First Impressions: Good Will Hunting

 This is a well known film that keeps getting mentioned among cinema lovers, which I hadn't watched till now. So I decided to give it a watch. 

Sadly, I couldn't bring myself to love it. I mean, it's great that Matt Damon and Ben Affleck came up with a screenplay that initially started out as a college project and had the work ethic to push it through the execution stage and shipped the finished product. But the film as a work of art sadly falls short of its potential.

First, it does not touch upon the concept of mastery, the process of starting out as a fool, being an apprentice, reaching competence, then mastery and finally being able to innovate and push the boundaries of knowledge. The main character claims that he can do advanced math easily because of pure natural talent. He can do it because he just can. No painstaking practice was involved, at least not the way he tells it. The only time we see him practice is when he scrawls an equation on his bathroom cabinet mirror. Given the fact that the film doesn't choose to show him churning away at work, depth of knowledge in one field is difficult to stomach, but the story requires him to somehow be a master of multiple fields!

This story is sure to appeal to those of the Fixed Mindset and those who firmly believe in the existence of natural talent (distinction: I can concede the existence of natural inclination, but that is very far from the claim natural talent - that certain people can perform certain rational activities better because they just have superior ability, not even in their biology as a result of good genetics, but more deeply, because of having the ability in their deepest essence.) 

One of the characters talks of Ramanujan. His life was a testament to the grind, to obsession, to the one thing, if anything.

The presence of Robin Williams is basically the large part holding the film down and preventing it from being carried away by its flock of cliches. But even Robin Williams cannot make a good film out of what is not so. Anyway, the character played by Robin Williams could easily be thought of as an older version of Mr. Keating from Dead Poets Society.

Also, Robin Williams keeps insisting to Matt Damon's character that experience is the only valid epistemological means. Surely a student of the mind as a psychiatrist should be would understand that the fact that we have mirror neurons is one of the amazing things about us. We can deal in abstractions. We don't have to experience everything, and it isn't even practically possible. Life being short, there will always be a great many important things in everybody's life that one is not able to learn through direct experience. If experience were the only way to true knowledge, we are all doomed.

Also, Matt Damon being a handsome attractive young man in his prime, really cannot pull off the misunderstood genius. (Russel Crowe could pull this off in "A Beautiful Mind.") So here he is a genius who is not a social misfit. Thus since they had to give him a backstory to explain his self-sabotage, they settled on a history of abuse in childhood. It's ironic, because after all the cliches about geniuses this film indulges in, they missed the one cliche that is actually true most of the time - geniuses are misunderstood and are misfits in society quite often. 

Also, Ben Affleck's character seems to want the best for his friend. His great fantasy is to find that his friend has one day left behind his dead end life in this dreary neighbourhood and has moved on - geographically as well as spiritually, to a better life. Quite noble of him, but the hidden assumption is that he himself will never amount to anything much and is condemned to a life of mediocrity or worse. But why? Is he mentally or physically crippled? It doesn't look like it. Then why this fatality? Once again evidence of the Fixed Mindset. Even the Fields' Medal winning professor is resigned to the fact that he will never make any contributions to mathematics as great as his new protege's. He has no faith in the process of mastery!

 

This is one movie which could use a healthy dose of the Growth Mindset. 

Initial Impressions: Mastery by George Leonard

 This is a small book - 176 pages, in large font. The front cover has a 70s aesthetic to it. Like other short works such as Man's Search for Meaning, this gives the impression that there is much under the surface and would reward re-readings. 

The book has three sections. The first section outlines the philosophy of the concept of the path of mastery. The second section disassembles the system of mastery into its component parts. The third section is a bunch of condensed wisdom - a sort of field manual about a few important ways someone trying to walk the path of mastery could get tripped up, and how to avoid those traps. 

In the first section, the author tries a bit of the via negativa by first describing all the paths that are NOT the path of mastery - the Dabbler, the Obsessive and the Hacker. Next he identifies the main obstacle to mastery - the desire for the short-cut, or rather the desire for repeated thrills in the form of climaxes. In other words, the inability to, as Fr. Stephen Freeman would say, "sit with one's shame." Or as other people with a military background would say, "Embrace the suck!" "Embrace the suck!"

At the end of the first section, he comes to the essence of Mastery: Loving the Plateau - in other words, embracing the suck. However, from Seth Godin and others we know that this area is more of a trough very often than even a plateau. It's a messy road that seems to lead nowhere. Even a plateau would be more consoling. My take on this is that often it is the forces of social politics that make this stage messy. Absent these, and looking at it from the simplified perspective of skill acquisition, it would look like a plateau indeed. 

The second section can be described as Deliberate Practice + Mindfulness + Go full David Goggins! 

In the third section, when he talks about where the energy from mastery comes from, it brought to mind the Matthew Principle, as well as "Success means never feeling tired" [PDF of RD article] idea of Mortimer Adler. The injunction about "Mastering the Commonplace" in section three reminded me of the "Everything is aiming" philosophy of Awa Kenzo.("Zen in the art of Archery", "Zen Bow, Zen Arrow") 

Within the book and in the Epilogue, Leonard points out that he who wants to be a master must start out by being a fool. Echoes of Valentin Tomberg's "Meditations on the Tarot." (Leonard even mentions the tarot in the Epilogue.) 

I will read this a few more times and write a proper review.

Burnt (2015): First Impressions

SPOILERS AHEAD!

This is not yet a polished review of the film. It's more like a rough first draft of impressions. 

 I am the complete opposite of a foodie. I have been known to eat food lacking salt and not notice. Therefore the only draw for me in this move was the potential psychological drama and redemption story.

 I started watching the movie hoping I was going to get a story about the journey on the path of Mastery (see Robert Greene, George Leonard etc). Given this expectation, I was somewhat disappointed. I will try to list out the reasons below.

1. In Rocky, we sympathise and empathise with Rocky Balboa since he is an underdog. Sure, he has some basic level of boxing skill, but he's quite far from any level of Mastery, and what's more, he's not even acquired the mindset that will draw him to take the first step on the goalless path of Mastery. He's not even an apprentice properly speaking because his heart is in it. He doubts his vocation, and Mickey rejects him as  a student initially. He is directionless and his life has stagnated - not plateaued, stagnated even before he has started, and it does not look like he will get anywhere in life unless something changes. The story does not start with a fall but rather a failure to rise. The viewer who has experienced some hard knocks in life, or who has been dealt a bad hand, cannot help identifying with Rocky Balboa, the underdog.

 Adam Jones, on the other hand, is not by any stretch an underdog when the movie begins. He's not even a mid-level dog. He's already a top dog who's aiming at becoming one of the supreme dogs. He is already a two star Michelin chef who's messed up his career. That is, he has already achieved a level of success that the average viewer is likely very far away from in his chosen profession or hobby. He's clearly past the stage of  the Apprentice and even that of the Journeyman. He has actually achieved a level of Mastery already, all of which has happened off screen before this movie even started. No matter what mistakes he might have done, his hard-earned cooking skills are not going to evaporate. He can start picking up the pieces of his life and put them together pretty fast anytime he decides to, which is exactly what happens. Right off the bat, this makes him difficult to identify with, unless you are already an overachiever. The movie starts with Bradley Cooper's voiceover (already not a good sign; what happened to show, don't tell?) explaining his fall from grace and his self-imposed penance (which seems arbitrary; perhaps there is something appropriate about shelling oysters that foodies or chefs can understand easily, but it escapes me). But once again, an opportunity to create identification is missed because when we first meet him, he is on the last day of his penance. There's really not much of a "Gonna Fly Now" montage. But as soon as we see his penance for the first time, it's over! And he is out on a quest to redeem his honour. But the arrogant way in which he acts and talks from this point does not seem to indicate his penance has taught him any humility. Once again, we are told, not shown (though in a conversation this time, not a voiceover, so that's a little better) that he is now abstaining from his addictions and from women. 

The arrogant ease with which he assembles a team and gets to become the driving force of his friends restaurant reminded me of Napoleon Hill in Outwitting the Devil, talking about how one of his ventures failed and he was at rock bottom - only to proceed to tell the reader in the next few lines how he got in touch with some friends and put together a new business venture. Anyone who has that level of skills and prestige/social-proof at his disposal does not have real problems, just minor annoyances, and do we really want to watch a hero's journey that is all about side-stepping minor annoyances.  We don't see the hero fall apart in real time. We don't see doors that slam shut in his face and refuse to open for him. We don't see him banging at those doors in futility. This is no Pursuit of Happyness.

In the 7 Habits series, both Stephen Covey and Sean Covey say that the inner battle has to be won before the external battle. By the time we meet him, Adam Jones has already won his inner battles. He just has to make this victory present in the exterior world. The most exciting and dramatic parts of this story are already over.

2. He can't seem to walk a few feet without tripping over some old friend or enemy. The plot seems contrived at this point.

3. The whole movie is about his going for the third star. I'm guessing viewers who are two star chefs will be able to identify with him, but I somehow don't. Perhaps if they had shown how he struggled with his addictions, who helped him quit and stay sober.

4. He refuses to rekindle his relationship with his old flame because she is better off without him, but does not reject getting drawn into the initiation of a relationship with Helene. True, she initiates the coming closer, not him, but I was expecting to tell Helene that she's better off without him too. Everyone is better off not getting close to him until he's exorcised his demons successfully.

 

5. The ending is a sort of Deus Ex Machina, twice. First, though his pride doesn't allow him to accept money from his friend, he is okay with his ex paying off those whom he owes money. Second, it's purely providential that those customers were not inspectors but mere software salesmen. The ending where he simply continues doing his duty instead of getting flustered and making special preparations was a nice touch. So was his not getting angry at his old friend/enemy for taking revenge on him. If only the whole of the movie had this same detachment from the fruits approach.

Climax of "A Man Escaped"

Tim Rosenberger of 25YearsLater has this to say about the climax of the film by Bresson:

I first saw A Man Escaped during a college film class. If memory serves, I found it interesting but a little boring. I also found the ending abrupt, anti-climatic and a little too easy.

Now? I still find the ending abrupt, anti-climatic and a little too easy. It’s not easy. It really isn’t. The whole film is about this prison break and the difficult lengths Fontaine goes through to make it to freedom.

But Bresson doesn’t linger enough on that last roadblock to liberation. He doesn’t milk it for all its worth. It’s maybe the one instance where I would’ve shot a little more intricately: close-ups on hands about to mess up or on Fontaine’s nervous face. That type of thing to just heighten tension one last time before the final release and resolution. Bresson could’ve accomplished this without sacrificing much of his simple aesthetic. I admire Bresson for sticking to his style from first frame to last frame, but that climatic moment needs something more. When we got to the end, I remember my college class being like, “That’s it?” I would be lying if I said I didn’t feel similar now.

But what if the supposedly flat climax was a feature and not a bug? Perhaps this scene is meant to show us that Fontaine was a man who functioned in a state of Zanshin?

There is a famous Japanese proverb that says, “After winning the battle, tighten your helmet.”

In other words, the battle does not end when you win. The battle only ends when you get lazy, when you lose your sense of commitment, and when you stop paying attention. This is zanshin as well: the act of living with alertness regardless of whether the goal has already been achieved.

Applied to this situation, Fontaine is only now out of jail. The Nazis still control France. Fontaine needs to get back to the Resistance and resume the fight against Nazis. This was why he escaped. His escape, though a good thing, can hardly have been an end in itself.

In Scott Adam's terms. He was operating in a systems perspective. He was not in perpetual failure mode.

TAG EXPLANATION: ACT too!

Of late I have been realising that most of the advice and strategies that seem workable and useful to me, which I've been encountering in self-improvement books and talks I read and watch have something in common:

They all appear to be re-workings of some or all the basic principles of Acceptance & Commitment Therapy and/or Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.

The purpose of this tag is to document all such instances I can find.

"All we can do is pray..."

This is what goes through my mind when I hear this:

Ideas for future development: Exulting in monotony.

All the towering materialism which dominates the modern mind rests ultimately upon one assumption; a false assumption. It is supposed that if a thing goes on repeating itself it is probably dead; a piece of clockwork. People feel that if the universe was personal it would vary; if the sun were alive it would dance. This is a fallacy even in relation to known fact. For the variation in human affairs is generally brought into them, not by life, but by death; by the dying down or breaking off of their strength or desire. A man varies his movements because of some slight element of failure or fatigue. He gets into an omnibus because he is tired of walking; or he walks because he is tired of sitting still. But if his life and joy were so gigantic that he never tired of going to Islington, he might go to Islington as regularly as the Thames goes to Sheerness. The very speed and ecstacy of his life would have the stillness of death. The sun rises every morning. I do not rise every morning; but the variation is due not to my activity, but to my inaction. Now, to put the matter in a popular phrase, it might be true that the sun rises regularly because he never gets tired of rising. His routine might be due, not to a lifelessness, but to a rush of life. The thing I mean can be seen, for instance, in children, when they find some game or joke that they specially enjoy. A child kicks his legs rhythmically through excess, not absence, of life. Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, "Do it again"; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, "Do it again" to the sun; and every evening, "Do it again" to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we. The repetition in Nature may not be a mere recurrence; it may be a theatrical encore. Heaven may encore the bird who laid an egg. If the human being conceives and brings forth a human child instead of bringing forth a fish, or a bat, or a griffin, the reason may not be that we are fixed in an animal fate without life or purpose. It may be that our little tragedy has touched the gods, that they admire it from their starry galleries, and that at the end of every human drama man is called again and again before the curtain. Repetition may go on for millions of years, by mere choice, and at any instant it may stop. Man may stand on the earth generation after generation, and yet each birth be his positively last appearance.

From Chapter 4 (The Ethics of Elfland) of Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton

Surely there is some connection here with the Jesus Prayer (and of course, the Rosary). There must be a parallel passage to this somewhere in The Way of a Pilgrim or in the Philokalia.