ILNews

Hammerle On… 'Obvious Child,' 'How to Train Your Dragon 2'

Robert Hammerle
July 16, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

“Obvious Child”

I really loved “Obvious Child,” and I fully understood its meaning. Women will not just understand it, but they will feel the searing emotional significance of this wonderful movie. That is a profound difference.

Jenny Slate is irresistible playing Donna Stern, a standup comic whose life is unraveling. Her boyfriend leaves her by announcing that he will be moving in with her best friend, and she finds herself pregnant after a drunken one-night stand with an interesting stranger.

She is decent, funny and on the verge of unraveling. She quickly decides on an abortion, and the ramifications manifest themselves in a warmth seldom seen on the screen.

Her divorced parents, played by Richard Kind and Polly Draper, try to lend a helping hand. Her mother even reveals she also had an abortion decades ago in college, and Donna and the audience are reminded quickly that an unwanted pregnancy is anything but rare in most families.

Incredibly, this film finds a way to find humor in nearly every dark corner of Donna’s life. Donna is surrounded by caring people, as when her father reminds her that many people find genius when they are at their lowest emotional moment.hammerle-obvious.jpg
One of the many touching moments of this film comes from Donna’s growing relationship with Max, the man who knocked her up. Played by Jake Lacy, he is a guy who must decide whether to walk away or rally to her side.
Additionally, there is a completely magnificent scene surrounding the moment when Donna ends up hitting the hay with Max. Gradually getting intoxicated, they go back to his place where they engaged in a captivating dance scene with Paul Simon singing the title song of the film, “Obvious Child.” It’s a beautiful picture of romance with a stranger, and it isn’t hard to understand how she really couldn’t recall if they used the condom that both were trying to open.

The decision by Donna to have an abortion is a story that will empower women. The recent Supreme Court opinion in the Hobby Lobby case, a decision where the five majority members are all Roman Catholic males, ironically sits center stage. Watching Donna, everyone understands that while the Right to Life movement demands that all pregnancies equate to birth, they then turn their backs, yelling “To hell with them. They’re the parents’ responsibility, not the government’s.”

The decisions that all pregnant women face are emotionally difficult under the best circumstances. That decision should be left up to the individual woman, not men running corporations or sitting on the United States Supreme Court. The three women on that Supreme Court understand that fundamental fact, and it’s time for all of us to do the same thing.

“How to Train Your Dragon 2”

Once in a while an animated film becomes a sterling adult experience. Sure, most of us need kids for company to justify the trip. It is embarrassing to sit alone and get emotionally wrapped up in an animated feature where you have a little tear in your eye.

“How to Train Your Dragon 2” falls into that category. My two grandkids finally found time in their busy schedules for me, and their parents came along for the ride. Everybody loved it, and the film evolved into a legitimate human drama that never disappointed.

The first “How to Train Your Dragon” film appeared five years ago, which is hard to believe. In that film, we discovered Hiccup and his wounded dragon Toothless as they accompanied each other on a quest to have humans and dragons trust one another. That wasn’t easy.

In this film, Hiccup’s father is the head of a kingdom that has embraced dragons with the same love that we do dogs and cats. Everybody but Hiccup is having a great time, and he sets out on a quest as if he was a Nordic version of Christopher Columbus.

hammerle-dragon.jpg

In the process, he discovers new lands and new villains, and the question remains who will triumph. Although it isn’t hard to guess the answer, it makes for a pretty spirited journey. Hiccup is an immensely likeable kid with a heart of gold, and his girlfriend Astrid (America Ferrera) is never far behind.

Central to the film is Hiccup’s reluctance to succeed his stern but loveable father, Stoick (Gerard Butler), as the leader of their clan. He balks at administrative duties, and his quests for new worlds lead him to the astonishing discovery of his long-missing mother. She is voiced by Cate Blanchett, and you soon realize that the two have a lot in common.

There is a nasty villain in the film known as Drago (Djimon Hounsou), and he holds humans and dragons in complete disdain. For reasons that you will see, he has the ability to hypnotize dragons, and Toothless is put in complete peril. While the kids squirm a bit in their seats, you can’t help but feel a bit uneasy at Toothless’ fate.

The film’s visual effects developed by Motohisa Adachi resemble some of the magnificent scenes in “Avatar” (2009). The scenes are beautiful, and high pitch battles with Drago’s forces leaves lives on the line.

The great thing about “How to Train Your Dragon 2” is that it reflects an attempt to cure profound divisions in their world. It reminds me of my favorite T-shirt displaying a cross, the Star of David and a Muslim symbol. Underneath it is the phrase, “Can’t we all just get along?”

Hiccup and his mother, Valka, confront the same problem, and they are determined to overcome it. They embrace love, tolerance and respect as the fundamental building blocks in life, which include the rights of all dragons to live their lives in peace.

As I watch Tea Party members criticize President Barack Obama at every turn in our country, Sunnis battling Shiites while Arabs battle Persians in the Middle East and Russians fight Ukrainians for reasons defying explanation, you almost wish that Hiccup and Toothless were around in our world. Why is everyone everywhere encouraged to be so bitter, angry and hateful?

Some guy in history once said, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Was that Hiccup?

Robert Hammerle practices criminal law in Indianapolis. When he is not in the courtroom or working diligently in his Pennsylvania Street office, Bob can likely be found at one of his favorite movie theaters watching and preparing to review the latest films. To read more of his reviews, visit www.bigmouthbobs.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT