help industry revolves around selling books or programs that will make you happy. The world of social media thrives by offering us constant exposure to the newest trends and fads. We are always being pushed to buy (or buy into) the latest new thing that will fulfill our lives. Mark Manson (no relation to this writer) takes a different approach to self-improvement in his book (and now movie) The Subtle Art of Not Giving a #@%!. The plan he offers is not to help you find what is missing in your life. Rather it is based on coming to understand what is and is not important in life.

I’ve not read the book, but I assume the film (which is basically Manson doing a monologue) is essentially delivering the same ideas. His philosophy is basically that there are only a few things in life that really matter. The way we find fulfillment is to identify those things and not worry about the rest. Consumerism, the constant search for something new and shinier, the need to have more money, more power, or more fame are all distractions from the things that will really make our lives happy.

Throughout his monologue, he uses raw and scatological language to make his points. Given the title of the book and film, this shouldn’t be a surprise. I think such language also points to his own generation as the target audience for the film, Millennials. The perspective he develops is indeed something that is fitting for that generation to be considering at this point in life. It is something each generation deals with at some point.

Manson eschews the label of stoicism. While there are differences between his views and the Stoics, he is much more like them than different from them. He (according to an article on his website) sees himself more in touch with Buddhism and existentialism. His aha moment grows from discovering the reality of death. That reality is frequently the cause of people beginning to think about what is important in life.

His ideas are similar in many ways to the biblical writer of Ecclesiastes. “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity” is not far removed from the film’s title. Ecclesiastes looks at all the ways people have sought to find meaning—and the ways they all fall short. That is much what Manson is doing in the film. And so, I feel it appropriate to quote Ecclesiastes to give my reaction to the film: “There is nothing new under the sun.” Perhaps this restating what many have discovered through centuries is necessary for each new generation to help it come to grips with the questions of value and happiness.

The Subtle Art of Not Giving a #@%! is in theaters and coming soon to VOD.

Photos courtesy of Universal Pictures and GFC Films.

Under the Banner of Heaven – Faith wrestles doubt

by Leave a Comment

Faith and doubt struggle within a police detective investigating a brutal murder in Under the Banner of Heaven. The FX/Hulu series is a fictionalized version of a non-fiction book by Jon Krakauer about a 1984 double murder in Utah. It is steeped in the beliefs of the Church of Latter Day Saints (often referred to as Mormons, although the church prefers that term not to be used). The book and the story show parallel histories involving the murders and LDS history.

The focal point of the series is a fictional character, Detective Jeb Pyre (Andrew Garfield), a devote LDS member who is investigating a brutal murder of a woman and her baby. Pyre serves as our guide into the LDS church and practices, as well as the person who must struggle with doubt as secrets become exposed. His partner, Detective Bill Taba (Gil Birmingham), is a Paiute and not a member of the church. He serves as an outsider who (like most viewers) doesn’t understand LDS beliefs and culture.

The series follows Pyre’s investigation that first looks at the victim’s husband, Allen Lafferty (Billy Howle), who has already stepped away from the church. As Pyre talks with him, his own faith begins the process of being challenged by one who has such strong doubts. As the investigation expands, exploring variants of LDS church and teachings and the history of the church (seen in historical flashbacks to the times of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young), Pyre must deal with information that all is not as he has always thought. The whodunit aspect of the series (although well done) is not the real draw of the show, however. More important is the way doubt and faith are woven into the story and the characters.

I am aware that there has been some criticism of the series from people within the LDS church. My knowledge of the church’s history, teachings, and practices is limited, so I won’t be commenting on those things. However, the concepts of faith and doubt that hold a central place in the narrative of the series is something that is common among all people. Watching Pyre try to navigate his own growing doubts while trying to remain faithful to his job, his family, and his church is what makes Under the Banner of Heaven worth watching, because we can see our own struggles in him.

Where do all these doubts come from? There are various sources. The first is the kind of doubt that arises from when religion doesn’t fulfill our expectations. Early on, when Pyre is interviewing Allen, Allen said that when he found the bodies, he prayed. But when Pyre asks why he would pray if he doesn’t believe, Allen responds, “It was my last unanswered prayer.” I found that to be a powerful line to describe the feelings of being abandoned by the God he believed in.

More doubt grows from learning more about the history of the church as Pyre digs into Lafferty’s family. (There are several brothers, some of whom have adopted radical fundamentalist teachings.) In the historical flashbacks we see the early persecution of the LDS and its founder Joseph Smith. We also see the violence done under Brigham Young to non-believers). Pyre knows some of these stories, but there are parts of the history that are often left out. This is something that is not exclusive to the LDS. Many faithful people are shocked to learn about some of the stories in the Bible that are often glossed over in Sunday School. We may also be challenged by the way the church has acted through the centuries, including blatant and violent antisemitism, and the persecution of varieties of Christians we disagree with. (Cf. the way the Puritans in Massachusetts treated Baptists, or Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland.)

Still more doubts arise for Pyre when he learns that he must deal with the church hierarchy that is more concerned with image than with the truth. As Pyre looks into the fundamentalist beliefs of the Lafferty brothers, the church wants all these ideas covered up. But the powers in the church are subtle in their intimidation, including using his family against him. There are too many stories in the broader church about churches and denominations that have covered up many kinds of abuses. Often the stated reason is to protect the faithful, but when the truth eventually comes out, the lies of the coverup really do more harm to faith than the abuses themselves.

At the beginning of the series, Detective Pyre has a strong, but simple faith. He has lived in an environment in which that faith is shared by nearly everyone. Questions are rarely brought up. When he must deal with so many issues in this investigation, he must struggle with the doubts that arise. It could be that those doubt have the power to strangle his faith. Or perhaps, in the wrestling his faith will get stronger.

Under the Banner of Heaven streams on Hulu in the US and Disney+ (Star) in Canada.

House of Gucci – Desire Destroys a Family

by Leave a Comment

“And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him.” (Gen. 4:8 NRSV)

It is worth remembering that humankind’s first murder was a family affair. Ridley Scott’s House of Gucci is the newest way of telling the story of a family that destroys itself because of the greed, ambition, and hubris of its members. Certainly, that concept has fueled storytelling for eons. We think of the TV shows like Dallas and Dynasty, and currently HBO’s Succession. But House of Gucci is “inspired by the true events”. This is a real life version of that age old story.

Adam Driver stars as Maurizio Gucci and Lady Gaga as Patrizia Reggiani in Ridley Scott’s HOUSE OF GUCCI A Metro Goldwyn Mayer Pictures film Photo credit: Fabio Lovino © 2021 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The film’s center is Patrizia Reggiani (Lady Gaga), a young working-class woman. Her father owns a small trucking company. At a party one night, she meets Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver), the introverted scion of the fashion dynasty. When she hears his last name, her eyes light up, and we can tell she wants in. She works her way into Maurizio’s life and heart. His father Rudolfo (Jeremy Irons) thinks she’s nothing but a gold digger. He’s not far off, but there is more to it than that. When Rudolfo cuts off Maurizio’s money, Maurizio goes to work for Patrizia’s father until they marry, living a simple working-class life.

But Maurizio’s uncle Aldo (Al Pacino) connects to them, and the lira-sign lights in Patrizia’s eyes go off again. Aldo is the business brains of Gucci. He wants to expand. Rudolfo lives in the past and doesn’t want to change anything. Aldo’s son Paulo (Jered Leto, who steals every scene he’s in) wants to be a designer but is talentless. Aldo calls him an idiot, “but he’s my idiot”. He sees Maurizio as the future of the family business. Between Aldo and Patrizia, plans are made to bring Maurizio into the business. Now the conniving and manipulations can begin. Patrizia seems to always be at the center of it all. It is her ambition that drives the story—and in the process destroys the family.

(l-r.) Jared Leto stars as Paolo Gucci, Florence Andrews as Jenny Gucci, Adam Driver as Maurizio Gucci, Lady Gaga as Patrizia Reggiani and Al Pacino as Aldo Gucci in Ridley Scott’s HOUSE OF GUCCI A Metro Goldwyn Mayer Pictures film Photo credit: Courtesy of Metro Goldwyn Mayer Pictures Inc. © 2021 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The story covers the period of the late 70s to the 90s. Along the way we watch as fashion changes. This is a world of extravagance, and Patrizia especially shows it to the world. In time Maurizio will also be drawn into this world of ostentation, just as he’s drawn into Patrizia’s ambition and cunning.

There is an interesting use of music in the film. Some of the time, the music is the popular music of the day. That feeds our nostalgia. But often we hear operatic music driving the scenes. The music reminds us that this is that thrives in the world of tabloids and people’s fascination with the rich and famous, but it is also a story of epic proportions that tells of the elemental mythos of the destructive power of ambition and hubris. That mythos that goes back to the story of Cain and Abel.

Adam Driver stars as Maurizio Gucci and Lady Gaga as Patrizia Reggiani in Ridley Scott’s HOUSE OF GUCCI A Metro Goldwyn Mayer Pictures film Photo credit: Courtesy of Metro Goldwyn Mayer Pictures Inc. © 2021 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Watching a movie is always something of a voyeuristic experience. That is especially the case here as we watch the rise and downfall of Patrizia and others. But we should also note that many of the desires that drive and ultimately destroy these characters often live within each of us. As it says in the story of Cain and Abel, “. . . Sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” House of Gucci shows us the dangers in nor mastering our desires.

Al Pacino stars as Aldo Gucci and Mãdãline Ghenea as Sophia Loren in Ridley Scott’s HOUSE OF GUCCI A Metro Goldwyn Mayer Pictures film Photo credit: Courtesy of Metro Goldwyn Mayer Pictures Inc. © 2021 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Inc. All Rights Reserved.

House of Gucci is in wide theatrical release.

Photos courtesy of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures.

Grace and Grit – Death and Life

by Leave a Comment

“Because I could no longer ignore death, I pay more attention to life.”

Based on a true story, Grace and Grit, from director Sebastian Siegel, is story of love in the face of death. The specter of death is of such existential power that we would expect such a story to have a spiritual aspect. It does, but that part gets a bit buried in the emotional tumult of the two lovers.

The story is that of Treya Wilber (Mena Suvari) and her husband Ken (Stuart Townsend). Ken is a New Age philosopher/psychologist. He is described in the film as “the Einstein of consciousness”. When the two meet, the attraction is immediate. Their whirlwind romance last four months before they marry. This opening section of the film is filled with their private thoughts in low key voice over as the action and dialogue are on screen.

Ten days after their marriage, Treya is diagnosed with a stage two breast cancer. As Treya goes through various treatments—both conventional and alternative—Ken supports her, but both must deal with not just the illness, but the emotions that accompany the years-long ups and downs. The film mixes the ongoing story of the couple through Treya’s treatment with flashes of emotive memories. There are also occasional visualizations of the sense of helplessness they feel.

This is set in the 80s when New Age ideas were at their height. Ken was certainly influenced by Eastern thought, which leads this film to have a bit of an Eastern spirituality bent. But that fits with the mindfulness that the two characters practice as they live out the crisis.

The facing of such an illness is obviously a strain in any relationship. That is especially true here. Ken and Treya are devoted to each other, but really do not have the rootedness that could help sustain them. Still, the love they share is the key that this film focuses on.

The existential aspects seem to take something of a backseat to the relationship as the film plays out. It is far more love story than spiritual story or philosophical story. In the end, that makes this a bit overwrought, especially in the most emotional scenes.

Grace and Grit is in theaters and available on VOD.

Photos courtesy of Quiver Distribution.

Blizzard of Souls – Latvian Pride

by Leave a Comment

Latvia’s official entry for the Best Foreign Feature Oscar is Blizzard of Souls from director Dzintars Dreiberg. The film is based on a book by Aleksandrs Grins, which was banned in the Soviet Union. The film has been the most watched film in the history Latvian cinema.

The story follows Arturs (Oto Brantevics), a young Latvian farm boy, from the beginning of World War I. Latvia, at that time, was a part of the greater Russian empire. When Germany invaded Russia, the patriotic fervor swept all the men into the army—into a Latvian battalion. Arturs was too young to sign up (a few months shy of seventeen), but his father (who was too old, but well experienced in an earlier war) give his permission and the both, along with Arturs’ brother all enlist.  Training camp seems like a big game, with most of the younger men not taking it seriously. But soon they are at the front and the reality of war is overwhelming.

We follow Arturs through injuries, the death of those close to him, the Communist Revolution (which enlisted the army for support), eventually disillusionment with the Revolution, and enlisting in a new Latvia force to gain the country’s independence, which it held during the period between the wars.

The film is a Latvian version of All Quiet on the Western Front, in that it shows the dark side of the First World War with its trench warfare and the use of gas. The dream of fame and glory of those going off to war quickly becomes a matter of survival as all those around you die. The film is a realistic depiction of the brutality and horrors of war. It also shows the brutality of the Communist rule in the early days of the Soviet Union. (Which accounts for Grins being shot and the book banned.)

But unlike the Erich Maria Remarque book, this film ends with a celebration of Latvian nationalism. This film is clearly a film that speak to the Latvian people. Some of the history seen here would need no explanation to Latvians. North American audiences may feel that the transition from Russia to USSR to Latvian independence is missing a few steps along the way.

Blizzard of Souls is available through virtual cinema at local arthouses.

Photos courtesy of Film Movement.

The Reason I Jump – Inside Autism

by Leave a Comment

Films have to ability to take us into unknown worlds—maybe through science fiction, or a setting in a different culture or time period. When I’m in a theater (ah, those were the days!) and the lights go down I feel a bit of excitement about where we will travel to today. The Reason I Jump, a documentary by Jerry Rothwell, tries to take us inside the world of autism. It’s probably an impossible goal to fully achieve, but it succeeds in giving us some understanding of what that world is like.

The film is based on book of the same title written by Naoki Higashida, when he was thirteen years old to try to explain what it was like for him to live with autism. Part of what makes this so impressive is that Naoki does not speak, yet he has written an amazingly elegant book to describe his life. Naoki does not appear in the film. He wanted his words to be enough.

The film uses his words to give us his insights—his way of experiencing the world that is so different from our own. It mixes these perceptions with glimpses into the lives of five people with autism, in India, the UK, the US, and Sierra Leone. Each of them is non-speaking. Yet we learn that they are not without thoughts and feelings. Between these glimpse Rothwell also includes shots of a young Japanese boy wandering various landscapes full of visual diversity.

The result is at times poetic (both verbally and visually) as well is eye-opening. We discover that as strange and challenging as the world of autism may seem to us, our world is just as strange and challenging to the people we meet. Early on, we hear Naoki’s words as he describes the difference in how he imagines we see things (first noticing the whole of an object and then the details), and how he experiences all the details and then must interpret that into the overall object. The film does a wonderful job of visualizing that difference.

For some people with autism who do not speak, it may be because they have so many words and thoughts in their mind that they have a hard time bringing order to them. For others it is just something that stands in the way of the words and the speaking. But all those we meet have words and ideas that they find ways of bringing forth—perhaps through art or by using an alphabet board to point letter by letter to form the words they cannot speak.

The film also touches a bit on the stigma that often accompanies autism. This is especially true when we meet the young woman in Sierra Leone. There (and elsewhere through the ages) people with autism were treated as possessed, witches, or sub-human. They have been locked away in institutions and even killed because of their differentness. The Reason I Jump helps us to understand autism as a very different understanding of reality that these people live in. And it allows us to hear what they cannot say.

The Reason I Jump is available on virtual cinema through local arthouses.

Photos courtesy of Kino Lorber.

Hillbilly Elegy – Family Turmoil

by Leave a Comment

“Where we come from is who we are, but we choose every day who we become.”

J. D. Vance’s bestselling memoir Hillbilly Elegy has been brought to the screen by Ron Howard. The memoir recounted Vance’s childhood in the Ohio Rust Belt, where he was raised by a mother struggling with addiction and his grandparents who came from rural Appalachia. After spending time in the Marines, Vance went on to college, then Yale Law School. The film carries the story arc, but comes up short on the kind of insight that Vance brought to the book.

HILLBILLY ELEGY: (L to R) Haley Bennett (“Lindsay”), Gabriel Basso (J.D. Vance), Amy Adams (“Bev”). Photo Cr. Lacey Terrell/NETFLIX © 2020

The film focuses on the troubled family relationship. As Vance (played as adult by Gabriel Basso and as a youth by Owen Asztolos) is preparing for interviews for a summer internship at a prestigious law firm (a job he needs to be able to continue law school), he gets a call from his sister that their mother Bev (Amy Adams) is hospitalized because of a heroin overdose. He has to make a long drive from New Haven to Ohio, deal with trying to get his mother in to rehab, then drive back in hopes of making an important meeting.

As the trip plays out, we see flashbacks to his youth. His mother, while loving, constantly battled substance abuse. The more nurturing relationship in his life was his grandmother, Memaw (Glenn Close). Memaw was a no-nonsense woman who embodies the values of hard work and honesty that Vance, in his memoir, associates with the rural Appalachian community. After one of Bev’s breakdowns, J.D. moves in with Memaw, who pushes him to excel in school.

HILLBILLY ELEGY: (L to R) Haley Bennett (“Lindsay”), Glenn Close (“Mamaw”),Owen Asztalos (“Young J.D. Vance”). Photo Cr. Lacey Terrell/NETFLIX © 2020

The film becomes not so much a story of those values as a story about a family struggling with addiction. It becomes about J.D.’s mixed feelings about his love for his family and the struggle to succeed in another world. That was all a part of the book, but the book became such a success because it offered much more.

Films by their nature have a great deal of voyeurism. We are watching other people’s lives from a distance. The same is true of memoirs and novels. In his memoir, Vance took us into the white working-class culture that he grew up in. He does not look down at it. He values it. He shows us the trials, frustrations, and the values that have led to alienation. The voyeurism of the memoir seemed to lessen the distance the reader might have felt in thinking about Appalachia and the working-class. The film boils down to a less helpful voyeurism. We watch a family in its pain, but we are always a bit removed.

HILLBILLY ELEGY: (L to R) Glenn Close (“Mamaw”), Amy Adams (“Bev”). Photo Cr. Lacey Terrell/NETFLIX © 2020

When the book came out in 2016 (a few months before the election of President Trump), it served as a kind of bridge between two segments of our society. Vance has a foot in both worlds. He knows just how easy it is to settle into despair. But he also exemplifies the ability to advance through a strong work ethic. Early in the film we see J.D. panicking at a formal dinner over all the silverware. But we can tell that this is a world that he is growing into. That social and political insight were the strength of the memoir, but is missing from the film.

Hillbilly Elegy is playing in select theaters (where open). It will be available on Netflix on November 24.

For audio of our conversation with Ron Howard, click here.

Photos courtesy of Netflix.

Papillon – From Savagery to Resurrection

by Leave a Comment

“It’s not rehabilitation—we know that’s worthless—so we do our best to break you.”

Papillon is inspired by semi-autobiographical bestselling books (Papillon and Banco) and the 1973 film with Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman (with a screenplay by Dalton Trumbo).  Returning to such a classic film is challenging, but director Michael Noer has brought new life and a gritty vision to this new version.

Henri “Papillon” Charrière (Charlie Hunnam) is a small-time crook in 1931 Paris. When he runs afoul of a crime boss, he is framed for a murder and sentenced to life in the French penal colony in French Guyana. But Charrière is determined to escape and return for vengeance. On the transport to the penal colony he befriends Louis Dega (Rami Malek) a meek counterfeiter rumored to have a stash of money. Charrière makes a deal with Dega to provide him with protection in exchange for Dega funding his eventual escape.

Life in the penal system is difficult and violent. On arriving in French Guyana, the prisoners hear the rules. If you try to escape, we’ll shoot you. If we miss, the jungle or the sharks will get you. If you get caught, you will spend two years in solitary the first time, five years the second, then transferred to the notorious Devil’s Island. If you commit murder, you go to the guillotine. The prisoners are assigned hard labor and failure will result in severe punishment.

The partnership between Charrière and Dega creates a bond between them that becomes not just about business, but about friendship. After Charrière’s first escape attempt (and his two years in solitary), Dega has now moved into a position of trust—keeping the books for the warden. This provides a chance for another try at escape, this time with Dega going with him and two others.

Charrière refuses to be broken, even by failure, even by years of solitary, even by beatings, even when taken to Devil’s Island. Dega, on the other hand, abandoned hope early on and hardened himself for the life in the prison system. He continues though to think that perhaps Charrière will be able to make things better.

Contrary to the warden’s words at the top of this review, there is a kind of rehabilitation for Charrière. He continues to have a hope of escape and a new life. That gives new meaning to his nickname, Papillon (butterfly). The butterfly is often seen as a symbol of resurrection and new life. As the years pass, it is a new life that Charrière seems intent on finding—not the revenge that he sought at first. He tells Dega at one point after years in the prison colony, “If I ever get out of here I’m going to lead a different life.”

Perhaps that is why when he finally found that new life and wrote his autobiographical books, they became bestsellers and prompted film adaptations. The riveting story of the absolute savagery and inhumanity within that prison setting eventually shifts to a story to hope and fulfillment. It is surely not an easy transformation. But the very fact that Charrière not only maintained his humanity, but even grew in positive ways makes this a story worth celebrating.

Photo credit Jose Haro / Bleecker Street

Alone on the Island of the Blue Dolphins

by Leave a Comment

Every year many fourth grade students read Island of the Blue Dolphins in school.  The book is a fictional account based in a historic tale of a Native American woman who spent eighteen years alone on San Nicolas Island (part of California’s Channel Islands). Alone on the Island of the Blue Dolphins is a documentary that gives insight into the true story behind the book.

The Newbery Award-winning book is often seen as a female version of Robinson Crusoe. It seems hard to believe that anyone could survive eighteen years alone with just her dogs for company. And yet this amazing story has a factual basis. In the early nineteenth century when all the other Nicoleños were removed from the island, for an unknown reason, the Lone Woman of San Nicolas was left behind. She survived there until a ship came to the island in 1853. Finding the woman alone, they took her to Santa Barbara when the priests christened her Juana Maria.

The film shows archaeologists, historians, and others as they try to piece together what life would have been like for her. Some of these people have been involved with the island for many years. They have answered many of the questions that arise from such a situation, such as what she would have eaten and where she got her water.

The film explores a few areas of how she came to be alone on the island. It also looks at what happened to her after her “rescue.” It touches very briefly on what could be a spiritual side to her life, but really, we can’t be sure about such things because she was never really able to communicate with anyone after she was brought to the mainland. The various other Native Americans in the Santa Barbara area were of different backgrounds and couldn’t understand her. So it turns out that even when among other people, she was still very much alone.

In watching the film, there is a sense of seeing the detective process at work. One of the people we meet even goes by the title “historical detective.” It is a matter of finding clues and then interpreting those clues to gain a better understanding.

For those who have had to do a project in school based on Island of the Blue Dolphins or are getting ready to have such an assignment soon, Alone on the Island of the Blue Dolphins could be a good addition to the information that is in the book.

 

The Zookeeper’s Wife – Providing Sanctuary

by Leave a Comment

“I don’t belong here. They don’t belong here. You don’t belong here.”

The Zookeeper’s Wife opens in an almost Edenic world. Jan (Johan Heldenbergh) and Antonina (Jessica Chastain) Zabinski live on the grounds of the Warsaw Zoo, where Jan is the head zookeeper. Their son sleeps with lion cubs. When Antonina bicycles around the zoo, a young camel runs along with her. It is a happy and carefree existence. Not quite carefree, because war is looming. The serpent of this Eden is Lutz Heck (Daniel Brühl), the visiting head of the Berlin Zoo. He is obviously taken with Antonina, but claims he isn’t involved in politics.

When Germany invades on September 1, 1938, beginning the Second World War, the zoo is bombed with the rest of Warsaw. Animals are loose and in fear. Many are killed. Soon Heck is back, in an SS uniform, to take control of the animals, to ship the best to Berlin (for “protection”) and to try to use the zoo’s bison to breed long extinct aurochs (a reminder of the Nazi’s concern with eugenics and scientific exploitation). But soon, the Germans are forcing Jews into the Ghetto, and perhaps worse fates await.

The Zabinskis at first secretly harbor Antonina’s best friend, but as the world inside the Ghetto gets worse, they ask the Germans for permission to use the zoo as a pig farm to feed troops, and to feed the pigs with garbage from the Ghetto. Each day Jan goes to pick up the garbage, and smuggle out some of the Jews who are given refuge in the zoo. Through the years, over 300 persons made their way to the safety of the zoo. The Zambiskis, of course, are risking their lives by doing this. They not only provided safety; they provided friendship and even a bit of culture. Each night after the German guards left the zoo, Antonina would play the piano to let those in hiding know they could come out. That time became almost like an evening salon of conversation and companionship.

The film is based on a book by Diane Ackerman, which is a more extensive telling of the Zabinskis’ true story. As is often the case, time constraints require that things are often left out in adaptations of books. Here, we get very brief glimpses of parts of the story, such as Antonina’s pregnancy and Jan’s going off to fight with the Resistance, leaving Antonina alone to deal with their guests.

The Zabinskis’ decision to harbor as many Jews as they could was a courageous act—and a very illegal one. They were well aware of the threat that the Germans represented—both to the Jews and to those who harbored them. Yet, for them, the humanity of their neighbors took precedence over the laws that history has shown to be abhorrent. The idea of offering sanctuary to those in danger has a long history—and continues to be a valid question for people today. We live in a world filled with refugees of various kinds. Many have a difficult time finding a safe and welcoming place. More and more nations are closing their borders to those in need—or seeking to deport those already here. Some—including many churches—are seeking ways to provide a haven for those in need and fear. Stories from the Holocaust, like this one, are a reminder of how important those havens are.

Available July 4 on Blu-ray, DVD, and On Demand; available now on Digital HD. Special features include deleted scenes, the making of the film, and a look at the Zabinski family.