What do you do when you’re married - and you find yourself attracted to someone outside of the marriage?

Maybe it’s just a passing thought, or a casual glance, but you feel guilty because you are completely committed to your marriage.

That’s “Gary’s” dilemma.

He wants to know whether he should tell his wife that he has been attracted to woman at his work - whether it would be more or less damaging to the relationship to say something.

He loves his wife, and is committed to her.

He feels ashamed that was attracted to this woman, especially since he doesn’t have any feelings for her. He wants to have a completely open and honest relationship with his wife, but at the same time, he doesn’t want to hurt her unnecessarily, especially as nothing has come of it.

Where does one draw the line?

Do you confide something hurtful for the sake of honesty in a relationship?

Or is there a place for withholding information when it might do more damage than good?

There’s been some speculation lately that the baby bonus could become a means tested payment.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan argue that low and middle income Australians need the support of the government, and not rich families.

Lst week the Treasurer defined working families as households on $80,000 a year.

Is it a good idea for the baby bonus to become means tested?

Or do you think every family should receive the same amount from the government for having a baby, no matter what their income is, or how many assets they have?

The bonus is due to rise to $5000 on July the1st. Will you be annoyed if they change the rules so you don’t get that full amount?

The government is after all trying to encourage families to have children. That’s why the baby bonus was established.

Do you think this could discourage couples from having children?

Have you received the baby bonus? What did you spend it on? A new plasma television? Or essentials for your baby?

(Rated M for moderate themes and sexual references)
 
It’s the early 20th century and a British MD turned bacteriologist named Walter Fane (played by Edward Norton) is on holidays back in England (he works for the Poms in China), when he’s smitten by the pretty, if vacuous and self-centred, Kitty (Naomi Watts).

Fane, a fairly buttoned down sort of science nerd, plights his troth and Kitty takes him up on his offer of matrimony, mainly to get away from her Visigoth of a mother who thinks ol’ Kitty’s marry-by date is almost up. The downside is that Kitty barely knows Walter, let alone loves him.

When the newly weds hit China it quickly becomes apparent they aren’t compatible. Walter is studious and stares at his microscope more than his missus; Kitty loves tennis, dancing the theatre and all manner of frivolity.

Kitty is seduced by sleazy British diplomat Charlie (Liev Schreiber, Watts’ real-life husband). Hubby Walter finds out in a quiet rage and gives Kitty an ultimatum: go through the scandal of divorce as a scarlet woman or accompany him to the centre of a raging cholera epidemic. It’s not the most attractive of choices but Kitty stands by her man and enters a plague-ridden region rather than suffer the stigma of divorce. 

The unhappy couple deals with their relationship alongside the daily death of Chinese adults and children in and out of a catholic nunnery serving as a hospital. The setting offers various possibilities of redemption.

Dinner parties in England, cocktails and adultery in Shanghai and gut-wrenching cholera in the deep inner regions of China's interior—it's a curious mix. This is a combination of historical romance, chick flick, darkly comedic take on relationships and political homily on the age of empire, Mostly it’s a cleverly conceived morality play.

The 'painted veil' reference in the film’s title has nothing to do with the film’s scenery or plotlines. (The movie is based on revered British novelist Somerset Maugham's work of the same name, it’s actually the third film version of his 1925 book.) But the title, which talks about the pretenses between human beings, is actually a quote from a sonnet by the poet, Percy Bysshe Shelley:

‘Lift not the painted veil which those who live
Call Life: though unreal shapes be pictured there,
And it but mimic all we would believe
With colours idly spread,--behind, lurk Fear
And Hope, twin Destinies; who ever weave
Their shadows, o'er the chasm, sightless and drear.
I knew one who had lifted it--he sought,
For his lost heart was tender, things to love,
But found them not, alas! nor was there aught
The world contains, the which he could approve.
Through the unheeding many he did move,
A splendour among shadows, a bright blot
Upon this gloomy scene, a Spirit that strove
For truth, and like the Preacher found it not.’

Pretty, huh?
 
This is a beautifully shot film; and the cinematography, together with a beautiful score featuring the Prague Symphony Orchestra, electric cellist Vincent Segal, and virtuoso pianist Lang Lang, helps drive the movie onwards and upwards.

Director John Curran has actually got this big bikkies American film shot in China, which is a big accomplishment. It is beautiful countryside, beautifully captured and the stronger for being set against a hideous disease that kills people by dehydrating them.

On a lighter side, Ed Norton, the Fight Club legend who has not put a foot wrong since his debut alongside Richard Gere in the 1996 courtroom drama Primal Fear, is perfection here alongside Naomi Watts (with an honourable mention for second banana, local Pommy consul Waddington, played by Toby Jones).

Norton’s not known for bunging on non-Yankee tones, but his British accent here is note-perfect. We expect that from modern Aussie actors, it is a rare accomplishment among US thesps.
 
The underlying message of the film, as the wizened old Mother Superior (Diana Rigg) tells Kitty, is that 'when duty and love are one, grace lives within'.
 
The source of the film, ol’ Maugham, reckoned the only love that lasts is the unrequited variety; this film toys with that kind of despondency but offers genuine hope that this need not be so.

This is the best arthousey, Merchant Ivory flick since The English Patient. Enjoy this while ye may.

A bit of historical trivia for you: Watts’ role was first played by none other than Greta Garbo, in 1934.

Barry Gittins

At the age of 22, Tania Hayes’ had her life mapped out with her fiancé Warren. Then, Warren was struck with a brain tumour. Defying advice, Tania married Warren, and became his full-time carer. This story of love and compassion will touch you this Mother’s Day.

And in praise of slow! We’ll talk to the author who says we’re pushing our children to be too much too quickly. We need to slow down our lives, for the sake of our kids and ourselves.

Taxes on luxury cars are set to rise from 25 to 33 per cent.

Treasurer Wayne Swan says it’s only fair to increase taxes for people who can afford luxury vehicles in the first place.

He’s told the Nine network: “We don't think it is unreasonable for people who have done well in recent years from government decisions in terms of top-end tax cuts, just pay a little more for a luxury car.”

A luxury car worth $100,000 is currently taxed $8000, under the new system that will jump to $10, 500.

Do you agree with the government’s decision to do this?

The move will mostly affect luxury imported cars, but it will also affect locally produced cars such as the Holden Statesman and Holden Caprice.

Opposition Treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull says it’s going to make all cars more expensive, while automotive groups say the move will hurt local production.

What do you think? Is targeting the rich, via luxury cars – a good idea?

Is it possible to be too old - to still be living at home?

That’s Katherine’s dilemma.

She’s 25 and has moved out of home once or twice before, but she’s not sure when to make the break for good, and find her own place.

She’s torn between being quite comfortable at home, and also wanting to become more independent, and broaden her circle of friends by having her own place that she can invite them back to.

At the same time, her friends who rent tell her to stay at home as long as she can, to save money.

She’s aware of the current difficulties in the rental market and is concerned that if she does move out, she may be so consumed paying bills and rent, that she won’t be able to enjoy her own place anyway.

Should Katherine stay or go?

Is it better to be comfortable and living at home? Or uncomfortable? And independent?

“Imagination should be nurtured”
Review of The Book of Everything, Guus Kuijer, by Kara Martin

Thomas is a nine-year-old with a vivid imagination, but he soon realises that not many other people see the world the way he does. He decides to copy what he sees down in a book, called the Book of Everything.

One day, Thomas sees tropical fish swimming in the local river, a whole school of fish, he knows no-one will believe him but he tells one of his sister Margot’s friends Eliza, and she explains that it is because people flush fish down their toilets when they go on holidays, and in fact she saw a crocodile in her toilet bowl once. People like Eliza help Thomas to feel more comfortable about what he sees.

Although the book sounds fun and quirky, there is a darker side. The quirkiness is in contrast to what is happening in Thomas’ home. His father is a strong character, a bully, who uses his religious beliefs to keep his family under his tight control. He is a joyless character, stern and prone to violence in the name of headship and not sparing a rod to spoil the child.

Thomas is at the age where he is bursting with ideas and curiosity, but there is no room for questions or flippancy at home. His Mother is sweet but reasonably ineffectual. His sister is defiant but clever and avoids the brunt of their father’s anger.

However the situation does change for Thomas. The novel traces a movement from restriction to freedom and from fear to love that is brought about by three things:

1. Firstly, there is his journaling in his Book of Everything, which allows his imagination to roam.
   
2. Secondly there is affirmation and nurturing from Eliza, and Mrs van Amersfoort, a widow neighbour who is labelled a witch because she is strong and independent.
   
3. The third aspect is Thomas’ regular chats with Jesus. This is where Kuijer’s skill as an author is particularly adept. Conversing with Jesus could have degenerated into something saccharine or plain farce, but the conversations are beautiful and Jesus has a pretty good sense of humour.

There is a contrast between the God of Thomas’ father, who is mean and tough; and the Jesus that comes to Thomas when he prays, who is a loving and encouraging figure showing Thomas he is special.

There is so much in this book, about how restricting relationships can be; how people can twist the Bible for their selfish means; and how Jesus will not be restricted in his access to people. The book is about Thomas’ journey of integrating his inner world, which is stimulating and curious and courageous, with his outer world which has been full of fear and regimentation.

There are some weaknesses in this book, but they come from its structure, because the narrator is a nine-year-old. For example, the father seems one-dimensional, and there is a stereotypical portrayal of fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Also, this review comes with a warning that the domestic violence is described quite graphically... but maybe we need to be shaken up, to see it for what it is.

Ultimately, though this book is a fascinating story, beautifully told, it focuses warmly on Jesus and is ultimately life-affirming and heart-expanding.

Open House fiction reviewer KARA MARTIN is a lecturer with Macquarie Christian Studies Institute (www.mcsi.edu.au), and an avid reader and book group attendee. 

Around the world, an estimated 200 million Christians suffer for their faith. They’re wrongly accused, falsely arrested, left languishing in prisons, and even tortured and kidnapped. Some of the most oppressed are Muslims who become followers of Jesus. This week we’ll find out about these ‘Secret Believers’—courageous men and women who risk all to follow their God.

Plus, should our Olympic athletes make a stand on China’s human rights record? We’ll talk to one athlete who’s faced that question personally—back in 1980. The debate isn’t new, so hear what former Olympic swimming captain Lisa Forrest has to say on the issue.

What do you say to someone who has only three weeks to live?

Rachael has just heard that a dear family friend has been diagnosed with liver cancer, and has been given only weeks to live.

Rachael is going to visit this friend, but isn’t sure what she should say to her, or her distraught husband.

She’s written in, saying she’s not sure whether to talk about the weather, family members, or the fun times they’ve had together in the past.

Is it insensitive to talk about happy memories to a person who’s dying? Or is it better to keep the conversation current to help take their mind off the fact that they’re dying?

What did you think of the Rudd government’s first budget?

Are you pleased so many payments that have been referred to as "middle class welfare" – will now be means tested?

Or are you a bit disappointed, because you’d been hoping to benefit from the baby bonus, for example.

The government has used a combined household income of $150,000 to determine who is eligible for welfare benefits such as the baby bonus.

Do you think a household on a combined income of $150,000 is “wealthy?”

To qualify for a rebate on solar panels, Environment Minister Peter Garrett says people who earn less than $100,000 will be eligible.

Meantime, families with two children and a combined income of $300,000 can get $15,000 of childcare assistance.

Do you agree with the government's income brackets to figure out who is - and who isn't elegible for welfare benefits?

He was the youngest man ever to win a Grand Slam tournament. He won 34 professional singles titles and rose to World number two status. He became a role model to youth across the globe and was this year inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. This Sunday, don’t miss the story of Michael Chang. We’ll explore his rise to success, his life after professional tennis, and his passionate Christian faith.

Plus, we’ll review ABC TV's Millionaire's Mission, crack open another everyday dilemma, and continue our simple living series with Ron Sider.

On Thursday night, police seized naked photographs of a boy and girl reportedly aged 12 and 13 years old from an art gallery in Sydney, just before Bill Henson’s new photographic exhibition was due to open.

Police say the images show children under the age of sixteen “in a sexual context.” Promotional material for the exhibition reportedly says the works portray the ‘vulnerability of adolescent life.’

It’s not yet clear whether charges will be laid against the artist, Bill Henson, and the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery.

It raises the question - is there a difference between art and pornography?

The Prime Minister has weighed in to the debate. He says the photographs are “absolutely revolting,” and that kids should be left to be kids. The leader of the opposition and other MPs have also denounced the photos.

But supporters of Bill Henson have come to the defense of the artist. Art analyst Michael Reid says there’s no doubt the photographs are artistic. He’s told The Sydney Morning Herald: "The main photograph in question is in the style of the Old Masters," he said. "The model is enveloped in a black velvety shroud and she is backlit. She is very still. There is not any sexual charge about the image. It is quite restful and contemplative. She is demure.”

Some are calling for creative freedom to be defended. Others say photographs of underage teenagers does NOT constitute art.

What do you think?

Hugh wants to know whether it’s OK to share the personal issues of his friends – with his spouse.

Is this gossiping?

Or is a marriage such a tight knit relationship that both partners should know and are able to share everything with each other?

When he does tell his wife something about one of his friends, it doesn’t go any further than that.

He trusts his wife completely, that she won’t pass on the information to anyone else.

But is this still betraying the trust of the friend who confided in him?

• Is gossip something that’s unique to friendship /work circles?
• Does information about others discussed between a husband and wife count as gossip?
• Where do you draw the line between open communication with your spouse….and maintaining the trust of friends who confide in you?
• If you told a friend something personal, do you assume it will be passed on to your friend's partner? Or do you expect confidence to be maintained?

Such sad news this week. On Wednesday May Maria Sue Chapman, the 5 year old daughter of contemporary christian music artist Steven Curtis Chapman and his wife Mary Beth, was struck in the driveway of their Franklin, Tennessee home. She died soon afterwards. Maria was the youngest of their six children, and one of their three adopted Chinese daughters. One of Chapman’s sons was reversing a truck down the driveway and didn’t see her. A tragic situation.

Just hours before, the Chapman family had been celebrating the engagement of their oldest daughter Emily; they were only a few hours away from a graduation party marking Caleb Chapman's completion of high school. At 11am Saturday May 24 Tenessee time (2am Sunday May 25 our time) Maria was laid to rest.

"Enjoy heaven," Steven whispered towards Maria’s coffin, as some 2,000 mourners at Christ Presbyterian Church in Nashville listened on. "I will see you soon, but not too soon. I hear the roads are made of solid gold and God waits for everyone. When you see that I'm coming, wait for me at the gate.”

Condolences are being received here. I hardly need to ask you to pray for the family at this most difficult of times.

Mark Driscoll is being described as one of the most influential church leaders in the US. Known for his brutal honesty and irreverent sense of humour, his church is overflowing with twenty-something punks, and his sermons are downloaded by the million. Next week hear Mark Driscoll describe his calling, his message, and his passionate beliefs about Jesus.

Plus, the fork, the pin, the paperclip, the toothpick—in a typical week you don’t give them much thought, right? In truth, they’re some of history’s most brilliant designs. We’ll hear the unexpected stories behind some of world’s most forgotten items!

A Win for Tin Sinner

Iron Man (M)

The noughties continues to reign as rthe dace for tinpot superhero movies and the geek nerdboy fans who buy tickets to see 'em. In the case of Iron Man, however, they have expanded the possible audience by packing some serious acting muscle behind the costumes.

Like Dorothy’s metallic mate from The Wizard of Oz, the hero (or anti-hero) Iron Man, or at any rate, his altar ego, millionaire industrialist and munitions dealer Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), is initially portrayed as a heartless, rather hollow chap. (Kinda what you’d expect from a mechanical genius turned robotics wunderkind who is scared of a real relationship.)

After he is kinapped and critically wounded, and literally has a ‘you beaut’ power pack embedded deep in his chest to keep him alive, even the densest of us filmgoers will ‘get’ the overt symbolism. Dur, Iron man has gootta find his heartsong of truth, justice and a more gentle American way .

For Tony’s emotionally absent, amoral party boy, life was a box of chocolate-coated candy girls. (Stark makes Batman’s altar ego, Bruce Wayne, look like a stay-at-home agoraphobic.) But with Stark’s, um, stark redemption as a human being (via the hand of Middle Eastern terrorists lurking in Afghanistan’s hills, who want him to build a ‘Jericho bomb’- it makes the walls come a tumblin’ down - we find a more likeable, more human character. The little boy lost is gaining some missing qualities.

Encased in robotic armour, Stark turns his back on the arms trade, fights his internal corporate enemies and starts to advance his friendship with platonic love interest, girl Friday, Virginia ‘Pepper’ Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow).

While there is some fine work from Ms Paltrow, Terrence Howard as Stark’s military attaché, Colonel Jim Rhodes, and director Jon Favreau (as personal chauffeur Harold ‘Happy’ Hogan), the film belongs squarley to Downey Jr and Jeff Bridges as balded beardy Obadiah Stane, his dubious father figure and business associate (cue the boos).

With Hollywood’s production as hectic as ever, the need for mono-dimensional ‘baddies’ has branched out in the past decade, with Middle Eastern henchmen superseding communists (Iron Man’s original comic-book foes), Nazis, Mafiosi, Redcoats, American Indians etc. While Iron Man’s plot suggests a dodgy alliance of Afghanis, Russians and Iraqis, the film strikes a more intelligent note by showing villainy also resides squarely in the US’ military industrial complex and principally within the human heart.

This is cutting edge tech coupled with lotsa cash and old school chivalry. i'd suggest Iron Mansets a new standard for superhero flicks, in terms of comedic levity and CGI. As well as a few obligatory in-jokes for comic book nerds, Iron Man even manages a first of sorts—a genuinely amusing cameo by Marvel comics supremo Stan Lee, the inspiration behind ‘Ol’ Shellhead’ (wait for the sequel) as well as the key originator of Spider-Man, The Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, The Incredible Hulk, The Uncanny X-Men, etc.).

This is a funny, 'no-brainer' of a flick brought to life by Downey Jr. It holds the seeds of discussions about power, prestige, love and life, revenge and 'repulsor rays'.

Open House film reviewer Barry Gittins is editor of On Fire magazine, and a regular reviewer for the Salvos' Warcry magazine: www.salvationarmy.org.au/warcry

A good head for Hollywood

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (M)

The obligatory henchmen toss an embattled, bloodied figure to the ground. Gingerly (he is a senior citizen, after all), our hero girds his loins, picks himself up and plonks a dusty fedora back on his scone. Indiana Jones, rising to face his foes. You can't putt a price to that kinda brand recognition and character identification.

Well, actually, you can. The few seconds of screen time it takes to reintroduce Indian Jones (65-year-old Harrison Ford) would cost a few thousand bucks per second, as part of the US$185 million Paramount Pictures invested into Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. And that’s not counting the US$150 million the moguls have spent marketing the action flick around the world. The bottom line (somewhat conservative, judging on the billions gleaned from the first three films) is that the filmmakers need some US$400 million to feel the movie’s a hit. By the 27th of May it had already made more than US$305, 962,920. That suggests Spielberg, Lucas etc. know (and have always known) they are on a winner with the Jones boy. 

I was one of the favoured few to enjoy Indy’s latest (but possibly not ‘last’) romp before it premiered; I can happily report the old bloke can still crack his whip.

It's 1957 and part-time (now tenured) archaeology professor Henry ‘Indiana’ Jones Jr. is yet again in the wars, this time at the hands of those unamused Cold warriors the 'Ruskies, led by Joe Stalin's favourite spymaster, Irana Spalko (a beautifully over-the-top Cate Blanchett).

The common quarry is an elongated Inca relic—a mysterious crystal skull of unknown properties and origins. Intrigued? Don't get too obsessed; plots have always been secondary (if not inconsequential) to the Indiana action sequences. Indy, old spy mate Mac (Ray Winstone) and James Dean wannabe 'Mutt' (Shia LaBeouf) end up with othere odds and bods in Peru, where Indy is reunited with the love of his life, Marion Ravenwood (from Raiders, reprised by Karen Allen).

See Indy run. See Indy duck. See Indy kapow! his way past local opposition and shrink from snakes, bugs and assorted ills as he tries to retrieve the seemingly otherworldly skull.

There are classic stunts, punch-ups, car and motorbike chases, explosions, prat falls and one-liners, more car chases, and assorted 'hoo boy' moments.

It was back in 1989, with The Last Crusade alongside retired thespian Sean Connery, playing as his dad, that we last saw this character, so people were a bit curious as toi how Indy would shape up so long after his last hurrah. (Connery was no coincidence in casting, by the way—Indy creator George Lucas has stated the character was designed as ‘an “Everyman” version of James Bond’.)

The greatest link between the films, beyond the homage to the action serials of the 1930s, is the plot device (or, as Spielberg explains in Hitchkockian terms, the ‘McGuffin’) that brings Indy closer to God and the search for the divine. Messers Lucas, Spielberg, Ford and composer John Williams hit creative paydirt when Indy first went digging around for religious treasures in 1981’s Raiders of the Lost Ark (the ark of the covenant being the biblical luggage that contained the Ten Commandments and other paraphernalia of the Jewish faith).

Indy’s derring-do has always revolved around the mysteries of faith and the search for answers. The evil ‘thuggee’ cult was tackled head on in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984), while Indy tag-teamed with Dr Henry Jones Sr (Connery) to pursue Christ’s legendary cup—the Holy Grail—in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

If prayer is said to be the last resort of the scoundrel, then God is the first resort of popular filmmakers. It’s often the ‘big picture questions’ of faith and doubt that inspire the big (motion) pictures.  

Welcome back to the big screen, Indy; long time no glee.

Open House film reviewer Barry Gittins is editor of On Fire magazine, and a regular reviewer for the Salvos' Warcry magazine: www.salvationarmy.org.au/warcry