HEALING: Our suffering nation needs healing now!

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2025

A deeply humane feature film: At some point, some years ago, the following thought had occurred to us. If we could ask one question of one public figure, we'd ask this question of Robert Redford:

What made you decide to film that same story twice?

We refer to the story Redford explored in the first film he ever directed, then again eighteen years later. The films in question were these

Ordinary People (1980)
The Horse Whisperer (1998)

Ordinary People won Oscars for Best Picture and also for Best Director. The Horse Whisperer was less successful in such ways. But in our view, it may have explored the story in question in a way which was even more deeply empathetic.

At any rate, it was a twice-told tale! Each film explores the process by which a suffering, tormented teenage child is retrieved on behalf of the world. 

In our view, The Horse Whisperer is a dreamscape version of the much more literal earlier film. Example:

In Ordinary People, the suffering child is saved through the intervention of a psychiatrist. In the second film, the suffering, 13-year-old girl is saved by the empathy of a regular person who's gifted with wisdom. 

The girl is saved by a person with a unusual form of sight.

Even before we meet that character, we're told this, in a voice-over, about his unusual powers. Fairly early in the film, the child's mother reads this text about people who know how to see into the souls of horses:

A million years before man, they grazed the vast and empty plains, living by voices only they could hear. 

They first came to know man as the hunted knows the hunter, for long before he used horses for his labors, he killed them for meat. The alliance with man would forever be fragile, for the fear he had struck into their hearts was too deep to be dislodged. 

Since that Neolithic moment when a horse was first haltered, there were those among men who understood this. They could see into the creature's soul and soothe the wounds they found there. 

For secrets uttered softly into troubled ears, these men were known as the whisperers.

So we're told about the character Redford plays in the film. He has the ability to see into another being's soul and soothe the wounds found there. 

When he finally appears in the film, he's been asked to save a badly wounded, deeply traumatized horse. But he's able to see, out of the corner of his eye, that it's the suffering, traumatized teenage girl who's most directly in need of help.

Ordinary People tells the same story in a much more literal way. In each film, the trauma of the teenage child begins with a tragic, accidental death. In the first film, the trauma of the surviving child begins with the accidental death of her older brother. 

In the second film, the suffering begins with the accidental death of the child's best friend. 

In each film, we end up learning that the child's trauma involves a feeling of parental pressure, connected to life as an only child. The similarities continue from there, disguised by a vastly different pair of cultural settings.

Why did Redford explore that story? Eighteen years later, why did he make it a twice-told tale? 

In last week's obituary in the New York Times, we finally thought we saw the hints of a possible explanation. But as we watched the second film again this weekend, we wondered if we've ever seen another film so drenched with the power of empathy and with the glory of healing.

That said, good God—our struggling is badly in need of healing now! We flashed on where we once might have seen that word, and sure enough, there it was, near the end of our favorite passage from Sandburg's two-volume poetic biography, Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years.

Sandburg is describing Lincon's last trip, as president-elect, out to deeply rural Coles County, Illinois to say goodbye to his beloved stepmother, Sally Bush Lincoln

According to Sandburg, she had seen into his soul when he was still just a child, and she had seen something unusual there. Decades later, the scene in question unfolds like this: 

Sally Bush and he put their arms around each other and listened to each other’s heartbeats. They held hands and talked; they talked without holding hands. Each looked into eyes thrust back in deep sockets. She was all of a mother to him.

He was her boy more than any born to her. He gave her a photograph of her boy, a hungry picture of him standing and wanting, wanting. He stroked her face a last time, kissed good-by, and went away.

She knew his heart would go roaming back often, that even when he rode in an open carriage in New York or Washington with soldiers, flags or cheering thousands along the streets, he might just as like be thinking of her in the old log farmhouse out in Coles County, Illinois.

The sunshine of the prairie summer and fall months would come sifting down with healing and strength; between harvest and corn-plowing there would be rains beating and blizzards howling; and then there would be silence after snowstorms with white drifts piled against the fences, barns, and trees.

So ends Chapter 162 (sic) of Sandburg's two-volume effort. And sure enough, there it was, the mysterious reference to healing. 

It's hard to parse the exact meaning of Sandburg's passage. But the nation Lincoln served as president badly needs healing now.

In our view, The Horse Whisperer does go on too long. It ends up telling two stories—the story of the Redford character and the girl, but also the story of the Redford character and the girl's mother.

In our view, that ends up being one story too many. But as the week proceeds at this site, we'll be exploring our faltering nation's need for healing now—along with the afflictions, Blue as well as Red, from which we need to be saved.

Meanwhile, have we ever seen a film which was more humane? The story telling is brisk and beautiful in the first half of that second film.

We'll never get to ask Redford the question we had in mind. But Robert Redford, eighteen years later, had the decency and the humanity to explore that important story again.

Once again, he explored the mysterious pathway toward the "soothing of wounds." It's something we badly need now.

Tomorrow: What do we need healing from?


30 comments:

  1. "musings on the mainstream "press corps" and the american discourse"

    LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In his speech honoring Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump said, “He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent. And I don’t want the best for them.”

    Trump has thus renounced Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that was after Charlie’s widow forgave his murderer.

      Delete
    2. Trump came to the stage amidst a pyrotechnic display and the song Proud to be an American. Is that appropriate given how Kirk died?

      Delete
    3. Maybe not, but it might sway the Nobel Committee.

      Delete
    4. 12:19,

      this is not the time to question our Dear Leader as a war rages in the Caribbean.

      Delete
    5. St. Charlie, the Holy One; never met a negro he thought was qualified to shine his shoes. Lucky for St. Charlie, God gifted him with the knowledge that he was too dumb to be indoctrinated by college, so God told him to drop out. This makes me mad as it allowed a negro to take his place. Charlie, assisting a negro, so untoward.

      Delete
    6. Emotions are not sinful in Christianity.

      Voicing them is a sin, but perhaps a venial one. It should be noted that Trump has said many times that "I love of you even including, if you can believe it, Democrats."

      Anger and hatred are not sinful unless fed and indulged. Trump immediately followed up his visceral hateful remark with a self-admonition.

      If he says the same thing daily or does nothing to check his emotion, that becomes a state of sin.

      Once again. Anger and hatred are not sinful in Christianity.

      Delete
    7. "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council" - Matthew 5:22

      Delete
  3. The man behind the throne, Stephen Miller:

    ***********************
    Miller spent much of his speech calling for victory in a war for western civilization against “our enemies,” “the forces of wickedness and evil.” He predicted a coming “storm” of backlash over “what you did to us.” Miller attacked an unidentified “you,” “they,” and “those” — the Other — three dozen times and let his audience fill in the blank.

    “They cannot conceive of the army that they have arisen in all of us because we stand for what is good, what is virtuous, what is noble. And to those trying to incite violence against us, those trying to foment hatred against us, what do you have? You have nothing. You are nothing. You have wickeness. You are jealousy. You are envy. You are hatred.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm rubber and your glue comes to mind. Miller is really good at the Nazi for a Jew.

      Delete
    2. His speech damn near knocked the wind out of me. What a force.

      Delete
  4. If Roy Cohn wasn’t homosexual, this would be his spawn.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A quibble. Somerby says:

    "In the first film, the trauma of the surviving child begins with the accidental death of her older brother."

    In Ordinary People, the surviving child is male, not female. Somerby might know that if he had seen the film recently, because it is blindingly obvious. There is also a secondary plot about Mary Tyler Moore, who plays the mother who is trying to cope with her older son's death. This is one of the best movies ever made about the process of therapy.

    The Horse Whisperer is not about the Redford character but about a mother's inability to help her daughter who is grieving. The way Redford interacts with traumatized horses becomes a parallel to the way the mother must approach her daughter.

    Somerby may have chosen these two films because they are about mothers, but he apparently doesn't see that connection between the films, that they are about mothers helping children deal with grief and failing.

    That may have more to do with Somerby's own life, in which he struggled with his father's death and was unable to relate to his grieving mother for help. He isn't honest enough to tell us so.

    Rather than implying that we need to heal our nation by riding horses, Somerby might have asked about the grief of the 22 year old son, Tyler Robinson, and how he might have been healed through kindness and humanity, while he seems to have encountered rejection of perhaps the only person in his life who was providing comfort. There are many stories about fundamentalist Mormons throwing away their children. Somerby won't go there.

    A vague statement that we all need to heal is unhelpful under our current circumstances. Somerby does not acknowledge the trauma Trump has been causing so many of us since taking office. Both films illustrate that if you do not acknowledge the trauma, healing is more difficult.

    For myself, I resent the way Somerby attempts to co-opt Redford, a longtime favorite actor, to his own cause of calling the blue tribe an afflication in the face of Trump's massive wrongdoing, abetted by corrupt Republicans. The very humane Robt Redford was a blue voter and contributor to blue campaigns and causes, especially environmentalism, which he recently said Trump was destroying. Would Redford agree with Somerby's ongoing attacks against Blue America? Not likely. But he can't say much after he is dead, can he? That is Somerby's cowardice, his shame. He grabs and misuses other people's creative efforts for his own different message, one the dead cannot protest and would not agree with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The unspoken message of Ordinary People is that if the family had used Conrad’s preferred pronouns, she would never have needed therapy.

      Delete
    2. Some people ask, what the fuck is wrong with 11:34?

      Delete
    3. 11:34 appreciates their empathy.

      Delete
    4. With 11:34 or at 11:34?

      Delete
  6. C'mon Slabby, you're writing a review of Somerby's musings, and your persistent, slabby way of expressing your loathing of what he writes is quite tiresome, not insightful in any way. You’d probably be better of doing your own movie reviews, rather than a review of someone else’s opinions on movies.

    What are you hoping to achieve? The Downfall of Somerby? Jeezus, are you a jilted lover or something?

    Leroy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was directed at 11:19, of course

      Delete
    2. Leroy, wrong is wrong. He gets the movie wrong.

      Delete
    3. Bob got the movie right. Notice that he used the right pronoun for Conrad.

      Delete
    4. Sexist is sexist. How many people would go see a movie about two estranged grieving women if Redford weren’t in it?

      Delete
    5. It was good to see Redford out of the closet.

      Delete
  7. CNN's Harry Enten spells out GOP *ADVANTAGES* in midterms

    "Who leads on the economy? Republicans by 7! Immigration? Republicans by 13! How about crime? A big issue for Donald Trump and the Republicans. Look at that: lead by 22 points!"

    "What are you doing, Democrats!? My goodness gracious!"

    Democrats: "Maybe if we murder Charlie Kirk"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point. Hakeem Jeffries should never have let that vote get out of Committee.

      Delete
    2. That was pay back for all the schoolchildren Republicans have gunned down. The midterms usually go well for the party of a president with tanking approval ratings; let me guess, you want to spin 39-40% as favorable. People will vote according to their grocery bills as always, and Trump will still be musing about what that word means.

      Delete
    3. Harry is not the brightest bulb on the tree, more comedian than analyst.

      Rather than questioning Democratic policies, he should be questioning the reported preference for MAGA smash-and-grab.

      Delete