9/11

(This essay was published on September 11. 2008 in my column JUSTIFIED)

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

---George Santayana, philosopher

September 11 (of 2001)is a day that would forever live in infamy. Said day was probably one of the most savage examples of man's inhumanity to man in recent memory.

History may be a witness to many inhumanities; I, however, am not.Yet on that fateful September morn halfway across the globe, violence had a field day; and I felt like an unwilling vicarious witness.

It was nighttime in Manila where I was then when September 11 happened. I was lying in bed,my mind processing the events of my day that just ended. I was roused from my ennui when my other housemates were in some sort of commotion in front of the TV.It was there captured live on CNN: the Twin Towers in New York collapsed like a deck of cards on fire as it was slammed by two hijacked planes commandeered by Al-Qaeda terrorists.Everything seemed surreal like a Hollywood blockbuster, yet the ramifications were real. Thousands of innocent lives were lost. Still thousands more lives of friends and relatives were destroyed.

Terror and subsequent paranoia shook America the invincible. Other parts of the world felt the same terror, pain and paranoia.

To say that 9/11 was simply a terrorist attack is an oversimplification. More significantly (or ignominiously), it was a horrific story of cultural and religious intolerance, violence and man's inhumanity to man---all of which led to an act of terror.

Countless more lives and property were destroyed due to terrorist attacks, mostly with underlying theme of religious dogma or cultural intolerance: London subway bombings, the Madrid attacks, the LRT bombings in Manila.

In Mindanao, certain localities are said to be hideouts to nascent groups with links to international terrorist organizations.

Several years after 9/11, I wrote an essay on Peace using the events of 9/11 as a literary backdrop. The essay won for me a 2nd prize in prestigious Palanca Peace Essay Contest sponsored by the Palanca Foundation.

It was ironic for me to be writing about peace---and winning a monetary prize for it---while recalling on paper a horrendous event such as 9/11.

I coincidentally recalled all of the above memories a week ago, the first week of September when I heard my first string of Christmas carol. The song was "Christmas in our Hearts" by my all-time favorite Jose Mari Chan. Again, the irony didn't escape me:September 11 occurred during the first "ber" month of the few "ber" months leading to the Yuletide season, a season for peace.

Peace is not the absence of conflict or differences. It is when these differences or conflicts are galvanized by intolerance and violence that humans become monsters.

Hey monsters, here's a groundbreaking (at least for you) thought to consider: Give peace a chance!

Year of the Naked Man

This essay appeared in my column JUSTIFIED.

In the Philippines there are only two schools: U.P. and others---Sen. Miriam Santiago, U.P. alumnus

(This year, my former alma mater---the U.P., I got my bachelor's from Diliman---celebrates its Centennial. The University of the Philippines is symbolized by the Oblation, a statue of a naked man which epitomizes offering one's self in service to society. As a tribute, the following topic, which is also timely since it's the start/end of the second/first half of the school year, talks about school pride which is usually manifested through school bashing---other schools, that is.)
I have come to regard it as the national past time of students. Okay, this last declaration isn't sanctioned by any record book but I 'm positively sure any student---past and present---will agree with me.

No, I am not talking about malling. Malls were not that ubiquitous then, much more part of any student's lifestyle. Not even cheating. Oh sure, it's definitely part of any mediocre student's bag of tricks but I'm proud to say I didn't belong to that shady stratum of the studentry.

What I'm talking about is---drum roll, please---school bashing. School bashing is that insidious habit of students of putting down rival schools. Oh how we (or used to) delight in it! We attribute certain negative characteristics , both real and imagined, to other schools with the end of exalting our own alma mater while putting other hapless students' school in a bad light.

For most students, school bashing has become a communal thing to do, some sort of a bind that binds. It has become not just an excellent conversation piece but also a gold mine of jokes.

Generally, the usual basis for school bashing is the perceived reputation of that particular school as personified by the students who study there. If the students are not so brainy, or financially disadvantaged, then the school itself acquires that characteristic. Of course it is hasty generalization in the extreme , but hey, who says it isn't fun?

In college at the State University (aka U.P.), students of other universities are usually poked fun at by the fact that they fail to pass the entrance exam or make it in what is touted as the premier university in the country.

Jokes would pass around campus belittling other universities and their students. Usually the acronyms which stand as a contraction for the schools' names will be changed into something funnier.

AdMU (for Ateneo de Manila University) becomes Ang di Makalusot sa U.P. or Ang di Makapasa sa UPCAT (in reference to the entrance exam of the State University). DLSU (acronym for De La Salle University) becomes Di Lumusot sa U.P. Other schools? Well, they exactly become just like that---"others."

As one U.P. alumna exclaimed: "There are only two schools in the Philippines ---U.P. and others." Of course, most of the taunts do not hold water but school bashing has heightened school spirit one way or another. Just ask any Blue Eagle, Green Archer or U.P. Maroon.

Other basis for school bashing would be the uniforms worn by the students of the school. During my high school at the Jose Rizal Memorial State University/JRMSU (formerly ZNSAT), students from other schools would shout "taya, taya" (the Cebuano term for rust) when we pass by their campuses just because our school uniforms' color (for the girls, anyway) and school color itself was maroon.

The bases for school bashing---initial perceptions and purported reputation---can persist even if the school has improved , its real reputation has changed, or the student composition has become different.Talking about first impressions dying hard.

School bashing has some merit to it if it is all done in stride, in a healthy manner and if it enhances school spirit. It's like drinking coffee: it perks you up, starts the gears in the brain, but too much of which is definitely harmful.

School bashing is to students what gossiping is to a clique (barkada). There's nothing like a common object to direct your angsts at to your hearts' content.

The negative side about school bashing is that it is a hasty generalization. What applies to some may not apply to others. Or what was perceived to be true before is not true anymore.

In logic class we are told that a hasty generalization is fallacious; it violates the rules of logic and common sense. Well, logic be damned. Fun is the bottomline of this students' favorite past time. For any student, having fun while at school is definitely there at the uppermost part of the list.

There is really nothing bad about school bashing as long as students shall bear in mind that no one school has a monopoly of all the positive "academic features"---diligent and high IQ'd studentry, excellent facilities, top-notch teachers and low tuition fees. To badly paraphrase the singer Sting: "Nobody has a monopoly of common sense on either side of the educational fence."

School bashing remains a fun past time as long as respect for rival schools (and their respective students) is maintained.

Dharma

(This essay, Dharma, appeared in my column JUSTIFIED which ran in a local newspaper.)

While updating my Friendster profile (yes, I do have one; Editor's note: Facebook wasn't in vogue at the time of this writing) one day, I came upon quite an interesting widget called "How evil are you? quiz". I took the quiz to find out for myself. I won't reveal my results as I invoke my Constitutional right against self-incrimination but I find the outcome amusing if not revealing.

If ever I have to reveal the quintessential me, it would be this: I have always known myself to be a nice person, even bordering on being an asslicker. This may sound a little tad too subjective, taking into mind a line from a movie: "Deep, deep inside, everybody thinks they're good."

What does it really take to be good? How does one define "goodness"?

I have tinkered with these questions as we are into the Holy Week. (By the way, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines or CBCP said that those acts of self-flagellation and crucifixion are a "wrong understanding" of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Ha-ha , I've always been suspicious of those sadomasochistic acts; I found them too artificial. Now my suspicions are confirmed. Anyway, I've digressed.)

Socially-speaking, I've discovered that most people have a twisted sense of what being good/kind is.

We usually define something as kind/good if that person readily conforms to our pre-existing paradigms, beliefs and value system, or if that other person easily yields to our peccadilloes. Any adolescent would easily describe his/her parent as "mabait" if the latter would allow the former to go out on a weeknight even if there is class the following day. Any relative would call an aunt or uncle kind/good if the latter would, without any fuss, dole out money, overlooking the fact that the beneficiary-relative has not lifted any finger to look for a job , preferring instead to hang out in the neighborhood sari-sari store.

One anecdotal experience I had anent the good/bad dichotomy while I was still in law school involved two librarians in our library. One is a strict spinster while the other is a harmless-looking guy. The crone of a librarian sticks to the rules. If you get delayed in returning a book, you pay the fine---no buts, no excuses. The guy librarian, meanwhile, condones all the borrowers who get delayed (that included me, wink wink nudge nudge), without imposing on these late-returnees the mandatory fine. In the course of time, the old lady-librarian earned the reputation of being "masungit". If you really have to think about it, neither of them can be actually said to be kinder/more good than the other. The old lady was merely following rules and regulations---and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Strict compliance with rules and regulations is one way of disciplining the students which habit (of self-discipline) they are sure to benefit from.

We sometimes confuse being kind/good with people pleasing:not getting into arguments, trying to be understanding all the time, assenting and conceding to other people's idiosyncracies and just allowing others to do their own stuff. (We have the usual phrase "pabayaan mo na.")

A person should be considered good/kind not necessarily because he/she conforms to our views all the time but because he has an exemplary character and values which are truly admirable regardless of the situation. We are talking here of those absolute moral precepts as honesty, love. respect, being non-judgmental, acceptance, tolerance, altruism, doing the right thing and fighting for what is right, etc. etc. Being good means sticking to good values and good moral standards even if such adherence might offend other people whose values change depending on what is good for them. As Stephen covey, author of "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" would intone "even when in Rome, one does not have to do what the Romans do."

In the same manner, people-pleasing must not be construed as being kind/good. It is of course a challenge to distinguish one from the other. It definitely would take intelligence to make a finer distinction. (To digress again, it was best-selling author Robert Kiyosaki who said, "Intelligence is the ability to make finer distinctions.")

Now, despite being good/kind people still misconstrue you as exactly the opposite---well, what the heck. If you can never please everybody (which you never ever will), go ahead and please yourself. Anyway, nobody gets a prize for being good; oftentimes it is just a matter of "prinsipyo."

Blue-eyed nanny

(This essay appeared in my column JUSTIFIED.)

Television keeps the masses occupied. What if everyone decided they wanted to make something of their lives? Television keeps the competition down and keeps more criminals off the street. What if everyone decided to go to law school or medical school? It would sure make it tough on the rest of us---Jim Urbanovich, author

I was never a T.V. baby. I mean, I grew up not watching T.V. or very little T.V. if at all. Not that I grew up pecuniarily disadvantaged to be totally deprived of the comforts of modern living. My family had the usual entertainment gadgets in vogue at the time like VHS player, stereos and the like.

This aversion to the boob tube is not really self-imposed. Almost everybody around me watches TV so it is impossible for me not to be influenced by them. It is just that TV watching has never been my habit. (If truth be told, for some it is not just a habit but an addiction.) The very rare occasions I get to watch TV are when I am in public places such as in restaurants, airport terminals or in other people's homes/rooms.


Growing up, my parents did not forbid me and my brother from taking to the "blue-eyed babysitter." But my parents themselves very seldom watch TV so we kids imbibed the habit.


I could remember when I was in high school and even through college and law school when my classmates and schoolmates would talk about this and that show---all of which, naturally, I totally had no idea. I would merely stare at them (but guess who graduated valedictorian, nyahahaha) like they were talking in Greek or Arabic (no offense to Greeks and Arabs). Despite that, I never felt out of place. For me then, as it is today, talking about boob tube stuff was not much a productive use of time and not good staple for conversations.


I used to classify people under three categories: A, B and C, in that order. The "A" people talk about ideas. The "B" people talk about things. The "C" people talk about other people. I classified talking about TV stuff under category "B". Of course, I wanted to be under category "A".


All these may not be bad after all. Growing up not watching television has developed my love for reading. Whenever this substitution crosses my mind, I am reminded of famous comedian Groucho Marx who said: "I find television to be very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go in the other room and read a book." Well, the same thing with me.


Lately, however, I catch myself watching more and more television. I don't know what this syndrome is called: maybe making up for all the decades of being TV-deprived, although I never felt it was a deprivation. Or perhaps TV is just the most common and pervasive means of getting information nowadays. It's definitely more accessible than browsing the Net and less cumbersome than reading the newspapers. The last two I still do despite my increased exposure to the boob tube.


Whereas before I consider television and TV watching negatively, I now see both in a more or less neutral manner. But just like all things neutral, the aforementioned medium could be used either positively or negatively. TV watching may distract you from doing more productive pursuits. The same medium may also be used to perpetuate misconceptions and distorted perceptions. Being bombarded with all those commercials will surely turn your noggin to mush.


Whatever may be my current perception on TV watching, you still can't force me to watch Wowowee or Marimar or whatever show Willie Revillame is on. Peksman.

The Great Debate

(This essay appeared in my column JUSTIFIED.)


The Heart has its reasons which Reason does not know of.---Blaise Pascal, French thinker

One of the most insightful books I have read is "Emotional Intelligence" by the eminent Harvard psychologist Daniel Goleman. I had read it when it was first published many years back. Lately, I found myself rereading it or at least attempting to reread it (if TV does not snatch my attention away).

I have always been fascinated by what it takes to be truly smart. The now oft-quoted term "emotional intelligence"was a groundbreaking brain and behavioral research that redefined what it means to be smart. Emotional intelligence shows the factors at work when people of high I.Q. flounder while those of modest I.Q. do surprisingly well . Psychologists now argue that our view of intelligence is too narrow, ignoring a crucial range of abilities that matter immensely for how well we do in life. My renewed interest in the "emotional intelligence vs. intelligence quotient" (E.I. vs. I.Q.) debate surfaced after I have read in the previous issue of The Mindanao Observer that the incidence of "no read, no write" has increased. This means that the level of functional literacy has declined. For those not in the know, functional literacy means not just the ability to read and write per se but the ability to read and write and to use such ability for practical uses. On the other hand, there are those who argue that what is important are one's personal and relational skills (collectively called emotional intelligence). I am sure this dilemma has also fascinated many others as evidenced by numerous literature dealing with both mental intelligence (as measured by ubiquitous I.Q. tests) and emotional intelligence (which has no real gauge but as shown by qualitative factors which include self-awareness, discipline, empathy, self-motivation, self- reliance and the like.)

On a more personal note, I have always been oriented to use my mind more than my emotions. I have always put a premium on intelligence---the mental kind. For me, I.Q. could be the be-all and end-all in this game called life. To wax poetic about it, reason is my primary weapon whenever I am faced with life's sticky situations. This was most evident during my elementary and high school years when I had excelled in academics and other mental-related stuff. In recent years, however, I found myself coasting along, enjoying other pursuits besides books, school and anything even remotely related to one's mental development. This leads me to the epiphany that there might be other human endowmwents as important, if not more important, than intellect. That is why I tried to get a more or less holistic idea of what it takes to be truly smart by reading and now rereading the book "Emotional Intelligence."

I think there is nothing wrong with being attuned to one's emotions, developing skills other than mental skills and be able to relate well with other people as long as it is not used as an excuse for stupidity, to compromise and to pander to the least common denominator. The latter has become the norm rather than the exception.

Use your heart if you will, but use your mind, too. "Emotional Intelligence" (the book)should be required reading for everybody, especially those in positions that require them to put other people's interests together with, nay, ahead of their own. Hello! civil servants, politicians and leaders!

Get acquainted with both types of intelligence and decide for yourself which is of more primordial importance.

Freakonomics

(This essay appeared in my column JUSTIFIED.)


You get the clue that the economy is really in bad shape, despite government claims to the contrary, when product-makers and manufacturers use the same raw material for the different products they churn out. Or, when the consumers themselves use the same ingredient or resource or item for a variety of uses.

Call it whatever you like---maximization, efficiency, practicality---but whatever it's called, it sure is an indicator of the state of our nation's economy and probably a pointer to where it (the economy, stupid) is going. Forget about those statistics issued by the NEDA, DBM and other economic and financial gobbledygook that make your eyes glaze and which you could not, for the life of you, understand unless you have an Economics degree from the U.P. School of Economics (like I do, nyahahaha).

Look around you and be observant enough: if only a handful of resources or materials are being used as the main or active ingredient in most of the products that we use, then either that material or resource is a wonder product or the state of the economy had called for more belt-tightening measures. I bet it's more of the latter since it's quite a stretch to be using the same thing for a variety of uses than is humanly possible.

For example papaya: probably the most over-used fruit there is. You eat papaya for dessert; you add papaya to your tinola. Then there is papaya soap, papaya body wash and papaya lotion. I think it won't be long before enterprising entrepreneurs (pardon my alliteration) would come up with papaya shampoo, or maybe some fraking brainiac has already invented it somewhere. By golly, even the young, green papayas have not been spared! Now, we have green papaya soaps. So how come we have been wildly abusing this helpless fruit? Blame it on the economy!

Countless vegetables and fruits have been turned into a form of product or another.

Whereas cucumber and avocado were mainly for the palate, now facial lotions have avocado and cucumber varieties. Even the lowly calamansi is not too small to be dispensed with from this economic malaise. Calamansi is not only turned into juice but as an ingredient in facial lotions, as a stain remover and as an ingredient in laundry soaps as well.

Then there is green tea. It is the scent of your air deodorizer and an ingredient in your juice drink. Sooner or later the consumer would turn green or smell like tea for drinking and inhaling green tea at the same time. Don't ask me which one is worse.

We are not turning vegetarians or environmentalists, mind you; otherwise we wouldn't be seeing long queues at McDonald's or Yellow Cab (or Jollibee if you're a dyed-in-the-wool probinsiyano), we wouldn't be peeing on walls and dumping trash into our esteros. It is just that the economy has gotten really bad that we can't help but be utterly creative in the use of our limited resources.

Even one of my most fave things---coffee---is being milked (pun intended) for all its possible uses: as a beverage, ice cream ingredient and as a flavoring in cookies. Oh, there was even this cell phone holder I saw in a mall with coffee bean designs and has the aroma of real coffee!

Newspapers and magazines are not only for reading anymore. Since there's not much to read in the papers anyway unless you relish those gory photos of terrorist attacks (in which case you're a sadist) and are keeping a body count of the typhoon and tsunami casualties, they better be used dor wrapping dried fish, flowers or even as pamaypay (fan). At least that way you can recover the cost of the magazine or newspaper one way or another.

See, the economy has really deteriorated. We wouldn't go through all that trouble of multi-using a single item other than what it was originally intended for.

Now read this piece fast so you can recycle the paper on which it is printed on!

Beautiful mind, courageous heart

(My essay Beautiful mind, courageous heart, about the life of Nobel laureate John Forbes Nash, appeared in the April 23, 2005 issue of The Philippine Star)

Beautiful mind, courageous heart

"What is as important as a beautiful mind is a courageous heart."

This is one of the best movie lines I have heard. Incidentally, this line came from one of the best movies I have seen---A Beautiful Mind.

A Beautiful Mind is the heart-wrenching yet concomitantly inspiring true story of the Nobel-Prize laureate John Nash. This Princeton mathematician /economist plumbed into the depths of schizophrenia which ruined his career, family life and reputation but through sheer grit and determination, and with the help of his loving wife Alice, eventually redeemed himself. He was even bestowed one of the most coveted prizes in the academic/intellectual community ---The Nobel Prize (in Economics).

The movie offers a glimpse into the celebrated mathematician's sufferings. From a brilliant student to a young, promising professorin one of the best universities of the world (Princeton) he gradually succumbed to schizophrenia.

John Nash was excellently portrayed by the brilliant Russell Crowe. Through Crowe's performance, one can glean how a schizophrenic struggles with the disease. As portrayed in the movie, Nash sees people who are actually not there. He converses with relatives or acquaintances he had not seen for a long timebut are just reenacted by his imagination. For somebody who is well-educated, well-respected and who has a very, very promising future, to be afflicted with the (at the time) baffling disease of schizophrenia is the biggest blow one could be dealt with. Luckily for Nash, his very patient and understanding wife Alice (portrayed by Jennifer Connelly whose fine performance gave her the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress) was with him through thick and thin.

John Nash's struggle as a schizophrenic is so palpable throughout the movie you can not but empathize with him. Anybody would feel crushed knowing one of the best minds of his generation is being slowly wasted and rendered useless by a stealthy, malevolent disease. Yet, what's awe-inspiring in the movie is how nash emerged triumphant from the disease which almost took away everything from him. He fought not just with his intellect but more so with his guts, heart and will. This part of the movie brings to mind the fair advice from well-meaning psychology experts that sheer intelligence may not be enough as any person goes through life's vicissitudes. One may also need to muster his heart, willpower and emotions (now collectively called "emotional intelligence"). As Connelly's Alice reminds us: "What is as important as a beautiful mind is a courageous heart."

John Nash would not be able to overcome his illness if he lacked willpower, determination and emotional fortitude coupled with the support, love and empathy of is family and friends which made him win over his debilitating illness. What made this movie especially meaningful for me is the fact that I have always been oriented to use my head more than my emotions. I have always put a premium on intelligence. I believe there are many people out there who are also like that. For me, I.Q. could be the be-all and end-all in this game called life. To wax poetic about it, reason is my primary weapon whenever I am faced with life's sticky situations. The movie taught me that there are many other human endowments as important, if not more important, than intellect. No matter how brilliant a person is, he still needs the support, attention and help of his family and friends. Through the help of his faithful wife Alice, family and friends, Nash was able to overcome his illness and eventually went on to win the Nobel Prize in Economics. Nash's story has taught to not only rely on my mental endowments but also on my emotional and relational strengths.

Indeed, what is as important as a beautiful mind is a courageous heart!

 

(See the description and contents of my article in the post below)

The triumph of the human spirit

(The following essay appeared in the My Favorite Movie column, Entertainment Section, of The Philippine Star dated November 28, 2004 )

How does one protect the unspoiled innocence of a child when what he sees around him is a world at war, racism, hatred and the disintegration of his family?

This was the dilemma faced by Guido Orefice (Roberto Benigni) in the critically-acclaimed and Oscar-winning Italian movie La Vita e Bella (Life is Beautiful).

All it takes to conquer the harshness of war is courage, love, positivity and creative imagination.

Life is Beautiful is a poignant story of Guido Orefice , an Italian Jew, his wife Dora (Nicoletta Braschi) and their son Giosue (Giorgio Cantarini) during the Holocaust.

Guido is a very, very optimistic man who fell in love with a pretty schoolteacher, Dora. Dora was unhappily engaged to a high-ranking Fascist official. Due to Guido's charms and persistence, he won Dora's heart.

Guido and Dora fell in love and started a family. Dora bore Guido a son---Giosue. The family would have lived a charmed life if not for the detention of Guido, together with his son Giosue, in the Jewish concentration camp somewhere in the Italian countryside. Dora, a non-Jew but finding no more reason to live if separated from her family, chose also to live in the concentration camp.

The concentration camp is a ruthless place. The Fascist authorities are unforgiving. Guido wants to shield his son from all these ugliness. To achieve this, Guido lied to Giosue by telling him that they are in a big game where the ultimate prize is one of Giosue's most favorite things---a real tank.

It is at this point when the movie takes a delightful, side-splitting yet sporadically sad twist.

Guido constantly contrives ways and means to hide the truth from his son---that is, that they are in a concentration camp, and anytime soon any of the people there may either be executed or gassed in the chambers. Guido's schemes were a buoyant contradiction to the bleakness of the surroundings. It is also these creative tactics of Guido which gives a nice, comical twist to an otherwise drab movie about the Holocaust and the Second World War.

One very, very moving yet hilarious scene in the movie happened inside the headquarters. The concentration camp administrator (a Fascist official) was telling all the prisoners in the room about the rules to be strictly followed inside the concentration camp. Volunteering himself to be the interpreter for the German official, Guido, instead of translating what the German official said, made it appear that the said official was relating the rules of the game they are to play. This brought a smile to Giousue who totally believed his father while the rest of the inmates were completely bewildered. Totally amusing was the abject disparity between Guido's buoyant spirit and mismatched gestures while doing the translation, and the German official's stern words and growling demeanor. Imagine an anti-Semite telling all the inmates (through Guido's wayward translation) that they are all in this big game where they are going to get their favorite things as a prize if they are going to cooperate!

There are many more scenes similar to the one described above interspersed throughout the movie. It is so heart-rending to see the utter disparity of the life situations the movie's characters are in and their constant struggles to keep their optimism alive for their own sake and for the sake of their loved ones. It is this almost Sisyphean struggle that any moviegoer (myself definitely included) could easily relate to.

Just like Benigni's character Guido, we all face life's vicissitudes with as much optimism as we can possibly muster. We may not have been victims of a real war but each of us has his or her own battle to fight. Daily living itself can be hard. Despite this, we keep on going and going and going.

Life is Beautiful is a moving vindication of the power of the human spirit and the strength of the human traits we have all been endowed with but which we sometimes fail to use---traits such as love, optimism, positivity and even creative imagination.

Roberto Benigni's character Guido may have died in the movie (this was not shown but can be clearly inferred) yet he was able to achieve his objective. He was able to protect his young son from all the inhumanities that could have happened in a war. At the end of the movie, Giosue was one of the survivors rescued by the Liberation/Allied forces. And what more befitting way to be rescued than by soldiers riding on tanks! Giosue was profusing with childlike exuberance thinking that the real tank was his prize for winning the game which his father has explained to him. Eventually, Giosue and his mother Dora were happily reunited.

Life is Beautiful is a wonderful movie because it reaffirms my belief in the innate capacity of the human spirit to triumph over insurmountable odds. It gave me inspiration to go on living. Any good movie should do just that, that is, inspire us, motivate us and make us remember what we humans can accomplish with the God-given traits that are instilled in us.

Life is indeed beautiful. Watching this delighful, independent Italian movie is proof of that. 

 

  

Beautiful dreamer Peter Kobel review in Premiere magazine