This is where you want to get to, right?
My all time favorite movie is Arrival.
Between Denis Villeneuve's direction, Amy Adams' performance, Jóhann Jóhannsson's score, and especially Bradford Young's cinematography, the film is a beautiful masterclass in storytelling.
If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend that you set aside some time this weekend to watch.
I watched it again with my family last night, and as is always the case, additional viewings bring out more nuance. The central themes of the film have always hit me hard like a ton of bricks. But now, I'm starting to pay attention to those secondary themes.
One scene in particular stood out to me, and I'll describe it here briefly, without spoilers for those who haven't seen it. (You can also view it below.)
Amy Adams plays the character of Louise Banks, a renown linguist. She is asked for help by the U.S. military to do translation, after some spaceships touch down all over earth. The military wants translation results urgently, to help the government decide how to respond. In this scene, Colonel Weber (played by the brilliant Forest Whitaker) is noticeably skeptical of the methods that Louise is using. It seems slow, and he has an urgent mission with intense pressure to perform.
Take a look at the clip:
What moves me so much about this scene is twofold:
Louise deeply understands her subject area, but she also knows how to communicate it in such a way that her audience understands. Her skill at understanding and articulating the complexity of the problem, contributes to her ability to persuade.
Col Weber has enough curiosity and restraint to set aside his concerns, and listen. He's the leader. He has all the responsibility on his shoulders, and would bear the brunt of the consequences for failure. He needs actionable solutions, now. He is understandably, and rightfully, uninterested in the details...at first. But he is aware enough to take a moment to ensure that his skepticism is grounded in a good understanding of the problem. Turns out, it wasn't.
That scene so perfectly encapsulates what it could look like if leaders and teams knew the importance of competent communication. So many work centers struggle with this.
I struggle with this.
It is the active, mutual intent to understand, from both characters, that make that scene such a powerful analogy for the engine behind excellent teams.
Col Weber visibly relents once he fully understands the scope of the problem. He suddenly knows that he is going to have to give disappointing news to his boss, because the disappointment stems from a poor understanding of the problem. He also knows enough, to recognize that Louise is right, and then trust her methods.
Louise is able to continue on her project because she was able to make a complex problem easily digestible, and because she had empathy for the reasons that her boss was skeptical of her methods. Instead of pushing back or getting angry, she took the time to make sure that everyone in the room had the additional context that she had. I especially love that moment at the end of her explanation, where she pauses and looks away...unsure if that explanation would be enough....unsure if her competence and expertise would be enough.
How much more could we accomplish if this mutual intent to understand was the rule, rather than the exception?
