"The Mountain Between Us": A Movie Review.

It may be best to see The Mountain Between Us before reading my review. 

"The Mountain Between Us" (2017): Director: Hany Abu-Assad; Based On: The Mountain Between Us by Charles Martin; Script: J. Mills Goodloe and Chris Weitz; Cinematographer: Mandy Walker; Editor: Lee Percy; Cast: "Dr. Ben Bass" (Idris Elba); "Alex Martin" (Kate Winslet); "Sara" (Tintswalo Kumbuza); "Joel" (Dermot Mulrooney -- excellent performance in a supporting role!); "Walter" (Beau Bridges).

Charles Martin, The Mountain Between Us (New York: Broadway Books, 2010). 

Alternative Reviews:

Susan Wloszcyna, "The Mountain Between Us," Roger Ebert Reviews (2017): https://www.rogerebert.com/review/the-mountain-between-us-2017. 

Benjamin Lee, "The Mountain Between Us: Kate Winslet and Idris Elba Heat Up a Snowy Romance," (Film Review) The Guardian, September 14, 2017 posted to the online edition: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/sep/14/mountain-between-us-review-toronto-film-festival-tiff 

Simian Hans, ["Manohla Dargis"] "The Mountain Between Us: Inadvertedly Hilarious," (Film Review) The Guardian, October 8, 2017, posted to the online edition: https://www.theguardian.com ("The Naked Ape.")

Jeanette Catsoulis, ["Jennifer Shuessler" & "Manohla Dargis"] "Someone Ought to Have Placed a Mountain Between Them," The New York Times, October 6, 2017, p. C10. ("'The Reader': A Movie Review.") 

Secondary Sources: 

Don Bachardy & James P. White, Where Joy Resides: A Christopher Isherwood Reader (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1989), p. 362. (Introduction by Gore Vidal, pp. ix-xix.)

William Barrett, Irrational Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy (New York: Anchor, 1966).

William Barrett, Death of the Soul: From Descartes to the Computer (New York: Anchor, 1981).  

Francis Crick & Christoph Koch, "Towards a New Biological Theory of Consciousness," Seminars in Neuroscience 2 (1990), 263.

Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1995).

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1989), pp. 166-189. ("You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.")

Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity (New York: Kensignton, 1976, 1948), pp. 35-74 ("Personal Freedom and Others").

Simone de Beauvoir, Adieux: A Farewell to Sartre (New York: Pantheon, 1984), pp. 129-445 ("A Conversation With Jean-Paul Sartre by Simone de Beauvoir"). (Translation by Patrick O'Brian). 

Henry James, The Princess Cassamina (London: Penguin, 1987), (1st Pub. 1886).

R.D. Laing, Self and Other (London: Tavistock, 1961), pp. 88-98 ("Complementary Identity"). 

Patrick O'Brian, Testimonies: A Novel (New York: W.W. Norton, 1995), (1st Pub. 1952). 

Stephen Priest, Theories of the Mind: A Compelling Investigation Into the Ideas of Leading Philosophers on the Nature of the Mind and Its Relation to the Body (New York & Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1991). 

Paul Roubiczek, Existentialism: For and Against (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1966). 

Jean-Paul Sartre, The Transcendence of the Ego: An Existentialist Theory of Consciousness (New York: Hill & Wang, 1960), pp. 60-119 ("The Constitution of the Ego"), (Forest Williams & Robert Kirkpatrick, translators).

John R. Searle, Mind, Language and Society: Philosophy in the Free World (New York: Basic Books, 1998), pp. 85-111 ("How the Mind Works -- Intentionality"). ("John Searle and David Chalmers On Consciousness.")

J.J. Smart, "Sensations as Brain Processes," in Borst (1970).
J.J. Smart, Philosophy and Scientific Realism (London: Methuen, 1969).

Richard Swinburne, The Evolution of the Soul (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1986). ("Stuart Hampshire and Iris Murdoch On Freedom of Mind.")

Mary Warnock, Imagination (Berkekely & Los Angeles: UCLA U. Press, 1978), pp. 35-72.  

Jonathan Westfall, The Mind/Body Problem (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 2016). ("The Galatea Scenario and the Mind/Body Problem" and "'Ex Machina': A Movie Review.")

"BEN: It's all about the amygdala."

The Mountain Between Us is a subtle and smart romantic story with the usual outstanding performances from the two leads Idris Elba and Kate Winslet. 

The billing in this essay is strictly alphabetical. I do not want anyone to sue me.

I was more intrigued by the examination of some questions  concerning consciousness and human identity -- including a comment on current debates in evolutionary theory -- by way of this entertaining narrative than by the romance between the central characters that (for some mysterious reason) has "disturbed" many viewers and seems to be the subject of most critiques of the film.

I am delighted, however, that an actor of African ancestry who has become a global movie star, mostly, by playing the expected gun-wielding cops or criminals, finally, has the opportunity to be such a good and heroic person in this role. (''Luther': A Review of the BBC America Series.") 

In light of Mr. Elba's star-turn in the HBO series "The Wire" -- where he plays a ruthless drug dealer -- "Dr. Ben Bass" adds a further dimension to the actor's screen persona. 

I like Dr. Ben. I suspect that Mr. Elba does too.

The movie poses important questions concerning what we are as conscious moral subjects and why (or how) we survive the crises in our lives, if we do, as individuals (or as a species) despite lacking some of the desirable physical characteristics of, say, mountain lions. 

Are we determined by our selfish genes to be aggressive and self-seeking animals? Must we always look out for number one? Is "selfishness" always wise from the point of view of the individual let alone the group? Must it be "kill or be killed" for humans? Or is it only Republicans who behave this way? Must we: "Eat or be eaten"? Or is it true that what makes us special is our capacity for other-regarding love and self-sacrifice? Perhaps "game theory" best explains human nature, but I doubt it. ("The Wanderer and His Shadow.")

It seems that the representative of scientific rationality in this movie, Dr. Ben Bass, is on a voyage of discovery, perhaps both lead characters learn important lessons about what matters or is "real" during the course of their frightful experiences. 

Alex defends rational intuition and the wisdom of the emotions. 

It is Dr. Ben, however, who suggests towards the end of the film in a non-"sappy" way: "I think we survived because we fell in love."

Is human identity "relational," or dialectical, or exactly the opposite? Do I maximize only my own good to enhance my survival? Or should I share and help my neighbor even if costs me a great deal to do so? Why does each character refuse to abandon the other in this story? Is it significant that, at the beginning of the movie, Alex is returning from photographing White Nationalists or Nazis? ("Drawing Room Comedy: A Philosophical Essay in the Form of a Film Script.")   

The suggestion of this cinematic text seems to be that what allows "persons" to survive life-threatening crises is not selfishness, but altruism and love for one another. 

Perhaps it is all about brain chemistry or the "amygdala," as Dr. Ben suggests at the outset of the adventure, although he will come to feel very differently at the conclusion of the story: "What idiot said that?" 

There is always a "mountain" between ourselves and others, whether a literal or metaphorical mountain, since we usually live in narrow and well-planned "tracks" throughout our lives. 

We "meet" mostly people like ourselves, with similar expectations and from a similar social and economic class, or race. Cultural narrowness can be the death of any artist, especially an actor, and it tends to generate an ideological and small-minded view of reality. ("Is clarity enough?")

We may find it easier to behave at all times in predictable and expected ways even if such conduct is false to who we really are. ("'The Stepford Wives': A Movie Review.")

A catastrophe can shake up our expectations and possibilities by destroying the safety of our carefully constructed little worlds of ease and comfort to say nothing of self-regard or narcissism. 

This sort of existential crisis in the midst of our lives -- the central characters are in early middle age -- may lead us to contemplate the precariousness of (and good fortune in) our privileged existences in the First World. 

Kierkegaard reminds us that every day is a precious gift which may be halted at any time. "Tomorrow" is always a vague promise or hope that may not in fact materialize.  

Dr. Ben must come to terms with the death of a young spouse after medical science fails him. 

Alex is about to embark on a "rationally calculated" new life for which her wedding plans may prove useless. 

The illusion of security or "future planning" is necessary if we are to go on with our lives as we experience abrupt or painful transitions on our individual journeys. That illusion, however, can be taken from us in seconds. 

There is an absurdity about the phrase "future planning" that only becomes evident as we grow older. I no longer "plan" but only "hope" for a future. 

I live in a city in which thousands of persons experienced the equivalent of this movie's "plane crash" on September 11, 2001. Many persons found themselves in a disintegrating world having lost the most important person(s) in their lives. 

I begin with a summary of the plot. I then suggest interpretations of the narrative that seem illuminating to me. I am sure that the early Oscar buzz surrounding the film is warranted. The chemistry between the two leads is excellent. Good touchstones for this movie are not only "Titanic," but even more the Hollywood classics "Love Story" and "The Best Years of Our Lives." 

The metaphor of "obstacles" (the genuine mountain) in our encounters with others that is central to the branch of hermeneutics called "alterity studies" applies not only to geographical distance between persons but also to such cultural  gaps as race and ethnicity, or gender-roles, and/or the many other fictions governing our lives which tend to vanish when situations become life-or-death matters. ("David Stove and the Intellectual Capacity of Women.")

"ALEX: What about the heart?"  

Free-spirited photo-journalist Alex Martin has been photographing Neo-Nazis for the Guardian newspaper before her encounter with neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Bass in an airport waiting area. 

An airport or train station is usually a point of transition or departure in more ways than one. 

Ben and Alex have arrived at a moment of transition in their lives. 

Alex is anxious to get to New York to be married to her kind and very understanding boyfriend, "Joel," beautifully played by Dermot Mulrooney, who illustrates what psychologists mean by not making it necessary for a woman to spell things out for you through understanding her feelings to the best of a man's ability. 

Mr. Mulrooney illustrates a skilled actor's knack for making a small part bigger through intelligence and empathy.  

Ben is expected to operate on a 10-year-old child the next day. 

One wonders how serious these characters were about their commitments to begin with, but then people today lead much more energetic and dynamic lives than they have before. 

We may have lunch in L.A. and attend a meeting in New York in the evening only to fly to London at night. 

The two leads are stuck in a crowded Salt Lake City airport. All commercial flights are cancelled because of bad weather.   

Alex suggests that she and Ben hire a small private plane to carry them over the mountains, despite the impending storm, to a neighboring airport from which a connecting flight may be found for each of them. 

The pilot of this private plane (played with scene-stealing charm by Beau Bridges and his very talented golden retriever) experiences a fatal cerebral stroke in mid-air. 

The plane crashes with Alex suffering a leg fracture but only minor injuries for Ben and none, evidently, for the lucky dog who bonds, instantly, with Ben and Alex, joining in the mutual rescuing festival while raising the issue of whether "love" or altruism (as a partnership for survival) may include our canine friends. I am sure that it does.

One can only envy any dog who rescues Ms. Winslet's character from a hungry mountain lion only to be wounded and further endangered as the plot unfolds. 

Strangely, it is Ben and not Alex who eventually adopts the heroic dog who is now represented by an agent in Hollywood. 

Rumors that the dog was actually played by Leonardo Di Caprio cannot be confirmed. ("Bernard Williams and Identity.") 

With the abandonment of the two protagonists in the frozen wilderness we find ourselves in the philosophers' "State of Nature" facing the evolutionary challenge of survival and questions of cooperation or "social contracts." ("John Rawls and Justice.")  

Women were alleged to have exchanged sex for protection in a pre-historic bargain with men. (Sheri Hite calls it: "The Marriage Contract.") 

This scenario is not dealt with, explicitly, in the film. Perhaps this is because of a fear of wild-eyed and/or lesbian wielders of "political correctness" manuals. ("Manohla Dargis Strikes Again!")

Evolutionary and political questions are addressed, explicitly, with an argument favoring sacrifice and cooperation, including a willingness to risk personal safety (or life) for the good of another, or others.  

Regrettably, this suggestion may also infuriate militant feminists who, seemingly, have already protested against the movie, allegedly, because it is "demeaning to women." 

I cannot agree with this criticism since Alex does, in fact, rescue Ben, even as he also rescues her, to say nothing of the dog's heterosexual- and/or gender-neutral heroics. 

I doubt that either Ms. Winslet or Mr. Elba would be drawn to a script that is intentionally demeaning to women (or anyone) or merely about a "schmaltzy" romance. 

I am sure that such claims about this movie are merely "red herrings." ("The Naked Ape.") 

Ben contends that "brain chemistry" entirely explains what we are so that all that we do to survive is merely genetic drive. 

We must see others as rivals (or enemies) struggling for a limited food supply. In fact, what we "are," Ben insists, may be traced to the part of the brain called the "amygdala." ("The Galatea Scenario and the Mind/Body Problem.") 

Alex wonders in response about the "heart" (emotions) and rational intuitions. 

We "feel" and not only "think" what we must do in a crisis. Significantly, had they followed Ben's entirely rational conclusion to remain at the location of the crash in order to wait for a rescue party Ben and Alex would have died. ("'Westworld': A Review of the T.V. Series.") 

It may be argued that the contributions of science and art were equally necessary to the survival of both characters and even their shared affection for a loyal animal may have helped them to endure the hardships forced upon them. 

Most important for audience members is the realization that we must cross or climb down the "mountains" that separate persons from all others by refusing to see those who are different from us as necessarily "enemies" or "rivals and competitors" and nothing more. ("Richard A. Posner On Voluntary Actions and Criminal Responsibility.")  

Different perspectives concerning how we relate to others or see the world of strangers are tearing Western societies apart at the moment, especially concerning our obligations to desperate strangers who are increasingly found among us and who will continue to make their way to the West for the foreseeable future. ("Roberto Unger's Revolutionary Legal Theory.") 

The distance to be crossed, individually and collectively, is from "rational self-interest" to "altruism," from guarded indifference (or neutrality) in relating to others of different races and genders to trust and cooperation (these are difficult value choices today) by any one human being for another, or by one nation for the benefit of others. ("'Irrational Man': A Movie Review.") 

In a recent interview Richard Swinburne explains the tension between mind and body in fashionable theories of human nature and the paradoxes of identity to which they lead:  

"The data of psychology include people [beings] being characterized by images, pains, other sensations, thoughts, and beliefs; and to talk of these things is not to talk of goings on in the brain. That forces on us what is called 'property dualism' -- the view that people have two sorts of properties -- mental properties (pains, thoughts, etc.) and physical properties (electro-chemical patterns in the brain etc.). Of course one could define having a thought that 'today is Friday' as the same event as the brain event associated with it. But if one did, one would then have to say that the event has two aspects -- the aspect of mechanical discharge and the [subjective, qualia] aspect of a thought. ..." 

Interview of Richard Swinburne with Science and Religion News (2016) "On Mind/Body Dualism" (available on R. Swinburne's online archive at Oxford Philosophy Faculty archive.)

"BEN: The heart is just a muscle."  

The two aspects of human nature -- the rational, scientific, logical set beside the intuitive, pragmatic, imaginative faculties -- are embodied in the lead characters, Ben and Alex, but the solution to the challenge of survival for humanity requires cooperation and not competition between man and woman, science and art, reason and imagination. 

Passion becomes important because it is what drives human energy and creativity in the struggle against death.

The old understanding of human life as the opposition between love and death appropriated by Freud gets a new boost from this story.  

A few members of the movie audience left during the final five to ten minutes of the film, after it became clear how the survival issue would be resolved in the plot, but before crucial transformations of personality were put on display by the two actors playing the leads.

Early departure is a great mistake in seeing this film. 

The best interpretations of the story are found in the final moments of what unfolds onscreen. 

Neither Ben nor Alex could simply "return" to their previous lives. We can never "go home again," to paraphrase Thomas Wolfe, because life-altering crises not only change our circumstances, or the "existential situations" in which we find ourselves, but they also and more importantly change us. 

We are made different by life-or-death dilemmas that force us to confront our deepest selves and to make choices in "fear-and-trembling" before the infinite "abyss of possibilities" that is the future. 

To speak of such an "abyss of possibilities" (Kierkegaard) is to offer a theory of freedom as the finding (or creating) of the best "interpretations" of our life-narratives that allow us to move forward towards the "realization" of ourselves. (See my essay Paul Ricoeur and the Hermeneutics of Freedom.) 

Alex's relationship with her understanding boyfriend is suddenly perceived by her as a withdrawal from her new world of danger as well as authenticity because it is motivated by a desire for absolute safety that (she now knows) is never really an option in human life.

Ben appreciates Alex's commitments only when he meets her boyfriend and accepts that the young man is a very good person. The damage Ben has suffered will make it impossible for him to continue as a surgeon even if he remains a physician. 

Each of the two lead characters is frightened of the emotions that they have experienced together and (even more) of the brief glimpse which their shared adventure has given them of the "nothingness" that is our human condition in a world of great uncertainties, where nature itself may have become an enemy, and where science along with everything else seems to fail us except for love:

"Kierkegaard uses reason and the intellect to the utmost, so as to make sure that the irrational does not intrude too early; he only admits it where it cannot be avoided, and reason can no longer help. The experience of dread [angst] has to be a shattering experience of complete uncertainty" -- a "coming face-to-face" with yourself -- "or nothingness, but this is not depressing, for it is in this [nothingness] that the positive in man is disclosed. Kierkegaard's philosophy is understandably austere, perhaps too austere; yet this austerity must not be confused with pessimism, for he believes that, if a man is destroyed by despair, he has not experienced it deeply enough; if he had, he would have discovered, in the inmost depth of his being, a reality which could have saved him. ..."

Paul Roubiczek, "Kierkegaard," in Existentialism: For and Against, pp. 61-62. 

"BEN: What idiot said that?" 

Discovering the "reality that can save us" is a good way of summarizing the wisdom delivered by this movie.

Alex and Ben have been stuck in "unreality" -- that is, a kind of confusion or "muddle" -- dwelling in comfortable ruts before their encounter and shared adventure. 

Many of us may do the same or find ourselves in the identical predicament. ("Is truth dead?")

Ben's grief over the death of his wife has become quicksand; Alex's work far away from the man she tells herself that she loves and wishes to marry is, equally, a flight from truth and identity. 

Authenticity requires a spiritual re-centering of Ben's and Alex's life-journeys. ("'Inception': A Movie Review" and "'Revolutionary Road': A Movie Review.") 

Alex ponders the question of whether the "moment" for her relationship with Ben has passed. However, she comes to realize that, with regard to some persons, the "moment" never passes because the connection such individuals provide to the self are fundamental and must be life-long since that connection often defines us. ("'Interstellar': A Movie Review.") 

Denial of such a vital connection or, in the deepest meaning of the word, relationship, is death in the sense that it constitutes a turning away from one's best possibilities of development or selfhood in order to accept (or wallow in) comfortable falsehoods if not blatant lies about who and what we are. ("David Hume's Philosophical Romance" and "Master and Commander.") 

Ben returns to London. Alex attempts to return to work and plans for the future only to discover that the "appearance" of love is inadequate after experiencing genuine passion and self-giving love. ("'The English Patient': A Movie Review.")

When Alex sees Ben again after months have passed she reminds him of his initial observation: "The heart is only a muscle." 

Ben's response signals for the audience the distance he has traveled: "What idiot said that?"

It seems that even medical scientists may need emotional understanding as well as scientific knowledge. 

Ben has come to appreciate what the audience is also asked to accept. There are two kinds of reality in our lives (objective and subjective) and, therefore, a need for appropriate balance between these aspects of human being-in-the-world. ("Can you lie to yourself?" and "Why philosophy is for everybody.") 

The Mountain Between Us is a perfect novel and movie for the holiday season because these works offer a message of love and truth in a society that has grown wary of -- or even hostile -- to both concepts. 

The story is refreshingly optimistic about the human capacity to overcome the challenges that we face as a species in light of our ability to discover (or create) whatever allows us to survive, or endure many hardships while achieving lasting happiness, despite the wounds that we all must suffer given the unavoidable "bear traps" and "plane crashes" that await us in the "abyss of possibilities" that is the future. ("'Interstellar': A Movie Review.")

Love is possible because it is necessary to the life of every person.

Optimism is also frowned upon in contemporary America where cynicism and political correctness have become our true religion as admirers of MSNBC or Fox News may attest. ("Richard Rorty's Ethical Skepticism.") 

If we think of America as a gigantic toy store, shopping mall, or Supermarket, perhaps, with many tempting delights on display, the daunting challenge of seeing through the illusions or smoke and mirrors to what is healthy and real becomes crystal clear: 

"The Supermarket is still open; it won't close till after midnight. It is brilliantly bright. Its brightness offers sanctuary from loneliness and the dark. You could spend hours of your life here, in a state of suspended insecurity, meditating on the multiplicity of things to eat. Oh dear, all of them promising you good appetite. Every article on the shelves cries out to you, Take me, take me; and the mere competition of their appeals can make you imagine yourself wanted, even loved. But beware -- when you get back to your empty room, you'll find that the false flattering elf of the advertisement ["Lucky Charms"?] has eluded you; what remains is only cardboard, cellophane and food. And you have lost the heart to be hungry." (Where Joy Resides, p. 362.)