HUNGARIAN CINEMA

Always looking for something different I stumbled on two Hungarian movies that got my attention.  I had previously seen a special feature with the Swedish movie "The 100-year old man who climbed out the window and disappeared" that discussed their preference for a film studio in Hungary.  Hungary has provided the background scenery for both Hollywood and European productions (supported by local expertise) that you may have enjoyed.

Hungary has a long history of cinema with screenings as early as 1896.  They developed skill levels such that leaving the country, Alexander Korda played a prominent role in British cinema and Michael Curtiz directed many Hollywood movies.  Adolph Zukor founded Paramount Pictures.

World War I disrupted progress and many fled the country.  Startng about 1935 anti-Semitic sentiments forced restrictions and ousting of Jewish participants.  Communism nationalized the movie industry.  By the early 1940's Hungary was ranked  the third largest film industry in Europe.  Censorship was an obstacle, but movies went even winning at Cannes

The 1956 Revolution clamped down, but didn't stop films being made, sometimes with subtle criticisms of the government.  In 1986, a Hungarian film "Diary for My Children" won a Grand Prix at Cannes.

"The Notebook" released in  2013 was shown at the Toronto International Film Festival.  Directed by Janos Szasz who has won awards on the international film circuit and shared in the writing.  Janos will be directing an English language, film, "Michigan" just in the planning stages right now.  I had not noticed that an American, Tom Abrams worked as a dramaturge.  Apparently that is transferring emotions to the screen including putting the emotions in context.  Undoubtedly there is more to it.  The story revolves around twin brothers caught up in World War II as Hungary, allied with Germany is losing.  The boys are shipped out to an estranged grandmother who is a tough character who resents the two boys.  They make a conscious effort to toughen themselves by such things as standing still while taking turns punching each other.  They do deliberately cold hearted things and are actually complicit in the deaths of their parents on separate occasions.  Ulrich Thomsen, a prominent Danish actor plays a German officer who befriend the boys.  An unusual role was played by Orsolya Toth who plays a harelip (none of the characters has a name) who at first steals from the boys and later befriends them. She has a bit part in "White God"--see below.  Was the official Hungarian submission for a foreign language Oscar.

"White God" released in 2014 was inspired by director Kornel Mundruczo who felt dogs were being given a bad deal and approached Viktoria Petrany to write something from the dog's point of view.  She was dismissive at first, but the two collaborated to produce a script.  In Hungary a law was passed discriminating against mixed breeds.  A young girl is forced to give up her dog and it ends up joining other rejected dogs.  The real key to this movie is the American dog trainer Teresa Ann Miller who explains in a special feature how they got the dogs to perform some apparently vicious and abusive scenes without actually hurting them.  The director explained they wanted no CGI and would used mostly street dogs.  A masterful told story.  This movie was also submitted for the best foreign film for an Oscar

After these two movies I decided to check out Hungarian movies but to be honest the library had very few and only two of the ones I had researched.

"Fateless "released in 2005 is a Holocaust story from a young man who survives.  Director Lajos Kotai gained much experience with Giuseppe Tornatore as a cinematographer.  Surprised to learn music came from Ennio Morricone  and there was a cameo by Daniel Craig.  Marcell Nagy did an excellent job portraying a 14 year old enduring Buchenwald camp for a year. There is hope in this movie with the mere survival under horrible circum-stances.

"The Turin Horse" released in 2011"started where an incident that may or may not have happened about the famous philosopher, Fredrich Nietzshe.  According to legend  in 1889 he stopped a horse beating and shortly after suffered a mental illness that lasted until his death.  This is about the horse, but people are seen.  In one sense they are dependent on the aging horse who in the end starves himself to death.  A father and daughter live very bleak lives with a howling wind throughout the movie only relieved with a haunting musical score.  They boil and then eat potatoes every day and sleep.  Not too much else.  Reading the IMDB account there seem to be a number of complaints about how depressing the movie is with a few defenders.  I too, found it very depressing and boring, but found many of the comments helpful.  The director Bela Tarr who also helped write it has a long history of such movies and one of his traits is long takes with minimal dialogue.  This movie has only 30 takes spread over 146 minutes.  Bela's wife, Agnes Hranitsky is listed as a co-director and also as editor.  To get any value out of this movie you have to be patient, have a philosophical interest and some appreciation of cinematography.

All of these movies were bleak, in some cases extremely so.  When I review national films I try to find a variety including comic, but had to do with what I could find. Still one can appreciate that there are interesting stories to be told and excellent skills on display.

A little research into Hungary as a filming location.  There is a historical background, partly alluded to above.  Famous Hungarian actors in Hollywood included Bela Lugosi, Tony Curtis and the Gabor sisters.  George Cukor was an Oscar winning director.  The Hungarian government has offered generous rebates for filming costs in Hungary.  They also provide low cost expertise for such areas as cinematography, acting, set design and construction.  Their architecture is varied enough to double up for London, Berlin, Rome and even New York.  They also provide post production facilities and expertise.   Don't be surprised to learn about Hungarian connections to some of your favorite movies.

A Tabu everyone should enjoy!

In 2015 I watched three exceptional Bollywood movies.  I mean the kind everyone should see: "Haider," "Drishyam," and "Talvar." A common denominator was Tabu.  Some of my readers might have seen her in English films.  "The Namesake." with Irrfan Khan where the two shared a Best Seduction award from the Alliance of Women Film Journalists.  She also had a small supporting role in "Life of Pi "where she played the main character's mother.  The grownup narrator son was played by Irrfan Khan.

Her provocative name was originally Tabassum Fatima Hashmi, born in 1971.  She speaks Urdu, Hindi, Telegu and English.  She could fairly be described as a stately beauty with class.

"Haider," released in 2014 was a revision of Hamlet, but set in Kashmir.  Tabu was a best supporting actress playing the mother.  This film won several other awards. You can read more at:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/02/haider-bollywoods-version-of-shakespeare.html

"Drishyam," released in 2015 was a remake of a film in another Indian language.  Tabu played a police chief and demonstrated that not only can she be tough, but very nuanced.  In this movie she played a police chief who was trying to locate her missing son with no concern for ethics in a very complicated story, that required her not only to be tough, but also to be the mother of a less than perfect son and the wife of a decent, but weaker man.  She is likely to be nominated for an award. Read more here: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2015/11/driishyam-bollywood-remake-masterpiece.html

In "Talver," also released in 2015 she was really a supporting role, again with Irrfan Khan in another excellent movie that did well at TIFF.  The movie was as good as the other two, but I decided I would rather do a blog post on Tabu herself.  "Talvar" was based on a controversial double murder.

I had been fortunate to see some of her earlier films and looked up a few more.

In 2001 she won best actress award for "Chandni Bar" about an abused dance hall girl.

In "Cheeni Kum" released in 2008 she played a 34 year old, romanced by 64 year old Amitabh Bachchan.  It was mainly comedy but also included a little tragedy.  Tabu demonstrated a comic touch and won the Filmfare best actress award.  It is an enjoyable movie, but not a masterpiece.

In "Fanaa"  released in 2006 she plays a military police woman searching for terrorist Aamir Khan. She is very strong and effective.  Another exceptional movie.

In "Astitva" released in 2000 she played a wife who had a one time lapse and was not forgiven by her adulterous husband winning another best actress award.

In 1997 from "Virasat" she won a best actress award opposite Anil Kapoor.

Tabu won other awards in movies I did not see.  She was awarded a Padmi Shri from the Indian Government in recognition of her contributions to cinema.

Studying the wide range of movies Tabu appeared in, one might appreciate that to qualify for the really good ones requires enduring some that range from embarrassingly terrible to merely just ordinary.  Tabu has been in a number of critically acclaimed movies that weren't commercially successful, but also commercially successful movies that weren't necessarily artistic successes.  Unfortunately there were a few duds along the way.  Three that I watched were  "Khuda Kasam" which was started in 1997, delayed while Tabu replaced the leading lady and after a few names changes was finally released in 2010.  Even less impressive was "The In-laws" released in 1996.  A third film was "Toh Baat Pakki" released 2010 after an absence of two years is ok enjoyable and she is the best part.

She has appeared in Hindi, English, Telegu, Tamil, Malayalam, Maratha and Bengali films.  Doing research for this I noticed the languages spoken by Tabu, but that she has appeared in movies for languages she isn't fluent with,  Tamil, Maylalam, Marathi and Bengali.  India already has a reputation for dubbing with their songs allowing backup singers to make a good living.  I have also heard someone like Katrina Kaif has had some of her lines dubbed because she didn't always speak good Hindi.  I believe some actors are taught to speak lines phonetically when the language is not natural to them. This could be a topic for a future blog post, but I am curious if because of the fame of some actors if they have their lines dubbed in foreign languages.  I am a little concerned about synchronization.  When given the choice of dubbing or subtitles I usually opt for subtitles (which have their own set of problems).

The American Primary Debates

Unlike in Canada the Americans really stretch out an election campaign, specifically the Presidential election.  As soon as one election is resolved organization begins for the next election four years later.  The situation intensifies two years in, especially after the midterms.  Although my bias is for the Democrats I feel there are concerns that bode ill for any political aspirant and for the voters.

By itself this is an expensive proposition which automatically eliminates many prospects.  It also encourages a lot of investigative efforts to uncover any flaws in a particular candidate including their families also discouraging for some worthy prospects  It is good business for media and marketing people.  A number of candidates are able to neglect their jobs in the pursuit of a higher office.  It rewards those who are best able to leap through all the hoops, but not necessarily the best candidates.

My great fear is that the Democrats are conceding too great a broadcast platform to the Repubicans.  A lot of speculation that as part of a pro Hilary Clinton campaign they are limiting the number of debates and making them at unpopular awkward times.  Hilary has hard to beat name recognition value.  The only other two left are Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders, both capable men who would benefit from greater exposure.  A celebrity once said you can say anything you want about me, but spell my name right.

The last time around the Republicans did hurt themselves with a long drawn out campaign that seemed to force candidates to out yell and out threaten each other.  They have cut down the number of debates, but started with a longer list of candidates and were forced to do outrageous things to get attention.  In reality they have to appeal to a difficult to please base before they argue their merits in front of all the voters.

Getting our attention is the goal of every aspiring politician.  The debates are only one forum for this, but potentially a very good opportunity for the voter to understand their choices better.  But it is not quite as clear cut as it seems.  Squeezing in time for a large number of egoists is difficult for a media who sees this as an opportunity to boost their advertising revenue.

When I list the issues, it is perilous to ignore any of them and they are all inter-related.

I agree inequality is fundamental.  The Republicans keep proving their loyalty is to their donor base Those at the top get to decide for the rest of us.  They seem focused on allowing freedom to exploit those not fortunate enough to have more power.  Opportunities are restricted from birth and there is no painless way to alleviate that.  The government has power to facilitate the optimal mix, but they are too often beholden to special interests before even tackling the difficult choices.

Climate change, an issue critical for our future in some ways illustrates the inequality.  Those who  are entrenched with fossil fuel resources feel threatened.  I am sure some are learning to hedge their bets, but know clearly that when the consumption and price of oil goes down so does their fortune and their power.  It seems amazing that many voters prefer the opinions of those with vested interests over relatively neutral and earnest scientists, but that is still reality.

International instability is a very complex issue.  First one has to accept that no one nation, not even an exceptional one like America, really controls the rest of the world.  The international players are  threatened by inequality, climate change and ignorance of each other.  The Republicans scoff at the idea that climate change has anything to do with national security.  Many of them are intelligent enough, but more concerned about maintaining their own  power.

Campaign finance affects everything else.  Getting your voice heard costs money and with a long campaign, money becomes an even bigger issue.  A major concern of every elected politician is to get re-elected.  Raising the necessary money now takes up more of their time and ties their options.  They used to spend time sorting out the factors of decisions they were elected to make and to discuss with other perspectives.  Billions are being spent to sway your vote, not necessarily for your best interests.

Human rights are too often a wedge issue.  If the majority is prejudiced against a group they feel it is their right to discriminate and ignore the merits.  In some ways this is an inequality issue, but goes beyond income.  Politicians have learned by using code words and sometimes blunt language they can get votes at the expense of minorities or of some people violating other people's religious beliefs

The voters get most of their information through the media.  Although many have pre-set notions others are open to facts and intelligent opinions, but bear in mind that the media has its own agenda.  Basically they are in business to make money and sometimes that means sensationalizing the format and/or the content.  They tend to minimize the issues to cover the horse race aspects.  The more powerful media outlets may have their own preferences and can advantage one side or the other.

Everything is stacked against the middle class, but most of us are unaware of how we are being manipulated or are made to feel helpless.  As a counter balance there is the inter net and word of mouth.  Most voters have access to alternative opinions and facts.  Bernie Sanders, my favourite has been able to draw large crowds, mostly I suspect sympathizers, but is not able to get nearly the time on major media outlets as someone like Donald Trump.  He has the disadvantage of not being favoured by the establishment.  Part of his appeal comes from avoiding special interest donations that go against his platform.  Others are willing to compromise their agendas to get the necessary money.

It is easy to be self-rightious, but nothing can be done unless a politician is able to get elected.  Really what we have is a representative democracy, meaning we trust others to make the decisions that we do not have the time to understand.  In many ways we do not have the time or even motivation to understand who can be trusted to represent our best interests.

The American primary procedure illustrates the problems.  Hopefully as more people become aware of the distortions something can be done.  This blog is really only indicating some problems, but is not in a position to implement any helpful suggestions.

The photo is from a trip taken to Las Vegas a few years ago.

SAPIENS A BRIEF HISTORY OF HUMANKIND

We study history, mostly that has been written down and have some appreciation of how the world got to be this way.  Yuval Noah Harari goes before the written word was invented to discover more of our origins and better understand why we are the way we are and even where we are headed.  It is a fascinating tale with unexpected insights told with a sense of humour.  This is my top read of the year.  Although very easy to read, the author does go into a lot of depth.

Whether we are religious or not we all seem to feel mankind has always been dominant and we have had no real rivals.  Apparently our history is more complicated than we were taught.  100,000 years ago we were one of several human species competing amongst larger, faster, fiercer animals for survival.

As our bodies evolved to adapt to our circumstances our minds were shaped.  The author speculates that how we defeated the Neanderthal that was supposedly more intelligent and physically capable was through our social skills.  By social skills the author includes communication, group formations and very critically, gossiping.

We used to hear of Neanderthals as primitive ape like people who vanished.  There were actually a few other human like species that also disappeared.  The author likes to point out that they didn't totally disappear as some traces have survived in our DNA.  The Neanderthals were likely stronger and possibly more intelligent than Homo Sapiens, but they lacked social skills and possibly were not as aggressive.  For the most part our ancestors started out in Africa and spread across what he calls Afro-Asia which is essentially one big land mass.  Thousands of years ago our ancestors moved to Australia and the Americas.

The author breaks down our development into three Revolutions.  The Cognitive Revolution, was the first where our Homo Sapien ancestors started to take advantage of their evolutionary advantages such as upright, larger brain, grasping hands and developed social skills to allow them to form groups.  The Agricultural Revolution came when our ancestors developed food production based on plants and animals and developed more permanent residences that allowed specializations to develop further.  The Science Revolution got rolling around 1500 when men accepted that they were ignorant, but by observation (and later mathematical analysis) could unravel all sorts of information.  The information was not necessarily practical, but in the long run supported our modern technology.

Yuval declares that there are three unifying forces in the world, namely money, imperialism and religion.  At one time we were probably thousands of isolated tribes.  By money he means our commercial system that covers virtually everyone in every country.  Imperialism was a form of nationalism where one group would conquer another nation and impose its culture on the losers.  Sometimes as a counter example, the conquered Greeks had their culture shared with the victorious Romans.  Religion is another force that unites people that once would have been in different tribes. Each of these forces can be criticized, but undeniably they have brought a wide variety of people together.

Yuval explores different cultures, but more as a development of humans.  He does not necessarily see our progress as constant improvement.  The point of it all is happiness.  Has all this progress made us happier.  It is possible that our hunter-forager ancestors were happier as they spent less time seeking food and getting a better variety than our agricultural ancestors who endured a more bland diet.  A definition of happiness is that "it depends on the correlation between objective conditions and subjective expectations."  Ultimately it depends on our biochemistry which is designed to re-balance itself.  Sexual reactions spur us to repeat, but also subside so we can move on.

He explores several perspectives on happiness.  I think he admires the Buddhist philosophy the most, but gives credit to other ideas. He points out that humans have in effect become more cruel to animals without giving them much thought.

Throughout the book he points that our civilization is really "imaginary."  By sharing a lot of our images we are able to form nations, conduct business, and carry on with our families and friends.

What lies ahead?  We are in fact becoming intelligent designers.  We already manipulate DNA and have cloned a variety of animals.  We also have developed prosthetic devices that enable people to physically do many amazing things hithertofore impossible.  Scientists are now considering integrating organic and inorganic as cyborgs.  Maybe science fiction is not so far fetched.

Final question from the book:  "Is there anything more dangerous than dissatisfied and irresponsible gods who don't know what they want?"  He is suggesting we think more deeply on what we want.

Aside from reading the book which I highly recommend you can visit his website:  http://www.ynharari.com which has a heading "History began when humans invented gods and will end when humans become gods.

There is a sequel, called "Homo Deus" that is well worth reading.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/04/homo-deus.html

With all the Donald Trump nonsense Bernie Sanders is being overlooked by the media

When one writes about a political figure it might be fair to declare your own bias.  I like to consider myself liberal and progressive and confess an admiration for Bernie Sanders.  That doesn't mean that I would automatically agree with every thing or nuance he declares and I hope to retain some objectivity.  In some ways he seems to be fading from serious contention with Hilary Clinton over-whelming, but Bernie in many ways is much more admirable.  Loud mouth Donald Trump is getting much more media attention, but people ought to realize Bernie is their real champion.

He has been consistent over a longer period of time.  He actually marched with black civil rights groups.  He actually voted against the Iraq War.  He is the main candidate who understand climate change is a key issue.  He has consistently voted for sexual equality and fairness to tax payers and doesn't check polls to decide what to say.  He was caught off guard by Black Lives Matter, but seems to understand their concerns.

In western democracies, especially in the U.S. the real rulers are wealthy.  Donald Trump is not only a very wealthy man, but adept at getting attention through the media. His expressed views placates the fears of important masses.  The sort who feel that blacks and Mexicans are robbing them of their culture and that any Muslim could be a terrorist.  The other candidates understand these fears, but are concerned about what they must do to win over the general population with bigoted factons..

Bernie Sanders wants to get elected, but is not accepting money from lobbyists.  He  wants to focus on the real issues instead of entertainment.  Inequality is his biggest concern and campaign financing which allows the very rich to distort and lie their way to further inequality.  Listen to him and you will appreciate he makes sense and is on the side of the middle class.

Is he perfect?  Probably not, but getting rid of or at least diminishing the power of the wealthy to inflict their views on the rest of us is critical.

A concern of mine is Palestine where he says the right things, but doesn't get involved with details.  As a Jew he shows concern for the Palestinians, but seems reluctant to get very involved as he has with other issues.  It is a touchy subject with many Jewish voters.  A very key issue that is long overdue a revamping.

One can anticipate tactics used against him.  A CNN moderator made it sound like Bernie went on his honeymoon to Russia because he is a socialist, when in fact it was an official event decided before he became mayor of Burlington, Vermont. The word socialist is an abused word conflated with the "dirty Communists."  Americans applaud individual achievement and occasionally one hears it is the society that allows that.  The connection between the society and achievement is not always clear, but in reality it is a critical factor.

The biggest weapon being used against Bernie is ignoring him.  The media ignores him in favor of those more friendly to the corporations that run them.   When he is talked about the point is always made that he is a socialist, but few really understand that is different from Communism.  In fact he had drawn some of the largest crowds of the whole campaign and most polls show his ideas are more accepted than many of those getting more publicity.

There are polls show not only that Hilary Clinton has a lead and has added to it on the Democrat side.  She put on an impressive demonstration at a Congressional hearing on Benghazi that should not have been allowed to drag on.  I have heard of some polls that say she has problems on the national scale convincing enough voters she is trustworthy.  Bernie's problem seems to be a lack of name recognition and the aura of a bad word, "socialism."  Big dollars will assure that the media will be inundated with lots of distortions of the truth.  Bernie seems the man really needed.

English speakers with an impact on foreign cinema

What do Jane Fonda, Kristin Scott Thomas, Jodie Foster, Charlotte Gainsboroug and Kevin Kline have in common?  They all have been successful in English speaking cinema and you have probably seen them, but they have also performed in foreign films.

Why?  Well, first it expands their opportunities.  You might think opportunities to make more money and I am sure that is true, but I would add more artistic opportunities.  Language is a skill and needs to be used in order to be maintained.

Although most consumers may be locked into their primary language, movie stars get to travel.  Many English movies are premiered in international film festivals.  At the same time many foreign films are on display at American and British film festivals meaning movie personnel mingle.  Often a decision to act in a film depends on the director and they are always looking for the ideal cast, while the actors are looking for challenges that add to their resume.

Jane Fonda married a Frenchman, film director Roger Vadim.  She appeared in "Tout va Bien" in 1972 with Yves Montand and directed by Jean-Luc Godard.  More recently was in "All Together" in 2011.

Kristin Scott Thomas, also married a French man, an obstetrician and has been fairly prolific in French cinema, while also being active in English films.  I remember her in the comedy, "The Valet" (released in 2006 and directed by Francis Veber) where she played the smart wife with a two timing husband.  "Tell No One," released in 2006 and directed by Guillame Canet, was based on an American novel, but the French were the first to pick it up and gave Kristin a significant role.  Another supporting role was in "In the House," released in 2012 and directed by Francois Ozon.  She was the lead for "I've Loved you So Long," released in 2008 and directed by Philippe Claudel.  A  film that went international was "Sarah's Key,"  released in 2010 and directed by Gilles Paquet-Brenner where she played an investigative journalist who was an American married to a Frenchman.  We tend to think of the Holocaust as a German history, but this movie showed that the French were involved and wanted to forget their part.

Jodie Foster graduated from Le Lycée Francais as class valedictorian in 1980.  In addition to French she learned Spanish and Italian at an early age.  She spoke French in "Stop Calling Me Baby" in 1977 directed by Eric Le Hung.  She had a role in "A Very Long Engagement" (2004) that starred Audrey Tautou.

Charlotte Gainsbourg was the daughter of Jane Birkin and famous French rock star Serge Gainsbourg.  She got my attention in a comedic role in "Prete-moi ta main," released in 2006, and directed by Eric Lartigau.  I was surprised to see her in an Australian movie, "The Tree" (2010).  Recently saw her in "3 Hearts" released in 2006.  She is in a movie I look forward to seeing with Omar Sy, in  "Samba." released recently but not yet seen by me.

Kevin Kline is reported to be fluent in French (according to IMDB), but spoke only one sentence at a time in "Queen to Play" released in 2009, directed by Caroline Bottaro and set in Corsica.  He also appeared in a Swiss short, "L'homme du Pont Levant" with French dialogue, released in 2010 and directed by Claudio Todeschini.

Pierce Brosnan is an interesting case.  He appeared in "All you Need is Love" (2012), but only spoke English although the film shifted from Denmark to Italy.  In a sense an arrogant rich American who didn't have to speak to the natives.  For him he got to work with Danish award winning director, Susanne Bier and top actress Trine Dryholm.

There are a lot of multi lingual directors, producers, composers, etc. etc.

I am sure there are other English speakers who have performed in foreign language films. Some are major stars, but many are supporting actors.  If I left out your favorite let me know.

GENERATION BABY BUSTER

This documentary film presented an interesting topic: why more women are rejecting the idea of becoming mothers.  Terra Renton took on this as a personal quest to do with her own life.  At age 32 she had put off the choice and now was wondering if she really wanted to stick to her resolution.  She had been involved with a tv show "Mantracker" and has some expertise and resources to really delve into it.

Before too long the choice boils down to the pros and cons.  The cons seem pretty frightful.  Your life is taken over.  Spouses and close friends tend to be neglected.  Careers are curtailed.  Lifestyles are altered.  On the other side is some parental and society pressure and buried in there are that you live for someone outside your self which is supposed to be fulfilling.

Along the way we uncover some trends.  I have observed and participated to some extent in these trends.  Fathers are now getting more involved in parenting, but are still dealing with their masculinity being questioned.  Previously fathers had been expected to be the bread winners and kept separate from raising children, except perhaps for discipline.

For myself I had accepted some of my father's habits and when my daughter was born, I didn't change diapers except in an emergency.  I did very little housework.  I did work long hours for a number of years in circulation departments of morning newspapers.  I developed habits of getting up early, around 5 or even earlier and often had to work late.  Later in life I ended up being a traveling salesman often leaving early and returning late and sometimes going away for a week at a time.

In the meantime I had a son born and things had started to change.  It had been pointed out to me that my brother-in-law, ten years younger and now my boss changed diapers and I found myself doing that a lot more.  I also did a little more housework.   I found myself not only getting involved with my children's extra curricular activities (dance, swimming, soccer, water polo), but also got involved in reading bedtime stories and even taught both of them to read.  Read about my volunteering http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/06/my-career-as-sports-volunteer.html  Here read about my proudest achievement teaching my kids to read.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/10/my-proudest-achievement.html

In the film young women are portrayed as wanting to avoid all the encumbrances of child rearing.  It seems that consumerism impacted their choices.  Having a child would interfere with lots of things--vacations, entertainment and material goods.  All that is true.  Everything has a cost.  I didn't really think of parenthood before marriage and even in the early days after marriage it wasn't something I looked forward to.  But now I feel life was very selfish before and now is more meaningful and fulfilling.

My parents married young and I had been told they tried to have a baby right away, but I made them wait over a year.  Then they relaxed and my sister was born only a year and a half later.  Altogether they had six children with my youngest sister born 18 years apart from me.  I was told she was not an accident.  Still I had no wish to duplicate my parents feat.

There are a number of different angles  One point is that the role of men is changing and needs to be supported.  The United States is the only industrial nation not to have paid parental leave and thus conscious decisions are more difficult.  Parents have become over protective

One interesting example was given by Lenore Skenzy who was a reporter with a nine year old son who felt over protected.  He wanted to take a subway in New York to his home in Queens by himself.  Lenore and her husband were a little fearful, but finally they decided to give him the opportunity.  As she realized fear is overblown--violence is actually down unless you watch too much tv.  I remember being  a little fearful that my son (probably about nine) was sometimes the last one out of the house for a family trip and resented that we didn't trust him to lock the door.  Eventually I found that my son was worthy of trust.

It is universal that birth rates are declining.  At least two factors are important.  One is urbanization and the other (pointed out in the film) is secularization.  Fundamentalists whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim tend to have more children.  For us secularists it is frightening to think the world will be taken over by fundamentalists.  Consumerism is another foe for increasing the birth rate.

The family itself is losing its strength.  Many of us grew up with brothers and sisters and even more likely with cousins and aunts and uncles all of whom influenced us.  Without the one child China policy more of our Western cultures are producing fewer brothers and sisters and therefore fewer cousins and aunt and uncles.

The goal of everyone is to find the right balance.  Now that women have a choice it is not hard to understand why many prefer not to have the burden of motherhood, especially at a young age.  Society to survive has to have replacements, but unwanted babies end up causing problems.  For the individual they need to really think about this most important decision.  How this is accomplished should be a much higher priority

Terra is extraordinarily honest.  Conscious of the ticking clock she decided to examine the issue from all sides.  She talked to a wide variety of experts from Canada, the United States, Europe and Australia.  Music was provided by Dorothea Tachler

There is a Facebook page you can keep up to date with: https://www.facebook.com/generationbabybuster/