It would be in your best interest …

Have you ever received an unsolicited suggestion as to what choice you should make? Doesn’t it sort of tick you off — even if you know they’re probably right?

Let’s say you’re a bit on the heavy side and you’re in a cafeteria line eyeing the Boston crème pie versus the peach cobbler.

Now imagine a total stranger (just for the heck of let’s say it’s a tall, lean, handsome, impeccably dressed African-American man) who says, “If you must eat dessert, you should have the sugar-free Jell-O.”

Any two-word responses come to mind?

We expect guidance from friends and family, whether it’s requested or not. They are emotionally invested in our welfare, so they get to exercise a “shareholder’s” two-cent option. Plus, they often know a good bit about us and our situation. The people who are dear to us — and we to them — also know something about our values and interests. They might know, as in our hypothetical situation that you’ve been on strict diet for six months and today, and today only, you planned to celebrate the milestone loss of 30 pounds by having dessert.

But regardless of your reason for wanting to eat something you “probably shouldn’t,” one thing you can be most positive about is that the busybody in line with you is probably more interested in trying to run your life than in keeping you “heart healthy.”

Oh sure, he may truly believe the world would be a better place if everyone would just shut up and do as he says. But remember, it will still be his vision of utopia, not yours. Maybe you think fat and died-happy at 70 beats 93 years old and drinking wheat grass juice, but any time you go against his grain, you upset the applecart of his ambition which is to make the rules.

Now as annoying as that stranger would be, imagine if he was in charge of the whole federal government and all the police powers that go with the job.

Now I’m not suggesting that you’ll be arrested for eating Boston crème pie if Barack Obama becomes president. (He may tax it, but that’s really not the point.) But what I am saying is that he doesn’t know a huge portion of this nation’s population and doesn’t understand the values of these people. Instead he “reasons" that they clutch their Bibles in one hand and their guns in another because they’re ignorant rubes who lack his omniscient erudition.

In Obama’s mind, we do not share his worldview because we are wretched, oppressed and misled. It is so clear to Him that we need His guiding light to lead us to the Promised Land.

He becomes disappointed when we don’t “get it.” You see, He is all wise and all benevolent. The “O” (be sure to say it with the appropriate touch of awe) knows what’s best for everyone. Once we submit in unity to His wisdom, Paradise will come to our land. We will finally, and at last without bitterness, beat our guns into plowshares, cast off the bonds of religiosity and welcome our “undocumented worker” friends without rancor or remorse.

Oh, who knows? The “O” may actually be wisest leader since Solomon, so go along if you want. As for me, I’m eating my pie.

Bringing in the Sheaves

Last night, Night of the Hunter appeared again on TCM. I watched it through the first hour before switching channels. I’ve seen it many times and own the DVD, so it wasn’t like I was missing out on a golden opportunity to see the film to its conclusion.

Robert Mitchum plays a murderous sociopath on the trail of stolen money. Masquerading as a preacher, he marries the widow of the robber, assuming correctly, that the woman’s children (a boy and a girl) know where the money was hidden.

After killing his new wife (leading to perhaps the most haunting image ever set in celluloid), “Preacher” comes after the children. But they escape by taking a boat down a river. Eventually they are given refuge by a loving but stern old woman, Mrs. Cooper (played by Lillian Gish), who makes it her business to offer sanctuary and guidance to lost orphans. And that’s “lost” in the spiritual sense as well.

The 1955 movie is often categorized as film noir and was produced in black and white, but there is no gray area to the characters: Good is good. Evil is evil. Innocence is innocence. Foolish is foolish … and foolish people are in abundance.

I can understand why it was essentially a box office bomb at the time of its release. This is an allegorical tale and the message is never diluted by nuance. It must have been difficult for Mitchum to play “evil” and absolutely nothing else. Students of film probably recognize certain stylistic elements, but I just call it “weird.”

I love the movie though, and I find the climatic showdown between Preacher and the Mrs. Cooper to be perfectly satisfying. Despite his treachery and viciousness, it’s made clear that he can’t stand up to her in a one-on-one match-up. That’s why Evil always goes after the weak.

There is one scene that struck me as odd the first time I saw it, however. Preacher is laying siege to the old woman’s home as she waits, on guard, inside. He begins singing, “Bringing in the Sheaves.” Mrs. Cooper sings along.

At first glance, this might suggest the duality of Good and Evil, or perhaps they’re kindred souls who took different paths. But I don’t think so. Coming from Preacher, the spiritual is blasphemy. And rather than recoiling in disgust, Mrs. Cooper meets the challenge and reclaims the song by singing it as well.

Through the centuries, atrocities have been committed while in the trappings of religion. This has led many decent people to turn away, and never sing “the song” again. Mrs. Cooper wouldn’t do that. She never gave an inch and rather than losing her faith to an ultimately wretched creature, she stood firm and crushed him.

And more …