A Crisis of Perception: MINDWALK (1990)

“What, is there a Red Alert on or something?”

It’s this question that greets Jack (Sam Waterston), senator and failed Presidential hopeful, as he calls his poet friend Tom (John Heard) in France.  Jack is in the midst of attempting senatorial re-election, and therefore in the midst of a mid-life crisis.  Tom knew Jack from a former speechwriting gig and has retreated to France for various mid-life reasons.  An invitation is given for Jack to come out to visit Mont. St. Michel, a medieval castle on an island surrounded by salt flats in the French countryside, and thus begins my favorite movie on scientific philosophy next to Donald in Mathamagic Land.

“I shouldn’t have invited him,” Tom internally monologues as they drive towards the mount.  “I’m residing quite contentedly in my own mid-life crises, thank you very much.”  Tom’s sedan trundles down the dirt road, and each time Jack spots the castle through the spring fog he quips enthusiastically, such as “This is amazing!”  Their dynamic is one of loving, subdued judgment for each other, and their chosen professions separate their worldviews; one side is pragmatic and hopeful, the other reflective and moody.  The reflective side insists on walking across the flats to reach the shrouded hill, and the movie insists on starting the Philip Glass score and credits there, too.  It’s here where we meet Sonia (Liv Ullmann), a Norwegian scientist who has rented a room in the castle and is cooped up there with her books and her daughter Kit (Ione Skye).  Kit complains of boredom (oddly appearing more childlike here than in Say Anything, which came out the year before) and her mother’s reclusion, saying “You aren’t even aware of the world around you!”  I’d call this statement foolish considering Sonia’s personal philosophy, but I may end up eating those words later.

 

Before we go any further I should probably warn you that this movie is essentially a 110-minute conversation, much in the vein of My Dinner with Andre (1981), which needs no introduction.  And although the conversation is steered towards a main topic eventually it begins with Jack and Tom reflecting on their ups and downs, why Tom left New York, and semi-snarky observations on the monks who once walked among the castle’s walls (“Judgment Day for them was kind of the ultimate day off, not the ultimate off-day.”).  And in spite of Kit’s earlier complaint this movie is certainly aware of its surroundings, and the setting is very well used throughout, from the architecture itself to views of the salt flats, and even views of its large parking lot.  The movie isn’t afraid to show the ancient structure being invaded by tourists, and its anticipation of the wandering wonder-filled causes me to wonder why Jack, Tom and Kit are there themselves, as it is no mere sightseeing jaunt. 

The three of them first get within spitting distance in the cathedral (where Tom quips that the whole point of having huge cathedrals was to make the individual in the human body feel insignificant to the glory of God).  They finally broach the boundary in the back room with the clock, a remarkable medieval creation that is still running after centuries.  Sonia reluctantly agrees with Tom that the clock was mankind’s first break from the naturalistic view of the world, but then posits that the view of the universe as a giant clock is antiquated. 

The men are intrigued, and we enter the real topic of conversation: how we think about problem solving, and the search for a more holistic worldview.  Her views are largely influenced by systems theory, a method of scientific thought that focuses not on solving individual problems with straightforward means but rather focusing on its relationship to the larger system of which it is a part.  It’s a simple principle, and Sonia is all too well-equipped to offer examples to back up her position.  And though there is opposition from the men they generally agree with the bigger picture on bigger pictures.  Her ultimate plan is to collect her thoughts on systems theory in a book to be titled Ecological Thinking, but it is unclear as to whether this will come to fruition.  Jack’s opposition is a defense of pragmatic thinking, of understanding one’s limitations and persisting on the few solutions that can be won.  Tom’s opposition is more veiled at the beginning, even though he takes offense at Sonia’s insistence that the old view is too patriarchal (and it on that detail she most reveals her personal biases).

One would wonder what spurred Sonia to take this viewpoint, and her explanation is a clue to this movie’s overarching concerns.  Before her voluntary retreat from the world she was part of an American team of scientists working on improving laser technology.  One day she discovered an unconventional approach to the tech and she ended up causing a breakthrough, gaining accolades and offers in the process.  Sonia knew the possibilities were endless (including improving cancer research), but she eventually got wind that a more advanced version of her contributions to lasers was being used in the Star Wars program, a futuristic Cold War plan introduced under Reagan, and it caused her to completely reevaluate the scientist’s place in the world and the nature of responsibility and accountability.  And though the conversation veers around this concept, from quantum mechanics to the threat of nuclear warfare, it’s her internal struggle, her guilt, that drives her search for truth and is part of the film’s larger metaphor.

The movie is directed by Bernt Amadeus Capra, the brother of physicist Fritjof Capra, author of The Tao of Physics and The Turning Point.  The latter is essentially the book that Sonia is writing in the movie, and Fritjof is one of the world’s leading advocates for systems theory.  Bernt wrote a short story about the three characters in the film, and it was turned into a movie.  Personally, I think these layers of disconnection from idea to narrative play an essential role in the viewer’s enjoyment of the movie.  Mindwalk could have been a diatribe, or merely a stylized civics lesson, but in giving the viewer characters to filter the ideas at play adds another layer, the layer that I really lock on to after now watching the movie a few times.

Each of the main characters came to Mont. St. Michel as a form of escape from mid-life crises, and it’s fair to say that most mid-life crises boil down to a crisis in perception: perception of one’s self and one’s priorities in life, their morals, legacy, etc.  That quote I have at the top has a tiny metaphor in it, the joke about big obvious problems implying that the real problems in our lives are ones that we don’t see until they’re out of control.  The crisis is one that creeps up on the subject, one that arose because they didn’t know it existed until it was already omnipresent.  Sonia’s major concerns in science and the world are problems such as this, such as global warming, pollution, hunger, overpopulation and so forth.  And while her concerns are certainly noble and applicable, their root is in her own guilt, a selfish desire for personal change, taking away from the credibility of her goals.  That isn’t to say that this isn’t old news for why people perform good deeds (and I personally detest it when people try to undercut small virtuous acts by calling out people on selfish motives), but I’m of the opinion that Mindwalk has Sonia expressing answers because she lacks the answers.  Though some hot-button issues are brought up they never sit down and attempt to tackle anything specific, and the movie never forces systems theory down the viewers’ throats. 

I watched this movie a while ago with my mother, who didn’t agree with me that it wasn’t a diatribe, and I understand that unlike My Dinner with Andre, Mindwalk does have a lofty, semi-specific message in its proceedings.  And I’ll admit that if you’re not in the mood for a nearly two-hour philosophical conversation the movie may be a tough sit.  The thing that brings the viewer through the conversation is the strength of its characters, three very interesting, realistic, relatable people with opinions and backgrounds and failings.  And it isn’t just the scientist who is an expert in her field; Jack is a career politician who is very aware of the pitfalls of his world, and Tom is extremely well-versed in poetry and art, offering a fresh perspective on many of Sonia’s quips.  It also requires all three of these people to make a full conversation, and one could even posit that their opposing viewpoints are essential to thought: scientific idealism, artistic idealism, and pragmatic action.  As systems theory is the science of relationships, the heart of the movie lies in the relationships between these three viewpoints, and how each of the speakers has a part of the method but not the whole.  Not one of them is smarter or more right than the other two, and the respect the authors have for their characters prevents the movie from becoming one-sided.

In fact, the real congealing moment in this film, and its most profound moment, comes not from Sonia or Jack but from Tom, who has spoken the least during the film and before the moment spends the better part of 10 minutes moody in the distance.  The three have made it to the flats (the empty expanse a fine place to approach the bigger picture).  Jack suggests to Sonia that she come back to America and try to lobby for her views in Washington, and Jack is ready to rethink his political method to accommodate her theories.  Tom cuts into this suggestion, insisting that perhaps jumping wholly into this new philosophy might not be the best move for Sonia at this point in her life.  At first he doesn't back up this concern, but his answer is eventually brought out by reciting a poem (Pablo Neruda’s “Enigmas”).  It’s a move so well timed, with only a few minutes, and it turns the tables so eloquently and completely as to not invalidate Sonia’s beliefs, but to place the question mark on an even higher plane of understanding.  I won’t dare spoil it for you, suffice to say that it’s my favorite poetry recitation in a film and is a good show of John Heard’s acting skills, which aren’t spoken of enough in my opinion (Ullmann and Waterston are also excellent, BTW).  It’s just a great way to leave the conversation, a reminder that even when you think you have the answers you can’t even know what the truth is.

Because Mindwalk was released by a major studio (Paramount) and was guaranteed to not make much money, this film has only been released on VHS and original copies are a bit pricey.  But fortunately somebody put the whole thing up on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzAbjbH-1oA

~PNK