Max, that was simply brilliant! I've read your novels, and they are very good, but this is something totally different and very special.
We both know that it's one thing to write a fictional story, and quite another to address a philosophical phenomenon in a very compelling and comprehensive way. Your use of the movie was inspired and definitely accomplished your goal.
I've been interested in the issues that you raise for a lifetime. Having been raised Catholic, I could hardly avoid it.
I have also written on this subject, and used 'angels' as a literary device to help explain my view of the tension between the concepts of predestination and free will. I am convinced that there is a Grand Plan designed by a Divine Spark. In my life, I have dozens of examples which support my personal conclusion that everything 'happens for a reason.'
Yet, I also believe that we have free will. It's a gross oversimplification, but I resolve the dichotomy by suggesting that our exercise of free will occurs in a life/context limited by time, space, laws of physics, and realistic limits on opportunity. For example, I could choose to be Pope, but for a billion reasons, I could not ever succeed in achieving that goal.
In my own novel, addressing both angels and the dicotomy of life, my conclusion is that "...there is no serendipity!" See, "The Archangel of Sedona," which is available in the same place that we can find your novels.
Anyway, this was a very impressive article and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
The Archangel of Sedona book is a delight. Highly recommend! I wish you WERE the Pope instead of the current one, but I'm not Catholic and it's none of my business...
You brought back memories of my watching that movie on TV with my parents waaaaaaay back when. I remember feeling so bad for Joe's being cheated, and then cheated again. (I'm not providing an additional spoiler.)
The Warren Beatty remake of this movie, "Heaven Can Wait", is one of my favorite films. I've never seen the original but I appreciate the perspective shared in this post. Thank you!
I've not seen it because my general rule has been to avoid remakes when I've enjoyed the original. I don't want a bad remake to ruin the memory of a movie I enjoyed.
Having seen both, I do not recommend the remake, in part because the remake seemed to my admittedly prejudiced point of view to inject puerile leftist politics into the story.
I have been waiting for the next Max Cossack post. it is very interesting. I am still thinking about the last one. Rabbi Akiva meant that a person has free will for good or bad. Something you were putting in your essay , but I'm being pedantic. Rich or poor, strong or weak, etc, is in the hands of heaven. even being a boxing champion. but to be a good human being is up to you.. not a current idea. thank you for the essay.
I stumbled onto it years ago & thought how very very, and oddly, mystico- religious it was. Although i was too stupid to see Talmud connections. Your article however very well laid out. BTW, I completely didn't get "Eighty-three years is plenty of time to see a movie." I missed the joke. I thought maybe you tried to say it took 83 yrs to discover it?? Help
Hypothetically, if someone were to object to all the spoilers in my piece, I could tell that person, "Don't complain that you were just about to watch it. You've had 83 years from 1941 to 2024 to watch it." (A small joke which landed with a thud, I guess.)
Way back in S.F. when All The President's Men came out, we were in line for the second showing and a guy coming out of the first one leaned into our line and said in a stage whisper: "Nixon did it." Funny!
Max, that was simply brilliant! I've read your novels, and they are very good, but this is something totally different and very special.
We both know that it's one thing to write a fictional story, and quite another to address a philosophical phenomenon in a very compelling and comprehensive way. Your use of the movie was inspired and definitely accomplished your goal.
I've been interested in the issues that you raise for a lifetime. Having been raised Catholic, I could hardly avoid it.
I have also written on this subject, and used 'angels' as a literary device to help explain my view of the tension between the concepts of predestination and free will. I am convinced that there is a Grand Plan designed by a Divine Spark. In my life, I have dozens of examples which support my personal conclusion that everything 'happens for a reason.'
Yet, I also believe that we have free will. It's a gross oversimplification, but I resolve the dichotomy by suggesting that our exercise of free will occurs in a life/context limited by time, space, laws of physics, and realistic limits on opportunity. For example, I could choose to be Pope, but for a billion reasons, I could not ever succeed in achieving that goal.
In my own novel, addressing both angels and the dicotomy of life, my conclusion is that "...there is no serendipity!" See, "The Archangel of Sedona," which is available in the same place that we can find your novels.
Anyway, this was a very impressive article and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Tony
Thanks, TonyP. I appreciate your thoughts.
The Archangel of Sedona book is a delight. Highly recommend! I wish you WERE the Pope instead of the current one, but I'm not Catholic and it's none of my business...
Susan Vass
Thanks, "Max."
You brought back memories of my watching that movie on TV with my parents waaaaaaay back when. I remember feeling so bad for Joe's being cheated, and then cheated again. (I'm not providing an additional spoiler.)
I saw it on TV as a child and loved it then. I only came to a deeper understanding of why much more recently.
The Warren Beatty remake of this movie, "Heaven Can Wait", is one of my favorite films. I've never seen the original but I appreciate the perspective shared in this post. Thank you!
Hi Invisible,
Thanks for the comment.
I do recommend the original, especially if the remake is one of your favorites. There's a good chance you'll enjoy the original even more.
"Max," do you recommend "Heaven Can Wait"?
I've not seen it because my general rule has been to avoid remakes when I've enjoyed the original. I don't want a bad remake to ruin the memory of a movie I enjoyed.
Having seen both, I do not recommend the remake, in part because the remake seemed to my admittedly prejudiced point of view to inject puerile leftist politics into the story.
I have been waiting for the next Max Cossack post. it is very interesting. I am still thinking about the last one. Rabbi Akiva meant that a person has free will for good or bad. Something you were putting in your essay , but I'm being pedantic. Rich or poor, strong or weak, etc, is in the hands of heaven. even being a boxing champion. but to be a good human being is up to you.. not a current idea. thank you for the essay.
I stumbled onto it years ago & thought how very very, and oddly, mystico- religious it was. Although i was too stupid to see Talmud connections. Your article however very well laid out. BTW, I completely didn't get "Eighty-three years is plenty of time to see a movie." I missed the joke. I thought maybe you tried to say it took 83 yrs to discover it?? Help
Hypothetically, if someone were to object to all the spoilers in my piece, I could tell that person, "Don't complain that you were just about to watch it. You've had 83 years from 1941 to 2024 to watch it." (A small joke which landed with a thud, I guess.)
Thanks for the comment.
Max
No thud.
People referring to movies or TV shows that have been out for several months use that line. Using it for a movie we saw on TV 70 years ago is funny.
By the way folks, King Kong dies in the end.
Way back in S.F. when All The President's Men came out, we were in line for the second showing and a guy coming out of the first one leaned into our line and said in a stage whisper: "Nixon did it." Funny!
Susan Vass
I am not a huge movie fan or watcher, but your review is intriguing. I will spend the money to watch it. Thank you.
You're welcome.