View Full Version : Arrival (Denis Villeneuve)
Ezee E
09-10-2016, 12:13 AM
IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2543164/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/a9/cb/26/a9cb26ba4b56cd482565bd4d32fec0 63.jpg
Ezee E
09-10-2016, 12:32 AM
Oh boy. For the first half of this movie, it's as tense as ever, and so atmospheric. This is what you'd hope from a Ridley Scott trailer pretty much. The latter half is still very good, and I have to see it a second time to fully decide what I think, but I think it goes into Nolan-territory a little too much. But it's so atmospheric throughout the whole thing that I don't mind it.
Henry Gale
09-13-2016, 05:12 AM
IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2543164/) / Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrival_(film))
http://www.tribute.ca/tribute_objects/images/movies/arrival/arrival-poster-9.jpg
Henry Gale
09-13-2016, 05:22 AM
Phenomenal.
Not sure how to even start talking about this without getting into deep third act territory, but just.. wow. Only thing I'll say is that I'm not sure I've ever seen a movie so extraordinarily correct some of its perceivably rote elements and then use those same things to elicit such strong, ethereal emotion.
Villeneuve has played with the form to best shape his narrative motives in the past, but this takes things to a new and stunning level entirely. So glad I saw it at TIFF but now kinda bummed I have no way of seeing it again for two months. And not just because due to Rush seating issues I missed some stuff at the beginning of it.
EDIT: Shit, sorry. Forgot about Ezee's thread. Got overly excited.
Skitch
09-14-2016, 12:31 PM
Can't wait.
Henry Gale
11-10-2016, 10:49 PM
This might sound like a bit much, but of all the weeks for this to come out, I feel like it's perfect in terms of being genuinely powerful enough to feel a little better about humanity and the world.
Can't wait to see it again.
I thought this was pretty good, even if I did call the "twist" about a half hour before it was revealed. Also, anyone else think back to that closing spider shot from Enemy when she looks up at the couch and sees the alien sitting there? :p
Only thing I'm a little confused about is the aliens motives? They gave them this non-linear sense of time as a "gift", but was it ever explained why? If so, I think I might've missed that.
Ezee E
11-13-2016, 02:45 AM
Liked it more the second time.
Melville
11-13-2016, 09:08 PM
I thought this was pretty good, even if I did call the "twist" about a half hour before it was revealed. Also, anyone else think back to that closing spider shot from Enemy when she looks up at the couch and sees the alien sitting there? :p
Only thing I'm a little confused about is the aliens motives? They gave them this non-linear sense of time as a "gift", but was it ever explained why? If so, I think I might've missed that.
They tell Amy Adams that they're helping humanity so that humanity will help them in return in 3000 years.
They tell Amy Adams that they're helping humanity so that humanity will help them in return in 3000 years.
I appreciate this. This actually finally occurred to me while thinking about it yesterday. Just happened to forget that particular exchange immediately after the movie. :)
Izzy Black
11-14-2016, 05:18 AM
BEST movie of the year. But then again this is the only movie I've seen in 2016.:(
DavidSeven
11-14-2016, 09:44 PM
I doubt I'll see a better movie this year.
Conceptually immaculate, thematically relevant. It moved me a lot more than I expected it to. Handles its big themes as well its human ones. Beautifully crafted. It's a gorgeous, haunting film. Villeneuve deserves a lot of credit. This could've easily devolved into maudlin hack-work in the wrong hands. He handles it with the right restraint and justifiably goes big when the film earns it. My praise for the film cannot be overstated. This is landmark stuff for Villeneuve.
Spinal
11-15-2016, 01:49 AM
This was exhausting. Seriously tense and thought-provoking throughout. I like that ultimately it's not really a film about how we might communicate with aliens so much as a movie about how we might better communicate with each other. Beautiful work all around.
Watashi
11-18-2016, 09:04 AM
Agree with David and Spinal. Beautiful film. Though any film that bookends with Max Richter's "On the Nature of Daylight" is my cinematic catnip (also used effectively in Shutter Island). I hate how the media is selling the film with "you won't believe the big twist!" Stop that shit. This is not a twisty film. The reveal is more cathartic rather than "gotcha!" This is top-tier sci-fi up there with the greats like The Day the Earth Stood Still and Close Encounters.
Morris Schæffer
11-18-2016, 09:08 AM
I wish this movie was already here in Belgium. Villeneuve is one my fave helmers, he seems on a hot streak right now and what seemed like a dreadful idea years ago, is quickly becoming something mouthwatering to look forward to. That would be Blade Runner 2049.
edit: which reminds me, i should watch Incendies, the one that put him on the map.
Spinal
11-18-2016, 04:55 PM
I hate how the media is selling the film with "you won't believe the big twist!" Stop that shit. This is not a twisty film. The reveal is more cathartic rather than "gotcha!"
"You won't believe the big twist .... if you weren't paying a whole lot of attention in the first 90 minutes of the movie."
Ezee E
11-18-2016, 11:11 PM
"You won't believe the big twist .... if you weren't paying a whole lot of attention in the first 90 minutes of the movie."
Shoot, the first line spoils it.
Morris Schæffer
11-19-2016, 11:11 AM
edit: which reminds me, i should watch Incendies, the one that put him on the map.
Don't wanna start a new thread. Incendies, which I just finished seeing, is probably one of the best 2010 movies I have seen. There's some coincidental stuff at the end, but the cumulative emotional impact is is nonetheless profound.
transmogrifier
11-19-2016, 12:23 PM
I didn't like Incendies much. The stupid ending ruins all.
Morris Schæffer
11-19-2016, 04:44 PM
I didn't like Incendies much. The stupid ending ruins all.
It's not sitting well with me either. I mean what are the chances of such an ending?! Still movie is great for 95% of its runtime.
Henry Gale
11-21-2016, 02:50 AM
Liked it more the second time.
Totally agree. And I loved it the first time. Where the emotional wallop hit me like a series of waves at the end the first time, this second time, knowing how everything falls into place, I was pretty much (happily) a mess from the very first shot. (And then of course again at the end, because 'tis the cyclical nature of the film's language.)
Shoot, the first line spoils it.
Fun fact: Due to some seating-change issues with my screening at TIFF, I didn't actually get to hear the first line the first time I saw it! So there actually was some less overt hinting and more clouded mystery to it all for me in my first experience with it without that particular dialogue in my mind.
Ezee E
11-21-2016, 05:41 AM
Ha. For me, the first time I watched it, I thought the daughter was from her past for quite a while.
number8
11-22-2016, 02:57 AM
This is what you'd call a zeitgeist movie.
Pop Trash
11-25-2016, 04:29 AM
Structurally, has there ever been a movie that had flash forwards presented as flash backs, until more information is parsed out by the viewer to let us know these are actually flash forwards in time? Personally, I've never seen that device in cinema (or tv) and I've seen a lot of films over the years.
Good movie. I have to mull over it to decide just how good it is.
Watashi
11-25-2016, 06:07 AM
I mean, LOST was famous for doing it.
Pop Trash
11-25-2016, 02:26 PM
I mean, LOST was famous for doing it.
That's what I get for never watching LOST.
number8
11-25-2016, 05:13 PM
Yeah I'd say most people associate that with LOST. It was a huge moment for the series when they did it.
Atmospheric and obviously well made, yes... but beyond that it didn't do much for me. And the ending, extra cheesy with a side of corn.
Morris Schæffer
12-07-2016, 09:15 PM
I don't understand this movie. I believe it makes sense, and I have vague theories, but I don't quite get it. The ending is sort of meh. One of the most pivotal moments in human history and the Renner character all but shrugs it off saying "it's awesome he met Amy" even though the chemistry between them is nil. The aliens have a gift for humanity. No idea what that is. Something about warping time? I'm missing something. Has to be.
Henry Gale
12-07-2016, 10:50 PM
Hmmm... Is there anything the movie doesn't explicitly spell out, though? I'm not sure if there's a non-condescending way to ask if maybe reading the Wikipedia summary might help.
Unless you mean you're missing something with emotional investment or "wow" factor people have had with it, which I can only understand in theory, since it honestly hit me to the point of tears both times I saw it, and even more the second.
All I can say is for me, the movie is about whether or not we'd choose to go through everything we go through in our lives if given the choice. Do we accept all the pain if it means also having the beauty of the experiences that stem from them? All things have creation and destruction, all stories have beginnings and endings, all people have births and deaths, but would it change our perspective on the inevitabilities of those latters if we didn't view things as always leading to those tragedies linearly, and always in their present? Louise felt it was more valuable to give her daughter her life and their time together than to deprive both of them from any of it at all. By the end we realize Renner likely couldn't accept that choice, which illustrates their fundamental philosophical divergences. Going back to referencing LOST for a second, it's kind of the man of science and the woman of faith. Except her faith is merely a gift from beyond our universe.
As a viewer, we've come as close as we can to already experiencing everything with Louise and her daughter before she even begins having those future-memories / visions of it in ways that upend what we view as standard cinematic language, modeled as similar to the film's cyclical alien as possible. We just don't fully crack that until Louise does, and begins to have her own epiphanies as a result.
And in that unexpected design, I can't imagine there not being enough to be impressed with alone, but then again, it just really, really worked for me.
Morris Schæffer
12-08-2016, 04:45 AM
Hmmm... Is there anything the movie doesn't explicitly spell out, though? I'm not sure if there's a non-condescending way to ask if maybe reading the Wikipedia summary might help.
Unless you mean you're missing something with emotional investment or "wow" factor people have had with it, which I can only understand in theory, since it honestly hit me to the point of tears both times I saw it, and even more the second.
All I can say is for me, the movie is about whether or not we'd choose to go through everything we go through in our lives if given the choice. Do we accept all the pain if it means also having the beauty of the experiences that stem from them? All things have creation and destruction, all stories have beginnings and endings, all people have births and deaths, but would it change our perspective on the inevitabilities of those latters if we didn't view things as always leading to those tragedies linearly, and always in their present? Louise felt it was more valuable to give her daughter her life and their time together than to deprive both of them from any of it at all. By the end we realize Renner likely couldn't accept that choice, which illustrates their fundamental philosophical divergences. Going back to referencing LOST for a second, it's kind of the man of science and the woman of faith. Except her faith is merely a gift from beyond our universe.
As a viewer, we've come as close as we can to already experiencing everything with Louise and her daughter before she even begins having those future-memories / visions of it in ways that upend what we view as standard cinematic language, modeled as similar to the film's cyclical alien as possible. We just don't fully crack that until Louise does, and begins to have her own epiphanies as a result.
And in that unexpected design, I can't imagine there not being enough to be impressed with alone, but then again, it just really, really worked for me.
No it's okay. Appreciate the feedback. By the end of the movie I kept thinking that Ian Donnelly is actually Louise's husband. Although I've no idea how that is possible and whether it makes sense. Still no idea what the aliens' so-called gift to humanity is. Was it a gift for Louise only? Did they single her out from the rest? What happens in 3000 years? Something cataclysmic on the alien homeworld?
Lazlo
12-08-2016, 01:26 PM
No it's okay. Appreciate the feedback. By the end of the movie I kept thinking that Ian Donnelly is actually Louise's husband. Although I've no idea how that is possible and whether it makes sense. Still no idea what the aliens' so-called gift to humanity is. Was it a gift for Louise only? Did they single her out from the rest? What happens in 3000 years? Something cataclysmic on the alien homeworld?
He is her husband. Or he will be. The "gift" is once you understand their language, you no longer have to see time linearly. You're able to experience the past, present, and future at-will. All of Louise's visions aren't memories as originally posited by the editing language. They're visions of the future, of the daughter she and Ian will have. As she learns more and more of the heptapod language, the clearer she's able to see her entire life. She knows Hannah will die of cancer before she's even conceived. Her marriage ends because Ian isn't able to accept that inevitability and the fact that Louise knew and kept it from him.
The heptapods' problem 3000 years from now isn't explained but they know that they won't survive it unless humans are able to perceive time the way they do. Thus they're here to try and teach someone their language. Louise just happens to be the one who figures it out. Which I guess they'd know she'd be the one since they can see the future. They send multiple ships because it's the way to bring about worldwide unity among humans.
Morris Schæffer
12-08-2016, 04:37 PM
Thanks Lazlo. let me think about that. :)
Weems
12-10-2016, 02:40 AM
I don't understand this movie. I believe it makes sense
I don't. It treats time paradoxes so unthinkingly. I've rarely seen so much hand-waving attempt to explain a fundamentally incoherent premise.
Morris Schæffer
12-10-2016, 10:38 AM
I don't. It treats time paradoxes so unthinkingly. I've rarely seen so much hand-waving attempt to explain a fundamentally incoherent premise.
I'm still inclined to agree with you. The reason I said it made sense is because I suppose I felt I could give the director the benefit of the doubt, that further thinking or another viewing would open my eyes.
Still, at this point I still don't understand how someone could say that it's all spelled out. This is not a knock against Henry Gale, I believe he means it, but all I "get" is a vague understanding of proceedings.
For example, I'm unable to explain how it is possible that the movie begins with Louise alone, by choice, abandoned or widowed talking about her precious girl and how she lost her to illness, when afterwards she meets Renner who turns out to be her ex or future husband, the one that abanoned her, the one that wasn't there at the beginning of the movie, except she doesn't seem to recognize him at all.
I read about non-linear time, and I get that's part of what the aliens can do so I assume by the end of the movie all three are reunited? Husband, wife and daughter who's alive? Tons of other characters were in the vicinity of the event as well, are they also affected? Or did the Aliens single out the Louise (and perhaps Ian) character as the only one who would experience non-linear time?
But at least I'm talking and thinking about this movie, which I cannot say about Independence Day: Resurgence.
Morris Schæffer
12-10-2016, 10:43 AM
By the way, the aliens look like upright standing and giant facehuggers, their "ships" when titled horizontally resemble the saucers from the first Independence Day, and the Stuhlbarg character is called Halpern which is the female lead in Michael Crichton's Sphere, a sorta, kinda similar experience and was eventually played by Sharon Stone in an inferior movie.
number8
12-10-2016, 12:55 PM
For example, I'm unable to explain how it is possible that the movie begins with Louise alone, by choice, abandoned or widowed talking about her precious girl and how she lost her to illness, when afterwards she meets Renner who turns out to be her ex or future husband, the one that abanoned her, the one that wasn't there at the beginning of the movie, except she doesn't seem to recognize him at all.
This really isn't as complicated as you seem to think it is. You thought you were seeing flashbacks, but they're actually flashforwards. The movie's scenes aren't in chronological order.
Morris Schæffer
12-10-2016, 01:13 PM
This really isn't as complicated as you seem to think it is. You thought you were seeing flashbacks, but they're actually flashforwards. The movie's scenes aren't in chronological order.
Ok, but I assumed all the time trickery going on was a direct result of the aliens having touched down on Earth and in the first 10 minutes they weren't there yet. We see Louise walking around in her house, we see her giving a lecture, then she's visited by the Whitaker character etc...
Those early scenes exist in real-time I assume, but it clearly communicated that she has lost her daughter to an illness. Which you now say is actually a flash forward. Except the movie ends with Louise, Ian and daughter together living happily ever after. Which I assume is then actually a real flashback, back when they were still a couple and happy and when the daughter was healthy.
I still don't understand the "gift" the aliens bring down to earth.
number8
12-10-2016, 01:21 PM
I don't know how else to say this: the movie is not presented in a chronological order. The movie ends with them as a family together because it takes place in her life years before the scene at the beginning of the movie where the daughter dies.
The gift is their language. The language allows you to see your whole life, past present and future, all at once.
Lazlo
12-10-2016, 01:54 PM
Yeah, they don't live "happily ever after". And those early scenes with Hannah growing up and dying take place after the main storyline of the movie. But Louise teaching happen before those events. She appears lonely and sad but it's not about her daughter. Ian and Louise still get married after the central events of the alien visit and have a daughter who gets cancer and dies and they still get divorced. The core question is would you still go through with all of that eventual pain knowing it's coming in order to experience the good stuff.
Other people will eventually gain the ability to see their entire lives at-will once they learn the heptapod language. It's not just being in the vicinity of the ship or the heptapods that gives Louise this ability. It's learning the language. The language is the key. Ian never fully learns the language so he doesn't receive the "gift". Their marriage falls apart because Louise knows Hannah will get sick and keeps it from Ian, but then eventually tells him and he can't handle that revelation or that Louise didn't tell him.
The movie plays with film language by making us think flash-forwards are flashbacks. Louise sees these things and before the reveal it seems like she's having a tough time processing memories. Instead she's experiencing massive confusion by being shown flashes of a life she hasn't lived yet.
Ezee E
12-10-2016, 01:54 PM
That, and we don't see why or how we'll be helping them in the future. It might even be hundreds of years if I recall.
Ezee E
12-10-2016, 01:55 PM
Also, watching a second time, knowing it's a flash-forward, makes it all the more sad.
Morris Schæffer
12-10-2016, 04:09 PM
Ok guys, I'm getting there. I think I know enough. Will revisit this once it hits blu-ray.
Morris Schæffer
12-11-2016, 11:46 AM
One more thing. Since the movie starts with a flash forward, I would have to assume Louise has already been given the gift. That makes no sense since she had not yet unlocked the language by that time.
Therefore, that's just the director leading us along a false trail right?
Sorry, never mind. Since it is a flash forward, she would already have learned the language and what we're seeing is a legitimate flash forward rather than a vision experienced by Louise. Right?
Lazlo
12-11-2016, 12:15 PM
Sorry, never mind. Since it is a flash forward, she would already have learned the language and what we're seeing is a legitimate flash forward rather than a vision experienced by Louise. Right?
Yes.
"Real linear movie time" doesn't start until she shows up on campus. The rest is the future, just being shown to us out of order.
number8
12-11-2016, 12:50 PM
The movie also starts with her voiceover narration talking about her memories of things. So you can argue that what we're seeing is a narrative of the events of her life as told through her perception of it if you want to be literal about it.
But mostly it's just film language.
Winston*
12-11-2016, 06:54 PM
I do feel like the whole thing with the Chinese military guy's wife's dying words was a paradox that can't be explained away by the alien's language. That said, I still thought the movie was fantastic. Reminded me of a few of my favourite sci-fi novels.
number8
12-12-2016, 02:43 PM
I do feel like the whole thing with the Chinese military guy's wife's dying words was a paradox that can't be explained away by the alien's language.
The whole thing follows a consistent bootstrap paradox, but it's definitely done out of convenience. What I didn't like about the third act is that Villeneuve tried to have this ludicrous race-against-the-clock to stop a world war tension building, after it's already established that it's playing by closed-loop rules. What's the point? That's a directorial misstep there.
amberlita
12-14-2016, 01:14 AM
Yeah, they don't live "happily ever after". And those early scenes with Hannah growing up and dying take place after the main storyline of the movie. But Louise teaching happen before those events. She appears lonely and sad but it's not about her daughter. Ian and Louise still get married after the central events of the alien visit and have a daughter who gets cancer and dies and they still get divorced. The core question is would you still go through with all of that eventual pain knowing it's coming in order to experience the good stuff.
Other people will eventually gain the ability to see their entire lives at-will once they learn the heptapod language. It's not just being in the vicinity of the ship or the heptapods that gives Louise this ability. It's learning the language. The language is the key. Ian never fully learns the language so he doesn't receive the "gift". Their marriage falls apart because Louise knows Hannah will get sick and keeps it from Ian, but then eventually tells him and he can't handle that revelation or that Louise didn't tell him.
Agree very much with your first paragraph and that's certainly what I thought was the most affecting message of the film rather than how we all need to communicate with one another or whatever, which played out rather ham-fisted. Why exactly did all the countries "go black"? Because China was getting jittery? A plot convenience along with probably half-a-dozen others. I liked the film for its tempo and mood and that, compared to its cinematic alternatives, is heavy on the science and calculation.
But remembering at the end what happens to her daughter, that she's choosing to endure pain, was something that personally spoke to me. Aaaaaand then that closing montage went on about 3 minutes too long. :)
One counter: I don't think that's why their marriage broke up - that she didn't tell her husband their daughter gets sick. I thought it was that she sees that humanity will be threatened by a killer virus (the feeling of the lymph nodes and baldness makes me think her daughter dies of cancer, not a virus). So I thought it weird that their marriage would fall apart simply because she confesses she can see the future. I may have it wrong though, I wasn't totally clear on that scene where she explains what happens.
Lazlo
12-14-2016, 02:32 AM
Agree very much with your first paragraph and that's certainly what I thought was the most affecting message of the film rather than how we all need to communicate with one another or whatever, which played out rather ham-fisted. Why exactly did all the countries "go black"? Because China was getting jittery? A plot convenience along with probably half-a-dozen others. I liked the film for its tempo and mood and that, compared to its cinematic alternatives, is heavy on the science and calculation.
But remembering at the end what happens to her daughter, that she's choosing to endure pain, was something that personally spoke to me. Aaaaaand then that closing montage went on about 3 minutes too long. :)
One counter: I don't think that's why their marriage broke up - that she didn't tell her husband their daughter gets sick. I thought it was that she sees that humanity will be threatened by a killer virus (the feeling of the lymph nodes and baldness makes me think her daughter dies of cancer, not a virus). So I thought it weird that their marriage would fall apart simply because she confesses she can see the future. I may have it wrong though, I wasn't totally clear on that scene where she explains what happens.
There's a scene where Louise tells Hannah that her father left because she kept something from him that he eventually found out and couldn't accept. I took that to mean she tells Ian about Hannah's impending illness and he has issues with her knowing and going through with everything anyway. He doesn't subscribe to the "even if you knew it will all end badly would you go through with it anyway for the sake of the good times" idea. Not sure where you're getting the virus thing from. I don't recall that being in the movie at all.
The stuff with the Chinese general is definitely the weak link of the movie.
Spinal
12-14-2016, 04:57 AM
I don't think the message of the film is just "we all need to communicate with each other". It's that language has an enormous impact on the way we think and process the world. The film suggests that interacting with different cultures can initially be tense, jarring and raise the possibility of mistrust. But fully understanding a culture and the way it uses language can ultimately open up our brains to new possibilities. That's what is memorable about the film for me, much more so than the philosophical question about her daughter. Not to say one is right and one is wrong. Just saying that this layer of the film worked well for me.
number8
12-14-2016, 11:54 AM
Not sure where you're getting the virus thing from. I don't recall that being in the movie at all.
Yeah, I don't remember anything about that at all.
number8
12-14-2016, 12:01 PM
The film suggests that interacting with different cultures can initially be tense, jarring and raise the possibility of mistrust.
This aspect was what struck the most with me, too. The scene where Louise explains that they don't just need to translate glyphs, they also need to ask basic questions to learn the syntax of their form of communications so they know how certain interactions would come across, and when she intuits that they need to figure out if weapon and gift mean the same thing to their culture. That seems like the film's chief allegory. I kept forgetting her character's name after the movie and was just calling her Space Margaret Mead.
amberlita
12-15-2016, 12:02 AM
Well that would make a lot more sense. Wow, though. I have no doubt you guys are correct; I'm just amazed that I could confabulate all that. I'm questioning my ability to mentally process data.
Morris Schæffer
12-15-2016, 10:58 AM
Well that would make a lot more sense. Wow, though. I have no doubt you guys are correct; I'm just amazed that I could confabulate all that. I'm questioning my ability to mentally process data.
Don't worry, you're not alone. I pestered these guys for clarifications so long that it's amazing I haven't been banned for dumbness. :D
dreamdead
12-16-2016, 03:27 PM
That said, I still thought the movie was fantastic. Reminded me of a few of my favourite sci-fi novels.
Winston, you mind offering up a few of those sci-fi titles? I read Chiang's story collection before seeing this and dug it a lot, and would be interested in anything that's self-contained...
Skitch
12-19-2016, 06:02 PM
For those that have seen Arrival, has your anticipation for Blade Runner 2049 altered pro or con after seeing this film?
Winston*
12-19-2016, 06:13 PM
Winston, you mind offering up a few of those sci-fi titles? I read Chiang's story collection before seeing this and dug it a lot, and would be interested in anything that's self-contained...
Embassytown and Babel-17 were the ones that came to mind.
For those that have seen Arrival, has your anticipation for Blade Runner 2049 altered pro or con after seeing this film?
I've been a fan of the director's work for a while now, and so this movie didn't really alter my perception of his or any upcoming projects of his one way or the other. If it's got his name attached, I'm interested. ;)
Skitch
12-20-2016, 12:59 AM
I haven't watched Arrival yet, but I'm right there with you TGM.
DavidSeven
12-20-2016, 10:26 PM
I wish deeply that he wasn't going into franchises, but I'll see whatever he does next with great anticipation.
SPOILER for the whole paragraph:
In desperate need of a second watch, as, rare for 'go-with-the-flow' me, I was able to guess too early (in the first half) what trick it has up its sleeve. What clicked for me is that I was wondering why Amy Adams' superb-in-retrospect performance doesn't have a layer that indicates the loss of a child, when a keyword was uttered and then everything fell into place. Thus, I am not sure if the emotional aspect falls flat for me because I was too distracted by my own thoughts during the film (I had that realization super-early in the film), or because the film really doesn't earn it. Otherwise though, apart from that and a few plot clumsiness (mostly the climatic phone call), very superb. Rarely have I been so engrossed and stimulated based purely on ideas, thoughts, and process minutiae this year. A second watch will clarify if it is able to reach my emotions as well, now that I will have no hesitating, distracted thoughts during it now.
Dead & Messed Up
12-31-2016, 06:58 PM
I think I loved the first two-thirds of this movie and couldn't get over my own dislike of bootstrap paradox* to appreciate the final third, although reading through this thread helped me better recognize and appreciate the flashback dynamic (there was a solid ten-minute chunk where I thought the daughter was psychic - d'oh!). The sequence with them unknowingly racing against a red digital readout was maybe the high point, and goddamn me for falling for that old classic. Why would the soldiers, after all, need a red digital readout for a bomb they had no intention of defusing or even watching? But even then, it works.
The cinematography seemed too washed out for my taste. That could be the result of me watching on a DVD screener (my roommate is in a guild), but a lot of the color bled together and felt unnecessarily faded. Which is a shame, because Villeneuve's shot selection is mostly excellent (and I liked how we never travel to other countries beyond the occasional wide shot during montages).
* This runs into the same plot problem Interstellar does, in that a being that can consciously exist beyond "arrow of time" linearity had to develop to that state, and if it could only have developed to that state on assumption that it would essentially evolve beyond linearity and double back and save itself, how did it do so the first time around? Imagine crossing a river on a boat you found, then recognizing that you have to travel back and put the boat there. Why is that necessary? You've already crossed the river. This is a weird sort of jump a lot of time-travel movies do, and while I used to appreciate how it hints at our own brains' inability to really process fourth-dimensional thinking (since the more you think about a bootstrap, the more you realize how dependent your brain is on linear consequential thinking), more and more I find it to be self-impressed plot convolution. The film would've been better without that element.
All that said, easily one of the better films of the year, largely because it assumes its viewers are intelligent and curious about alien life and the human response, and also because, as others have said, the film is equally (if not more) about our own struggle to communicate with and understand other humans.
This is one that may play better and more consistent on a rewatch.
Melville
01-19-2017, 03:58 PM
I see I never did post my thoughts about this. I appreciate a movie taking on the idea of language changing our experience of the world, but I kept thinking Borges did it better. And I liked all the emotional beats in principle, but their execution didn't really land for me, maybe because Renner's character felt undeveloped. But negatives aside, Villeneuve rocks the cool grey atmosphere, as always; he's really good at modulating that coolness, making it either soft or icy hard.
So...mixed, but I liked it quite a bit overall.
* This runs into the same plot problem Interstellar does, in that a being that can consciously exist beyond "arrow of time" linearity had to develop to that state, and if it could only have developed to that state on assumption that it would essentially evolve beyond linearity and double back and save itself, how did it do so the first time around?
But there is no "first" or "second" time around: there's only the one time. I have the opposite opinion about the bootstrap paradox. It makes perfect sense according to classical physics, and if you were to make a story about time travel or precognition and skip over complications like it, you'd be skipping what makes these things interesting in the first place. I think that's especially true if the story's about humanity transcending its everyday conceptions.
None of that shit about soldiers setting a bomb, a global military crisis with China and "learning to work together" was in the original either. That was pure Hollywood crap. They turned a singular story into another overbearing message movie.
Thank you. The hysteria with the soldiers and China actually ruined the whole movie for me. The soldiers are in the room when the scientists are communicating with the aliens, shouldn't they realize that the aliens don't pose a danger? Even if they believed the gift was a weapon, wouldn't blowing it up mean you're the only world superpower without said weapon? But mostly how dumb do you have to be to preemptive strike the far technology advanced aliens?
Irish
01-20-2017, 10:01 AM
Thank you. The hysteria with the soldiers and China actually ruined the whole movie for me. The soldiers are in the room when the scientists are communicating with the aliens, shouldn't they realize that the aliens don't pose a danger? Even if they believed the gift was a weapon, wouldn't blowing it up mean you're the only world superpower without said weapon? But mostly how dumb do you have to be to preemptive strike the far technology advanced aliens?
Agreed! All those elements were boilerplate thriller material and crudely bolted onto the main story.
I mean, the screenwriter interpreted Hitchcock's old bit about creating suspense literally---hey, let's just put a ticking time-bomb under a table! The entire sequence wasn't plausible. There are no soldiers around the monolith, no checkpoints, no cameras. So any faceless, nameless group of renegades can walk up with a bomb? It was telling that the entire plot point was never referenced again once it happened.
The China stuff at least made some sense, given the current state of the world. I can buy into a degree of paranoid saber rattling. I don't buy into the idea that anyone would play a grade-school game of 'telephone' with an alien species when we barely understand each other's language.
All of this junk split the film's meaning into two or three distinct parts, and none of them had anything to do with the other.
Dukefrukem
02-02-2017, 01:54 AM
Haven't read anything in this thread yet, but this film annoyed the shit out of me. The flash-forwards at the beginning of the movie are intentionally there to confuse the audience in thinking they are flashbacks. For 3/4 of the movie I'm trying to figure out why Amy keeps thinking about her boring dead kid. This is the laziest way to structure a film with some kind of "see what we're doing now?" kind of reveal half way through the movie. Let's be clear though- This means that Amy Adams always has the ability to see the future correct? Otherwise there would be zero point in putting flash-forwards at the beginning of the movie. That ability wasn't given to her by the aliens. The only thing the aliens did was allow her to understand the language.
I also really wish there was some sense of time passing. We hear days/months being said but it doesn't really feel like anyone was there longer than a week.
Overall, I'm annoyed. I though the drama with the bomb was the best part of the film, except it was short lived and nothing came of it.
Dukefrukem
02-02-2017, 01:55 AM
I mean, LOST was famous for doing it.
Yeh and fuck lost.
Dukefrukem
02-02-2017, 01:56 AM
Jeremy Renner's character was only there to impregnate Amy Adams. Why bother with that casting?
Dukefrukem
02-02-2017, 02:03 AM
The movie tries to approach some of those ideas, but does it such a ham handed, unimaginative fashion that I was flabbergasted. It practically screams DO YOU GET IT YET, AUDIENCE? LOUISE CAN SEE THE FUTURE.
So this.
number8
02-02-2017, 03:46 AM
I don't know if you can say the movie's exposition is obvious and ham handed when a couple of posts back you seem to misunderstood the movie by saying the ability wasn't given to her by the aliens...
Dukefrukem
02-02-2017, 12:55 PM
I don't know if you can say the movie's exposition is obvious and ham handed when a couple of posts back you seem to misunderstood the movie by saying the ability wasn't given to her by the aliens...
It's ambiguous isn't it? You can't say I'm wrong when it's not clear. The first 3 minutes of the movie is evidence of this.
Lazlo
02-02-2017, 01:55 PM
It's ambiguous isn't it? You can't say I'm wrong when it's not clear. The first 3 minutes of the movie is evidence of this.
It is not ambiguous. Learning the language gives you that ability. The movie is from her perspective as someone who is learning and has learned the language. So the movie now has the ability to jump around to different parts of her life.
It is definitely playing with cinematic form and editing, positioning visions of the future as flashbacks. But that doesn't mean she always had the ability to see through time. The movie presents her visions as flashbacks at first, but what we take to be distress from remembering trauma, is actually confusion at beginning seeing a future for reasons she doesn't understand.
Irish
02-02-2017, 02:14 PM
It is not ambiguous. Learning the language gives you that ability.
Not sure about that. The script muddles this point.
The movie needs Louise to be special in a Hollywood way -- another 'chosen' type -- and the script mentions that not everybody who studies the language gains the ability. Somewhere in the second act climax, Louise also asks the heptopods what's up, why this happened to her, etc, and they give her some shit about how humanity helps them out in 3,000 years. (How that's a sufficient answer, I have no clue.)
Anyway, from a certain point of view, Duke is right.
If Louise's consciousness steps outside linear time, if there's no past and no future and only 'now' -- then she has always had the ability.
The script intentionally plays fast and loose of when the movie's 'now' actually is from the audience's viewpoint, which makes in difficult to interpret.
Lazlo
02-02-2017, 02:18 PM
Not sure about that. The script muddles this point.
The movie needs Louise to be special in a Hollywood way -- another 'chosen' type -- and the script mentions that not everybody who studies the language gains the ability. Somewhere in the second act climax, Louise also asks the heptopods what's up, why this happened to her, etc, and they give her some shit about how humanity helps them out in 3,000 years. (How that's a sufficient answer, I have no clue.)
Anyway, from a certain point of view, Duke is right.
If Louise's consciousness steps outside linear time, if there's no past and no future and only 'now' -- then she has always had the ability.
The script intentionally plays fast and loose of when the movie's 'now' actually is from the audience's viewpoint, which makes in difficult to interpret.
I don't buy her as being special beyond her skills as a linguist allowing her to start to unlock the heptapods' gift. I don't think that's in there. She's then able to pass that knowledge and ability along through teaching and writing her book. The heptapods don't expect her to be alive in thousands of years to help them. They expect future humans to learn and grow in their language and ability. If she's special it's because they know she gives them the best chance of teaching humans, but that doesn't mean that she has some innate ability to visualize time before she learns the language.
Dukefrukem
02-02-2017, 02:24 PM
The 1/12 the data bit was equally annoying. If the heptapods needed our help in 3000 years, why the fuck would they split up the data needed to understand the language across the planet, only to want humanity to work together to achieve that goal??
Shouldn't they have just made it easier for humanity to understand? If Earth had gone into World War III against the Aliens, then the heptapods would be screwed. (presumably).
This is some Damon Lindelof shit right here. How is MC eating this up?
Irish
02-02-2017, 02:28 PM
I don't buy her as being special beyond her skills as a linguist allowing her to start to unlock the heptapods' gift. I don't think that's in there. She's then able to pass that knowledge and ability along through teaching and writing her book. The heptapods don't expect her to be alive in thousands of years to help them. They expect future humans to learn and grow in their language and ability. If she's special it's because they know she gives them the best chance of teaching humans, but that doesn't mean that she has some innate ability to visualize time before she learns the language.
Consider the context, though. There had to be hundreds of people studying that language -- and she's the only one who was gifted? Why? Did the heptopods just pick her at random or...?
(I'm not saying Louise lives thousands of years :confused: but what you're describing is basically Louise as Moses, coming down off the mountain with some tablets and laying knowledge on the rest of us. She's still a "chosen one."
That's my large issue with the movie -- it tries to have too many things too many ways. Louise is The Chosen, but not really. She can see some version of "the future," but not really. The movie takes place in present day, but not really. Etc etc.
number8
02-02-2017, 04:39 PM
Well, there is always a chosen one element in all bootstrap paradox narratives. Not in the traditional "gifted person" way, but in the sense that the characters are inexplicably and perhaps randomly just is the person to undergo that narrative. If time is unchanging, and what happens happens, then whoever you see in your vision it happening to has been "chosen" to be the person it happens to, since cause and effect are infinitely looped. In other words, the heptapods "chose" her because they could see the future and in it they see that she's the one they talk to, the same way Louise "chooses" to tell something specific to the Chinese general because she sees in her future that the general said she said it. I think you can definitely take issue with this form of storytelling in general, but I don't think this film wavers from what it's establishing at all.
Thirdmango
02-06-2017, 01:40 PM
Fun movie. Not really seeing how it's mind blowing. I liked it and when the twist hit I was like, "ah that's fun."
transmogrifier
02-11-2017, 09:59 AM
There be spoilers below:
It's weird how the audience will accept that the jumbled chronology of, say, Pulp Fiction as just the way the director chose to construct it, but the second you make time travel part of the story, basic Film 101 non-chronological editing becomes some kind of unfathomable mystery. The flashback/flashforward thing is just the film doing a bit of a dance; I don't understand why so many people in here are trying to decipher it through the plot.
Overall, I liked the tone and the atmosphere, but thought the plotting was kind of half-arsed, which is pretty much Villenueve in a nutshell. I don't think the race against time with the phone really makes a lick of sense, because once she understands the language, she can simply teach it to others, so what's the hurry? Oh yeah, some poorly explained war thing that the aliens can pretty much avoid whenever they want. However, despite all that, it managed to strike an emotional chord with me, if only briefly near the end.
Grouchy
03-06-2017, 05:20 AM
First of all, after reading this thread I have to agree with trans in that a lot of you guys seem mystified by the flash-forwards simply because they're in a sci-fi movie and you attempt to second guess something that's pretty straight-forward even when it's cinematic trickery. They are just flash-forwards. Their position at the beginning of the film makes you think they happened sometime before the first act when in fact they didn't. That's all there is to it if you ask me. I think the notion that there's something special about Space Margaret Mead is also misguided. She's a brilliant linguist and she understands the intrincacies of the Alien language to an extent the more number-oriented guy doesn't.
All things considered I found this a solid science-fiction film and, even if I guessed what was going on early, the conclusion still packed a huge emotional punch and made sense to me, both thematically and emotionally, with everything we'd seen before. I had problems with other aspects of the film. I found the geopolitics of it kind of dumb. Villeneuve did a brilliant job dissecting the contradictions of US foreign criminal policies in Sicario, and here, he gives us what can only be described an utopian version of a space-landing scenario, where Americans run a minimum security Roswell in which scientists are allowed to do whatever they want and a group of renegade soldiers just bring in C-4 to what should be the most guarded field in the planet, except maybe the similar one in Russia. Even as I'm writing this, though, I am warming up to the idea of the film as a humanitarian fable and so I won't hold this point too strongly. The Chinese subplot is still the weak link in the chain.
Borges did it better
You could say this about most fiction, man. The huge influence of Borges on science-fiction and fantastic literature makes it an unfair comparison.
megladon8
05-29-2017, 12:35 AM
This was pretty wonderful.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.