What Is? (01.31.2002)
All of knowledge is founded on axioms: assumptions that are agreed upon for stability. However, since those axioms are assumptions and cannot be proven without a doubt, nothing ca truly be known with absolute certainly. Still, in order to carry on with life, assumptions have to be made. Knowing this, the task becomes making assumption that are more educated and, given the lack of certainty, ones that matter. Furthermore, the assumption of others can be examined more accurately with this knowledge in mind. The most important of these assumptions, and in many cases points of debate, is the nature of reality. The old world thought the matters of the spirit to be truly real, or ethereal, as opposed to the physical world. The modern period, on the other hand, held that sense perception was the only evidence that was concrete and that reality was only that which could be corroborated by sense perception. This gradual shift that occurred endeavored to transform humanity’s view of reality from the ethereal to the physical. The fact of the matter, however, is that the modern period had no more indubitable evidence for believing in a physical reality than the people before it had for believing in an ethereal reality. As a result, the current time of postmodernism is fragmented in a disarray of those two realities and countless variations thereof. The world today is trying to figure out constantly what actual reality is, whether it truly is ethereal or physical. This trend can be observed in media to a large degree.
The case here is that the Kasdan films Grand Canyon and Mumford are portraying this social struggle in the bifurcation of postmodernism. The events unraveling in Grand Canyon are constantly being interpreted in a number of ways by the characters within the film as well as its viewers. The interlacing strands of themes in both films are much like those of time. Each event triggers another in a continuum of interrelationships between factors of co and counter-stimulus. The following exposition focuses on articulating how those films portray the endeavor to determine, if not true reality, then certainly some forms of realities. More specifically, attention will be drawn to the variable perception of these realities in Grand Canyon, and the notion of reality being variable in the first place from a look at Mumford.
A number of events occur within Grand Canyon, which are interpreted differently by different characters. In the beginning Mac is being harassed by a gang and thus gets, in a manner of speaking, saved from a worse fate by Simon. Mac believes this to be some sort of blessing or even divine intervention. Though if not, he certainly attributes some greater force than random occurrence to the favorable turn of events. Mac and Simon’s conversation following the incident shows that Simon may have a more rationally slanted perspective. Simon’s telling of a story about the shark illustrates that Mac’s meeting of the gang is a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that these things happen as a way of the way things are. Though Simon does question whether or not it is “the way things are supposed to be.”
Later in the story, the money-minded movie producer Davis gets shot. During his stay at the hospital, the entire episode seems to become some sort of life transforming event. Davis declares he will no longer make violent movies, and essentially seems to see the world as full of meaningful life stories providing rich content for the movie industry. After some time, however, he goes back to his old self and continues making violent movies with “money shots.” This return also manifests his original view that life is chaos, fear, and violence. This change is demonstrative of how reality can be viewed from two apparently opposing angles and be completely convincing to the viewer in each case.
Further along, Mac’s wife Claire finds a baby in the bushes along her jogging route, at which she cares for the child with devotion before telling Mac and the police. Claire may be filling some void at the maturity of her adolescent son, but she herself claims that it is much more than that. In some way she understands this as an omen of much greater magnitude in the same fashion in which Mac saw Simon’s timely appearance in the beginning of the film. Though surprisingly, Mac appears to find this event as another random occurrence, which seems to be uncharacteristic of him in light of his own experience. Nevertheless, they both come to terms with this as a chance to further their relationship as a family. This in turn illustrates how different individuals can see the same situation in different lights, though the true nature of that situation may be different than both those views in the long run.
Such similarities are also manifested to some degree in Kasdan’s Mumford. Though the more important notion in this film remains a statement of critical importance. During Skip and Mumford’s conversation on the porch, Mumford says that “in a free country, you are who you say you are.” This is a direct derivative of the notion that reality is what you make of it. The fact that reality is variable and relative itself, is an understanding that goes against the two main views of reality between ancient times and the modern period. This suggests that anyone can essentially create and live in a separate reality, but also that the reality of events throughout time is variable and relative. The nature of things commonly understood as good or bad are not necessary one or the other, but may change.
In retrospect, reality is a matter of perception. Whether reality is truly ethereal or actually physical in nature is determined, for the duration of life, by the living. Given this, it can also be conceived that no one knows the nature of what is happening to anyone as being positive or negative. No one even knows whether the nature of events is a constant factor, since finding that reality may be variable insinuates also that the nature of anything and everything may also be subject to change. So in truth, this inquisition, in some ways, is back at the starting point. However, there is an advantage in knowing what potential ignorance exists as opposed to being ignorant of that very ignorance.
