 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Nov 21, 2016 - 2:44 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
joan hue
(Member)
|
Let’s talk about the meanings you may have gleaned from the movie ARRIVAL. Please do not read this topic if you haven’t seen the movie because there will be major spoilers ahead. Chime in with your insights if you have seen it.
At the end, I thought what the heck? It took thought and bouncing ideas off of my husband before the movie started to make sense.
In a way we are duped from the very beginning. The movie starts with a montage of various ages of Dr. Louise’s daughter, and we see she dies in her teens. Louise has a wedding ring on in one shot. We “assume” this is in her past because when we meet her in the present, she seems rather depressed. In a call from her mother, she just says that she is just doing okay. I did notice that there were no pictures of her daughter in her home or office.
When she goes to the military camp, she flashes back on times with her daughter. At least we still THINK these are flashBACKS; however they are FLASHFORWARDS which she doesn’t understand for a while. I think as she learns the Alien language, she starts to process time like the aliens, and this is impossible for human minds to grasp. Time for us is linear. Time for the aliens is simultaneous. Their gift to her and humans is that ability to grasp simultaneous time, and my mind struggles to grasp that concept. As she continues to learn the alien language, she says at one point, “I know why my husband left me.” However, she hasn’t married Ian yet, but she can see into the future.
The name Hannah is a palindrome. I think the movie is also like a palindrome when you look at the beginning and end. In the end, we revisit Louise’s future again, and in that future we see her book, her meeting with the Chinese president, and the purple clay figures made by Hannah which resemble the aliens. She had to see the Chinese president’s future in order to pull back the military, and this was gifted to her by the aliens.
I can’t remember if Abbott or Costello died, but which ever alien died, “he” had to know that if he saved Louise and Ian, it was his death. He saw his future and accepted it. Louise does the same.
Which brings me to this idea. Some viewers thought this was about Louise’s journey of grief, but I struggle with that. Grief for her was 16 years in her future. Towards the end, she asked Ian something like, “If you know what would happen in the future, would you live that life anyway?” (That is a rough estimate of the quotation.) To me this movie was about accepting the future even if it meant grief and not trying to alter it. In fact, I wonder if she could have altered her future? Maybe loving a child for 16 years was better than having no child. Is the future alterable or not? The aliens needed us in 3,000 years, and they seemed destined to get our help 3,000 years ahead of time. Maybe it would take us that long to help them.
I have one question. Ian also was learning the language but wasn’t as proficient in Louise. He never saw the future, and I wonder why because he did understand some of the language. Also, she had to wait to tell him about his daughter in order for…for…?? Would he have been a father if he’d known the truth?
Seems like the future is encased in metaphorical concrete.
Chime in with your thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't seen the film yet (I'll wait for home viewing), but I did read the story it was based on. I read the author say that he didn't understand originally why they would choose this story to turn in to a film, as it is truly a literary creation. The scenes with the aliens and the daughter's life and death are intermixed or juxtaposed at (seeming) random through the story, so that the story itself becomes a narrative way to see the simultaneity of time. Highly recommended as it will work as a genuine companion to the film (which I had already read all about so you didn't spoil it for me, Joan).
For those interested, the author is Ted Chiang, the story is "The Story of Your Life" - I found it in a collection called Stories of Your Life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Nov 22, 2016 - 4:46 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Hurdy Gurdy
(Member)
|
I did like the film, but didn't think it was entirely successful or particularly outstanding.
Emotionally, I connected with it due to my present situation (we have a one year old grandson who is beyond all greatness..the love for him is overpowering at times), so the tragic circumstances of the main two characters' daughter was especially upsetting*.
It was a good ethical dilemma regarding the whole 'if you knew the future, would you still take that path and keep things from significant others'.
I liked that it was a puzzle and the audience were challenged to do something with their minds other than chew, slurp and check messages!!
The 'we will need your help in 3000 years' was a bit WTF though!!
If time was so non-linear for them, why come to THAT point in our time (I know they said something about it taking us that long to work things out but...really?? Amy Adams had it pretty much sussed in 2 hours!!).
The murky photography and gloomy feel to the film was a bit of a downer, over the two hour duration.
I was never bored, but I wasn't really jazzed either.
It reminded me of CONTACT (Zemeckis) quite a bit.
Yes, it was thoughtful and left things to ponder.
Yes, it was a million light years better than Independence Day 2 
But I'd never watch it again.
* The Max Richter piece, used twice for those two pivotal sequences, was a major reason these scenes worked so well. The actual score by JoJo was functional at best, more sound design than music and something I would find unlistenable to on CD. Although I liked the bit that sounded like Sigur Ros, with the lapping voices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 22, 2016 - 7:32 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
The film/story is dangerously on the knife edge of this business of whether we have free will or not.
I broke a cardinal rule and went to see it yesterday. Lets just say I wasn't disappointed. No one has yet mentioned the absolute congruence with Solaris. When the team is in the Chinook on the way to the Montana shell we get a POV look out of one of the chopper's right hand side, very large circular windows - an exact analog of the one on the russian station looking out onto the swirling cloud patterns on Solaris. Even the music/sound was in accord. Of course, Solaris also has this strange bridge between the living and one time living, so there is some similarity story wise. The scene of the approach to the Montana site was in the trailer, however, the strangeness of those low lying clouds/fog hugging the ground is very eerie on the big screen. It's a long continuous shot with the camera panning left to eventually point down at the base camp with those heavy Chinooks coming and going.
I think it is Costello who buys it in the sabotage event, when the team has made their 37th sorti to meet with the visitors inside the shell. Realisation comes to the alien only moments before the bomb goes off, so the suggestion is they can see ahead, but only just so, at least in predominantly earth gravity. Ian does get to make a significant connection with regard to what they are saying. It just so happens that the other nationalities racing to decipher the language coincide with a similar breakthrough at that point in the story - Jeff Goldblum's Jurassic Park legacy still going strong there by the look of things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 22, 2016 - 7:35 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ryanpaquet
(Member)
|
I saw the film yesterday.
For me it was pretty good, and reminded me a lot of CONTACT with Jodie Foster. Instead of talking to her Dad, the main character talks to her daughter.*
The gift/tool or "weapon" in the film is the "Universal Language" basically an understanding of how the universe works, including time. Knowing what is going to happen in the future and how it affects the present amplifies the importance of life's moments.
*She knows that her daughter will die of disease but that all of the memories and experience of her daughter's life show her that the pain, is worth it. My understanding is that all life's moments, like deciding to have a child can be rewarding, but that in the present we should appreciate and cherish those moments because they exist. We may not be able to "travel" through time, but at some point our lives did exist at some point and the universal language allows us to better understand that. It shows that everything and everyone is connected to the same universe - much like we are all connected and part of the same species on the same planet - a lot of the movie is about trying to communicate together, and when that communication breaks down conflict and fear takes over. When the communication is re-established with her and the Chinese general - he is thanking her because she shared his wife's dying words with him. What does that say about everyone, everyone has these personal experiences outside of country, border, race etc.
If we treated each other more like HUMAN beings, than others or ALIENS we might do much better at achieving a universal language and working together as a species - rather than focussing on our differences.
In Contact, the message is the same really. The aliens take the form of Jodie Foster's Dad in the film to say that they want to bring the universe together, we are not alone, we're all part of the same universe. The aliens in ARRIVAL saying they will need our help in 3000 years is kind of in the same line, but more simply: PLANET EARTH, get your shit together and stop the in-fighting and come together as a planet and a species so that in 3000 years you can as a species come to the realization you're also part of the universe - not just the planet.
That's my take.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Nov 22, 2016 - 1:32 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
joan hue
(Member)
|
Glad to see people chiming in and presenting interesting ideas. Kev, I too wanted a little sunshine in the movie; it was a rather dour environment. Also, I thought using the Richter theme at the beginning and end was essential. Thor, hope you see it again and come back. This seems like your kind of discussion. Doggie, I didn’t connect this director with Sicario and a female center. In Prisoners, we also had a child at great risk, and the dad tried to save the day.
Grecchus, I don’t think you have to black out anything as people were asked to see the movie before reading the topic. I haven’t seen Solaris, so I can’t make the connection. Shame on me. Yes, Ian did make a connection to the alien language, but he never saw the future which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Why is she the only seer?
Ryan, oh my goodness, what interesting insights. I think I’m mad at you because your IQ may be higher than mine.  You see hope in the ending. Also, I love your connection to life here on earth. We do tend to treat other humans like aliens if they are different from us. We don’t see the universality of our likes, dislikes and conditions. If we had this new language and understanding maybe we could heal the planet and the become part of other planets. Your take on it presents really fascinating ideas that the film supports.
I still struggle with knowing your future and blindly accepting it. I get why she had the child. She would have 16 or so years of wonderful memories. However, what if she saw that 6 months after marrying Ian, she and Ian would die in a car wreck. Would she accept that? Would she marry him? Or like most of us, would she try to change that future? That leads to the idea that the future is unchangeable and immutable. The story must support that notion because the aliens come 3,000 before they need us which should give them time to make changes, but they must know they can’t change the inevitable. (These abstract concepts are hard to grasp.)
(Graham, come live by me, and I'll treat you to the movie. However we do get snow.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to chime in on the original concepts of the source story, because I think it might be a useful reflection on the film (which, again, I haven't seen, so what do I know?).
One of the main points of the story was that how you process reality through language absolutely determines your point of view. So in the story her "innate" ability is the ability to learn language, and when she learns the alien language, it changes her perspective of time. Which is why in the story scenes across 25 or 30 years follow each other at seeming random. (Which is different from the movie.)
But I don't think "choice" is involved - it's not that seeing time as simultaneous means that no matter what you choose this will happen, but that everything is already happening/has already happened. So that instead of living sequentially, all circumstances and emotions are as one.
It's like the story of Oedipus. His father goes to the oracle who tells him, "your son will kill you and marry his mother." So he tries to have Oedipus killed to avoid his fate, but the boy is saved and raised by a foster family. And then Oedipus goes back to the same oracle, who says, "you will kill your father and marry your mother." So he leaves his foster family (which he believes to be his birth family), kills the first older man he meets on the road (who happens to be his dad), and soon after marries a queen old enough to be his mother (and is).
The point of that story has never for me been that the oracle or fate or what have you forced Oedipus to his ghastly destiny. Instead, it was simply that when you go to an oracle, that is part of your path, and the oracle sees your path because, again, the oracle can see all of time at once and tells you what will happen. Not what will happen despite your best efforts, but because of them. Going to the oracle and learning your fate was part of the path that sealed your fate.
So in the movie (this is not in the story Arrival is based on), when the alien says they'll need our help in 3,000 years, it doesn't mean maybe, or if we don't screw it up we'll be there. It means they KNOW they will need our help because they are there 3,000 years later in the same moment they are here now. (I could certainly be wrong about this, the movie may take it a different direction, but that's what it would mean based on the original ideas.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 22, 2016 - 4:33 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
There are several deeper layers implied within the film. First of all, the aliens have very long and tall heads, which is presumably where their grey matter is located. We only see just how tall their heads are towards the end of the picture. This reminded me of a few movies that came before. The Guild navigators from Dune have very long misshapen bodies from having taken the melange spice over a prolonged period of time. This gives them the ability to find pathways through space/time that is not an ability open to anyone other than another Guild navigator. They also reside inside cavities filled with the gaseous spice, which they breath and live by. One more thing - they travel without moving. In Arrival we do see the ships make limited movements towards the end, however, they essentially disappear from view in puffs of mist in very much the same way the Guild navigators do when they fold space/time at will. This idea is not altogether new.
The notion that a human can think the way the heps do without any evolution at all towards that end does not sit particularly well with me. They have had to evolve to what they are, and that means their existence as a sentient species must far exceed that of ours in terms of length of time. There's no way that space/time can be comprehended any differently by us just because they use their particular form of language and give us a glimpse of it. It may alter the way certain concepts are comprehended by practitioners who learn how to use it, but there is no way their language can instantaneously evolve us, say, within one lifetime. It may accelerate our evolution over a longer period of time, but that is all. And 3000 years is a minimal time frame in which to catch up, even in sci-fi land.
In the latter part of the movie, during that one to one smoke filled encounter between Abbott and Louise, the hep most definitely says, "Louise sees the future," because its subtitled with dark text on a light background. This may or may not be ambiguous in the way it refers to her ability to 'see', however, the way the story unfolds I take it to mean she sees things beyond causal limits in much the same way Ivy can see Audrey Rose struggling in the burning car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
