← Back to Reviews
in
Director: Bernt Capra
Date: 1990
Cinematography: Karl Kasas
Language: English
Length: 112m
Overall Rating: My Rating:
Principal actors/actresses: Live Ullman, Sam Waterston, John Heard, and Ione Skye.
Based on the Book: The Turning Point by Fritjof Capra
I would first like to explain why I have elected to give this movie two ratings. The first rating is for the general participants of the members of The Movie Forums website. The second rating is for a specific audience. In this case the audience would be those who like dialog driven movies that discuss philosophical worldviews. In this review I will explain both my ratings.
This movie is intended to present critiques of our current cultures view of the world. It has been critiqued for the fact that the alternate worldviews they discuss are narrow and not representative of the (then) current points of view. This critique would be valid if the film sought to present a definitive alternative to the “mechanistic” or “scientific” worldview which the characters do indeed discuss. I believe, however that the movie realized it could not argue for any particular alternate worldview, and only mention the “ecological” worldview as one alternative. I believe the point of the movie was to demonstrate that the modern view that began with Descartes and Bacon are no longer adequate to describe the world we live in today, and needs to be replaced with a less rigid point of view. I agree with Live Ullman’s character when she says the modern mechanistic worldview is more than inaccurate it is actually harmful in today’s world. I believe the movie is successful in this argument. There are other movements that rose to prominence about the same time as this movie was released that argued along similar lines.
The most prominent was under the broad heading of Postmodernism which included such theories as Critical Theory and Deconstruction among others. While deconstruction, at least, has lost its star power I believe its critiques of the modern worldview has not been adequately dealt with. (If one is interested in this critique see Derrida’s essay “Difference” or Mark C. Taylor’s discussion in the “Prelude” to his book entitled, erring, or his introduction of his book entitled Altarity). As a movie about ideas, I believe this movie is very successful in communicating its critique and introducing us to a few ideas that constitute Systems theory. This is why I rated it 4/5 on a movie about ideas.
When it comes to the general Movie Forum audience, its ranking cannot be so high. To begin with the cinematography is poor and there is no real plot. If you’re looking for anything other than Ideas, you will be disappointed. This movie was not meant to entertain unless you are interested in the ideas it presents. Its setting is interesting and provides for opportunities for certain topics to be discussed; however, other than its uniqueness and the function it plays in the movie, most would probably conclude it is boring.
I would give the film high marks for originality. There are not many films that attempt to present ideas in the dialog fashion, and they clearly know their audience were and directed the movie to that audience. Even if you were among those who the movie was direct at, this movie still faced the challenge of keeping the audience engaged while presenting a series of complex ideas. This is no small feat, which I think the director handled artfully.
The movie has been compared to other movies that featured long dialog, like “Tuesdays with Morie”. In all honesty, it took guts for the producers and director of this movie to make such a movie. They had to be making it for some other purpose than profit. I wish more film makers had such resources and courage.
This movie would fit into the top tier of my canon, despite its shortcomings because of the ideas it presents.
MindWalk
Date: 1990
Cinematography: Karl Kasas
Language: English
Length: 112m
Overall Rating: My Rating:
Principal actors/actresses: Live Ullman, Sam Waterston, John Heard, and Ione Skye.
Based on the Book: The Turning Point by Fritjof Capra
I would first like to explain why I have elected to give this movie two ratings. The first rating is for the general participants of the members of The Movie Forums website. The second rating is for a specific audience. In this case the audience would be those who like dialog driven movies that discuss philosophical worldviews. In this review I will explain both my ratings.
This movie is intended to present critiques of our current cultures view of the world. It has been critiqued for the fact that the alternate worldviews they discuss are narrow and not representative of the (then) current points of view. This critique would be valid if the film sought to present a definitive alternative to the “mechanistic” or “scientific” worldview which the characters do indeed discuss. I believe, however that the movie realized it could not argue for any particular alternate worldview, and only mention the “ecological” worldview as one alternative. I believe the point of the movie was to demonstrate that the modern view that began with Descartes and Bacon are no longer adequate to describe the world we live in today, and needs to be replaced with a less rigid point of view. I agree with Live Ullman’s character when she says the modern mechanistic worldview is more than inaccurate it is actually harmful in today’s world. I believe the movie is successful in this argument. There are other movements that rose to prominence about the same time as this movie was released that argued along similar lines.
The most prominent was under the broad heading of Postmodernism which included such theories as Critical Theory and Deconstruction among others. While deconstruction, at least, has lost its star power I believe its critiques of the modern worldview has not been adequately dealt with. (If one is interested in this critique see Derrida’s essay “Difference” or Mark C. Taylor’s discussion in the “Prelude” to his book entitled, erring, or his introduction of his book entitled Altarity). As a movie about ideas, I believe this movie is very successful in communicating its critique and introducing us to a few ideas that constitute Systems theory. This is why I rated it 4/5 on a movie about ideas.
When it comes to the general Movie Forum audience, its ranking cannot be so high. To begin with the cinematography is poor and there is no real plot. If you’re looking for anything other than Ideas, you will be disappointed. This movie was not meant to entertain unless you are interested in the ideas it presents. Its setting is interesting and provides for opportunities for certain topics to be discussed; however, other than its uniqueness and the function it plays in the movie, most would probably conclude it is boring.
I would give the film high marks for originality. There are not many films that attempt to present ideas in the dialog fashion, and they clearly know their audience were and directed the movie to that audience. Even if you were among those who the movie was direct at, this movie still faced the challenge of keeping the audience engaged while presenting a series of complex ideas. This is no small feat, which I think the director handled artfully.
The movie has been compared to other movies that featured long dialog, like “Tuesdays with Morie”. In all honesty, it took guts for the producers and director of this movie to make such a movie. They had to be making it for some other purpose than profit. I wish more film makers had such resources and courage.
This movie would fit into the top tier of my canon, despite its shortcomings because of the ideas it presents.