Is MDWA timely, timeless, or out of time?

Perhaps the world has changed, (and the technology in it has changed exponentially) but MDWA is not dependent upon irrelevant cultural details to tell its story. Just as you wouldn't create a beautiful oil painting of a sylvan scene proudly featuring your shiny new SUV, Wally and Andre's conversation is not dependent upon the current gadget or oddity in the news. Even though they mention a few news events, they're not really discussing those events; they're discussing their reactions to them. They could have fabricated events to discuss, but why bother? It's clever to know the inside jokes in Shakespeare, but understanding the plays is not dependent on that at all.

If what you and I had considered common knowledge may appear to be less widely possessed than before, it may only be that we have become exposed to the thinking of the general population as it has always existed. In the past it took a bit of skill to write a book or make a movie or play an instrument. Now it is easier for people to acquire access to media without acquiring the artistic sensibilities we associate with creativity. Now, thanks to the internet, reality TV, cell phones, etc we hear more and more from people who haven't earned it. Knowledge is not democratic; not all opinions are equal, but they are now equally available. It does not sound the death knell for art or intellect that we're exposed to a wider sampling of thought.

I first heard of MDWA via Siskel and Ebert who had a film review show because they were respected critics for large newspapers. Now anyone can text an opinion. It's not the downfall of thought; it just sounds like it.

MDWA is still about two people searching for meaning in their lives. This is a universal quest that will never be irrelevant. My copy is on my shelf with Hitchcock, Woody Allen, The Coen Brothers, Orson Welles and David Mamet. If MDWA is irrelevant, so is "Five Easy Pieces" or "Richard III."

[I was 27 when MDWA was released.]

I coulda done a lot worst than sit
in Skid Row drinkin wine
Jack Kerouac

I wish more people had responded to this post, because it poses an interesting question.

Yes, I do think the film remains relevant 30 years on, because its primary questions are about living a meaningful live, a fully engaged life, rather than simply being a machine that runs on the social & cultural programming we receive from birth onward. If anything, our civilization is in worse shape now than it was then, and the question of how to live well & authentically in a darkening age is all the more pressing today. I also think that as we get older, such questions become more pressing, no matter what the era.

I just turned 60 a couple of weeks ago, so Baby Boomer here, too ...

I believe it is very relevant today. I think there is a lot of truth and wisdom that is timeless in the film. I am currently 33 and saw it for the first time today. I was one year old when it first came out. It is an excellent film and I rated it 10/10.

Timeless.

35 here (2 yrs old when this was released!) and I still think it's relevant. Andre's rants about society still ring true even over 30 years after the movie was release

I just watched it for the first time, and think as time goes on it becomes increasingly relevant. With the invention of devices that detract from the human experience, it has become and will continue to become much more difficult to really experience life. For the whole that is. Any one person can decide for themselves.

Having an opinion can save your life. Just ask Marvin.

Its aged more like milk than wine. Andre's new age spiritualist claptrap sounds embarrassingly dated in 2016, some good points are made by both men but it's almost a matter of probability than intent or talent. They spend 2hrs desperately trying to say something poignant is it really a shock they do it a few times? They'd almost have to.

It's a brilliant film made by brilliant filmmakers but for so much talk it says surprisingly little

This seems especially & frighteningly pertinent now:

Now, of course, Björnstrand feels that there's really almost no hope, and that we're probably going back to a very savage, lawless, terrifying period. Findhorn people see it a little differently. They're feeling that there'll be these pockets of light springing up in different parts of the world, and that these will be, in a way, invisible planets on this planet, and that as we, or the world, grow colder, we can take invisible space journeys to these different planets, refuel for what it is we need to do on the planet itself, and come back. And it's their feeling that there have to be centers now where people can come and reconstruct a new future for the world.

And when I was talking to, uh, Gustav Björnstrand, he was saying that, actually, these centers are growing up everywhere now. And that what they're trying to do, which is what Findhorn was trying to do, and, in a way, what I was trying to do. I mean, these things can't be given names, but in a way, these are all attempts at creating a new kind of school or a new kind of monastery. And Björnstrand talks about the concept of "reserves", islands of safety where history can be remembered and the human being can continue to function in order to maintain the species through a dark age. In other words, we're talking about an underground, which did exist in a different way during the Dark Ages among the mystical orders of the church. And the purpose of this underground is to find out how to preserve the light, life, the culture, how to keep things living.