8 years ago

@jared Thank you! Exactly how I felt at the end of this movie!!!

8 years ago

@jared looking at your list it seems to me that you have missed or misunderstood some things but most importantly non linear time, from your comment <br /> <br /> &gt; Poor handling of the major plot points Looking through time seems to undermine the fact that the aliens need help. Why did one have to die if they could see the future? Why did only one die when they were right next to each other?<br /> <br /> This is what I took from it baring in mind I've only seen it once;<br /> <br /> Giving humanity the ability to experience time non linearly is the absolute key to humans being able to help the aliens and doesn't undermine anything. It's that ability that shows us 'now' what we need to do to help them in 3000 years so that we can actually do it in the first place. They help us to help them by showing us what we do to help them. Its a paradox just like when Louise experiences talking to the Chinese General and then uses that information to get him to stand down. The aliens teach Louise the ability, or at least gives her everything she needs to learn (the information dump on the wall) which she gives in detail to the world through her book years later.<br /> <br /> Why did Abbot (or Costello?) have to die? Because he did die. It happened. You seem to be confusing experiencing time non linearly with something analogous to time travel in that you can change the future. You can't and that conceit is pervasive through the film. He died because he did, just like Hannah. Knowing it can't change it. Why did only one die? Bad luck. How does someone survive anything from a car accident to an earthquake when the person next to them doesn't. <br /> <br /> In terms of 'seeing the future' it doesn't make you omnipotent and all knowing. Non linear time puts in to question the notion of 'now' and our path is strewn with paradox particularly when 'now' is a moment that you are experiencing another point in time. You can't change the future but a paradox can be the cause what does happen for example the Chinese General<br /> <br /> The alien who survived the blast was only aware of the event to come moments before it happened and knocked on the wall in an attempt to alert what was about to happen and then did a dump of knowledge before knocking them down the shaft and containing the blast. That alien didn't necessarily see the explosion as an event, he could have experienced a moment far ahead of that and it was the fact that the other alien died in the explosion is where he got the knowledge of the event. That is assuming the one that knocked is the one that survived, it could easily have been the one that died that knocked who potentially has always known that he died then. Just like Louise with Hannah. Paradox.<br /> <br /> In terms of other things. <br /> The 'useless love interest' was key to the understanding of everything for both Louise and the audience. They have 'no chemistry' because they aren't a love interest in the story and at no point linearly are they portrayed as one. It's not until well after the events of the aliens leaving does anything spark between them. Portraying them that way also keeps the reveal that he is the husband/father. For me the "Lets make a baby" line rings completely true, but I have children.<br /> <br /> Why Ian couldn't view time like that? Louise is a linguist and as such grasping a more concise, though limited understanding. By the time the aliens leave she is only just wrapping her head around it. We are also shown that in Ians work he is still focusing heavily on equations. The interactions we see with Ian and the aliens, Ian is essentially Louise's prop i.e. "Ian walks"<br /> <br /> Ok that's way more on that than I thought I was going to write and proof reading paradox discussions tends to make you go in circles so I won't and hope it makes sense. It wasn't intended as condescending so I hope it didn't come across that way.<br /> <br /> Anyway, it's just a difference of opinion/interpretation. <br /> <br /> I really enjoyed the film and it's sparked a lot of interesting discussions in my circles both positive and negative. One of my friends that I thought would absolutely love it fell asleep. <br /> <br /> Maybe what I have written is exactly how you saw everything too but still didn't like it, I don't know.<br /> <br /> <br />

8 years ago

@majormercyflush <br /> <br /> If experiencing time non-linearly doesn't change anything, why do the aliens need our help in the future? At that moment they are much more advanced than humans and there's no reason to assume that we'll surpass them or have higher eventual capabilities. Other than a feeble "go humanity!" sentiment there's no possible explanation offered. <br /> <br /> The point of non-linear timelines was about choice. The fact that she could see her daughter get a disease and die gave her a key decision: should she still have a child even if the child will die in the near future? Is the gift of those experiences worth the pain for both herself and her daughter? The entire moral of the story was that it was worth it. <br /> <br /> I strongly disagree that determinism is the point of the movie. If that is, it's a very boring premise and explains why everyone acted so poorly throughout. What is the point of everything if it just follows a preset linear sequence of occurrences that you can't interact with? The whole point of movies is to show change, to exhibit how people/other entities react to conflict. Taking away agency undermines the whole emotional point they were making while rendering the plot completely pointless (why should the audience be invested when none of the characters can make a difference?).<br /> <br /> Nothing did imply that seeing time non-linearly made them omnipotent. However, Louise (an extreme amateur at this point with the language) was able to see many useful, actionable things in a very short amount of time. I assume the aliens should be much more adept at receiving and using what they see.<br /> <br /> "Lets make a baby" is a fine line if you've established a close relationship and don't want to hackily mend the gap between people that barely are interested in each other and a child they've been talking about for a while. It's such a major phrase that they don't lead up to in a reasonable way. <br /> <br /> Ian isn't a linguist. I agree his capability should be less than Louise. However, there are all of those other screens with linguists (teams of them) from all of the other countries with a spacecraft. They are all interacting in this way and there's absolutely no indication that any of them are not experiencing this. Some of the nameless characters working with Louise in the base are also linguists, and they also play no role in important events. Louise shouldn't be special but is for some reason. <br /> <br /> Again, the main point that we disagree on is a matter of interpretation. I prefer to think that the creators of the movie want the characters to have agency and for their actions to mean something. You prefer to think that fate plays a large role here and that seeing through time doesn't give the characters choices, only sets them on the preordained path. I don't think there's any real evidence in either direction.<br /> <br /> However, if I'm right, the creators of this movie were clumsy and failed at creating a realistic world which is the base of serious sci-fi. If you're right, the creators of the movie gave up on the core human component that nearly all other movies rely on to motivate the characters and interest the audience. It's a lose-lose.

7 years ago

@jared <br /> <br /> The what it is that we do is completely irrelevant. It's very simply stated that in 3000 years we help them, with whatever is. You're assuming the help we give them has anything to do with technological advancement. It is something entirely specific to us which is obviously unachievable for them without our help. Regardless, it serves no relevance to the outcome of the film. To try and put any weight to interpreting and disavowing the how is pointless. You can't say we couldn't possibly help them because we do, which they are aware of because of non-linear time, which is why they teach us.<br /> <br /> Our sticking point is definitely over free will versus determinism. I'm not trying to change your mind, just show a different view point. Considering that yours takes you down a path to dislike the film, I figure it's worth sharing mine which seems to be the polar opposite. If not for you maybe for someone else reading this.<br /> <br /> It's clear that time is able to be viewed non-linearly but there is nothing to indicate that it can be changed. Everything plays out exactly as it is seen. Nothing is ever changed from what we are shown. At no point is there a moment that shows a "Do I"/"Don't I". She sees quite a number of visions of the future, which as an audience we have seen more clearly in what is essentially an epilogue acting as a prologue at the start of the film. Some way in she asks "who is the girl?" because she doesn't understand what is happening to her and we realise it's not past. She knows they aren't memories but has yet to understand she is seeing time non-linearly, it's an entirely alien concept. This revelation is in the third act which by this time the world is in complete turmoil, tension between countries is on a knife edge, and she is frantic to get anyone to listen. She doesn't understand anymore of their language, but this glimpse into a period of time leads to her understanding of the nature of their language.<br /> <br /> She sees herself at her book launch, which is years in the future (I'll come to that) and sees the meeting with the Chinese General. He tells her she called him and she is confused and you see her struggling mentally over whether it happened. This is the paradox resolving. This moment is the key illustration of the aliens giving us the ability to see time non-linearly thus allowing us to see what it is that we do to help them. We see the result that allows us to ensure that it is an event. The "it happened because we knew it was going to happen and we made it happen" paradox. The General tells her all the information that is required to make what happened happen. The fact that he brought a recording to the gala specifically to play to her, where he specifically came to meet her, is to fuel the paradox. He knows he has to do it, it's obviously been discussed that its what happens, hence the recording. He is elated to meet her and knows what his role is. He leans in to talk just to her, to make every word clear and the nature alone of the words she speaks is so heartrending yet uplifting. There are no subtitles when she is speaking on the phone, it's not for us, it's for him and another moment to connect to his wife. The fact she doesn't know in that moment and the confusion is the paradox of determinism.<br /> <br /> If the ability to see time non-linearly had anything to do with choice then it leaves the realm of solely time, and enters space/time and by extension multiverse. There is no indication whatsoever of this, and you make a point in regard to this through personal preservation, that time can be altered and what is observed is just one of an infinite possible eventuality. From a practical point of view, it just wouldn't work as the two aliens standing side by side could be seeing two completely different events and a simple conversation between them would be irreconcilable. From your observation, if time could be changed the aliens wouldn't have opened the door that let the soldiers in to plant the 4 lbs of C4 (which is what it was and really isn't something extraordinary that couldn't be requisitioned from the camp by someone who clearly is high enough rank to be in many of the classified meetings we see him in. There are car bombs going off at present in this ball park) that let the alien die. He died because it is what happened (I made this point in my previous post).<br /> <br /> In terms of the linguists involved, Louise is the best with which the US has immediate access to and came to her the moment of first contact (the aliens speaking). They mention her security clearance, so she has been widely regarded for several years and they went to her first. I agree the exposition to do with Farsi was poor and I recall groaning. There is an art to exposition and bad drops are like a slap in the face but sometimes a necessary evil. That one however was hard to swallow. Many thing in the film were explained with only a line or two and implications left to the audience, something that has led to much of the discussion and something I am a fan of. Our views are polar opposites yet it still has me thinking and deepening my own thoughts.<br /> <br /> Louise is at the forefront of deciphering the language, she was the first to make a breakthrough. Ultimately, she maybe an amateur of their language, but she is a master of language. It's shown that information between countries is not completely open, but are being shared, and a number of times early on we see that none of the other researchers are making any headway and throughout they a far behind her. China deceivers the word 'weapon' but are reactive and make no consolation that it may mean 'tool'. The fact that Louise is more open to interpretation of language, some dead, is shown right in the first meeting when they trying are recruit her. Louise only needs to understand enough of the language to comprehend the nature of it to get the Chinese General to stand down at the moment she does. She doesn't need to know the ins and outs of the language/ability, her full understanding comes years later (as shown with her book), she just needs to comprehend enough of the implications to be able to shut things down.<br /> <br /> The other linguists that are present at the US base are doing grunt work; none of them are working on the bleeding edge with her. She has the best understanding in the world. It's not that she is 'special', she is the best at what she does in this case. It's discussed a number of times that if everyone was more open they would be making immeasurably more headway with deciphering it. This mistrust is the heart of the dramatic tension throughout the film. You mention that Louise and Ian are in no danger, never threatened. That’s because the aliens are of no threat to us. We are the threat to both the aliens and each other. You said that there is a lack of emotional reaction to the aliens when in fact the world goes into meltdown. The reaction of the population is driving the fear of the governments. Our fear of the unknown is the tension that is continuously escalating and the race against time is for Louise to understand before we do something irrevocable with unknown consequences. Remembering at this point it isn't clear the exact nature and mechanism to explain the alien’s motivations. We are the threat, we are the tension, we are the urgency, not the aliens at all.<br /> <br /> But it's going to work itself out. Because it does. But we don't understand that yet. This is a film that hindsight of the audience can muddy the acquisition of knowledge by the characters. There is a lot that is to be read into sometimes a few lines of dialogue and visual cues. One of these in particular is in your comments regarding the relationship between Louise and Ian.<br /> <br /> Chronologically within the main timeframe, the arrival and departure of the aliens, there is no romantic link between Louise and Ian. You can't overlay what we see of the future onto the characters at this point. When Ian says let’s make a baby it is a number of years past the departure of the aliens at which point Ian says that meeting her was a highlight of it all. That is the absolute first inkling that something will eventually spark between them. Again, we have to distinguish between what is in our understanding of that 'now' and what we know is going to happen. <br /> <br /> The key signature to the timeframe of all of Louise’s/Ian’s/Hannah’s future is the overly showing of when she is and isn't wearing a wedding ring. When Ian asks let’s make a baby she is dancing holding a wine glass and we see the ring. They that have dated, moved in to her house together, married, lived happily and then he asks and she is clearly ready. It's not a hack mending of a gap, it’s a clear passage of time shown through a simple mechanism. All of the future is grounded between the age of Hannah and the ring. She says in the 'present' I *know* why my husband left as within the confines of the filmmaker’s intent we work out Ian is the father. She is just coming to terms with reconciling the what she is seeing is the future when she works out Ian is the father and what it is she does to split them up. The key to Ian leaving was that he *thought* she had a choice and couldn't accept that she had Hannah knowing what was to come and subjected them all to the pain. She lives with the knowledge of their future, it's not a choice. Ian says that meeting her was the highlight of it all and she looks at him knowing the journey they are about to take because she has seen it. It's not about her making the choice, there is no choice, the only conciliation is knowing she can endure it, but is sad he can't The publication of her book and the gala (at which Ian isn't there) are post separation which means it took years for her to be able to document what she is still clearly most eminent. The events of departure and Louise’s future we see are separated significantly. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that the point that Hannah dies is 20 years after the aliens depart as we have no clear point in time as to her conception or the exact age she dies.<br /> <br /> I don't see determinism as being a boring premise because without audience hindsight we don't know that is, to me, what we are seeing. It's akin to watching The Sixth Sense a second time. Watching Arrival a second time we can coherently piece together the exact timeline of Louise’s future and for me that is going to be a real joy of personal non-linear time from what I know now to what I knew then. Maybe you see that as opportunistic hack on my behalf but piecing together the nuances of that timeframe is what I'm most looking forward to on my second viewing.<br /> <br /> I don't see that determinism has anything to do with people’s poor decisions. People are flawed. It's easy to look at someone else and apply your own ideas of what you would do in a situation, tenfold when it's a movie. I see that everything that happens in the films world is from mankind’s failings and nothing to do with the aliens. We are our own worst enemy. That’s the message of the film. If it were to happen in real life right now... seriously look at the world... we would implode. Which is exactly what they show, though personally I think we would be far worse. I think the "District 9" etc. are a utopia compared to what would happen right now. But I digress...<br /> <br /> You said that you want the character’s actions to mean something. They absolutely do. Knowing the outcome doesn't change the motivations, it validates them. Again, our hindsight on the film bares a significant factor when we either watch this film again or look back upon it. <br /> <br /> If we knew determinism, if it is as I postulate was what non-linear time allowed us to see, was known from the beginning then yes it takes away the drama. But we don't, or in your case see it completely differently. It's a bit like watching a prequel. I'm champing at the bit to see Rogue One. I know how it ends because of Star Wars, but it doesn't detract from the drama of the film as it stands alone.<br /> <br /> But as we have both said, it comes down to interpretation. Personally, I like that it generated any kind of discussion positive or negative as it's been too long since I could sink my teeth into a film. Maybe a second viewing will knock half of this on its ass. I hope not but I'm fully open to it and can't wait to see it again as soon as I can.<br /> <br /> [once again, far out that maybe the longest post I've written on Trakt. Too tired to self-edit and second guess myself. If anyone made it this far I applaud your constitution as I've been waning the last few paragraphs. I'm hoping where I'm coming from is vaguely alluded to and if someone takes something from it, even if its staunchly against it, it solidifies your own views and as such mission accomplished. Thanks]<br />

7 years ago

@jared I felt exactly this way about the movie, even not being able to pinpoint some of these aspects. But the stupidity of the characters takes me totally out of the story, it's easier to suspend disbelief about alien contact, but not as but for general stupidity of a military task force in charge of a communications mission

7 years ago

@persechini I'm curious what it was that you thought was the stupidity of the military task force? I thought many poor decisions were made but mostly in line with human nature, which I think was part of it. Not looking to tell you you're wrong, or tear it apart, I just think my faith in humanity is slipping further and further and these kinds of portrayals ring true, even when they are broad brush strokes.

7 years ago

<br /> @majormercyflush Sure<br /> <br /> On the part of the ones who bombed the shell, that they'd just go over their military hierarchy and form a group to attack the alien ship without a proper follow up plan (was apparently a suicide mission based on the resistance they put up when they were ousted). And that they were apparently pumped buy popular opinion through the news. Remember this is supposed to be a highly sensitive mission, it's aliens coming to earth.<br /> <br /> On the part of the resto of the military, that no/not enough checks were set to avoid sensible equipment to move, the eagerness to cut communication from allies (ok, the US was not the first, and other spheres could've still be talking, but the military decision was not a good one)

7 years ago

@jared Very valid points on the Bad things-side. I was asking myself the exact same questions.

7 years ago

@majormercyflush you are so patient.... thanks :)

7 years ago

@persechini I think that it's entirely believable that the group who tried to bomb the shell would form a group of like minded. That's how mobs, insurrections and coups start. They gave in to their fear, the fears of and for their families and the mounting fear of the world. Fear is a powerful driving and blinding force. The aliens weren't a secret, the world was escalating in tearing itself apart which you see again and again all over the world through TV and phone. The specifics of their mission which was to determine the aliens purpose was sensitive in its details, but it is clearly the question on the entire worlds mind and the unknown drove their fear. The military group were scared and disillusioned. Captain Marks, the guy who led them was high enough up to be able to get the C4 from a simple requisitions officer, he was in the background of all the high level meetings and very much across the developing situation.<br /> <br /> Whether it was a suicide mission is debatable as they were actually packing up to leave the area. Had Louise and Ian not turned up no one would have even known they were there. But yes, if they had to die to execute their plan, which in their minds was for far greater than themselves, yes they clearly would have. Again, entirely fear and ignorance based and not a logical decision. A human failing, not a plot or story failing. I find those things to be far more grounding than a story were everyone makes solid well reasoned decision because that just does not happen in real life. Ever.<br /> <br /> The US didn't cut communications with the rest of the world until the decision to pull out was made. A decision made way above those who we see in the film. The US actively try to keep the lines of communications open but were still guilty of not pushing full disclosure early on. The smaller nations held out until the end, it was what we once would have called "super powers" that forced everyone's hand. Had the relevant nations been open from the beginning things would have gone very differently. <br /> <br /> Maybe part of this comes from differing personal philosophical stand points. Our need for secrets and self preservation over each other was, and is, our failing. If the arrival of visitors from another planet can't unite us as a planet, which I believe it absolutely would not should it actually happen, and the aliens were hostile we are finished. Even if they were peaceful I don't think we would fair particularly well as I don't believe we are capable as a species to exist with that knowledge. Fear, ignorance and our own self imposed division would be our down fall. I think this is why the human aspect of the film resonated with me. Is that too bleak an outlook on mankind? Maybe. History has shown we don't play well with others.<br /> <br /> <br />

7 years ago

@andrewbloom this isn't a comment, it's a review. And not a very good one at that. "The aliens language is circular" that makes no sense. A language can't be circular. There writing is circular, not the language. Also we have no idea what that really was, since the earthlings were only theorizing that it was a form of written communication. For all we know, the aliens were farting out circular ink blots. Basically the science of this movie was completely rediculous. Anyone with a mind for science should despise this movie. Nothing was proven throughout the entire movie.<br /> <br /> You basically lost me when you stated this was a "well-made first contact story." This would be the worst way to handle a first contact situation. She tried to teach the beings English for crying out loud! How ludicrous is that? I made a comment a few days back with my thoughts about it.

7 years ago

@blakblu Hi Blakblu -- You're correct; this is a review rather than a comment, and it's how I generally use trakt -- to keep track of my own thoughts on various films and tv shows in full or capsule review form. Trakt's founders contemplate this use of the site, as you can see in their FAQ which reads, "Comments 200 words or longer will be automatically marked as a review." Sorry you didn't like the review though.<br /> <br /> As to your specific criticism of the review, you're correct about the "language" vs. "writing" word choice in it. In order to write something about every movie/episode of TV I watch (which is my goal) I normally only do one (often-rushed) draft, which means typos and inelegant word choices abound. I apologize for that, which leads to these sorts of errors, but unless writing these things becomes a job rather than a hobby, it's unavoidable for yours truly.<br /> <br /> And as to your specific criticism of the film itself, I think you're focusing too hard on the rigor of the science present in it. There are, no doubt, numerous shortcuts taken by *Arrival* in its use of the texture of science to propel its story, but I think they work for what the film is going for. It's not intended to be a procedurally faithful or thoroughly scientific depiction of first contact; it's intended (in my estimation at least) to be a story about communication and lateral thinking depicted through the lens of such an event. Judging *Arrival* solely for its plausibility or lack thereof is, to my mind, missing what the film is going for, and I think its science serves the story to the extent necessary without stretching it too far, which is what I ask of sci-fi.<br /> <br /> But at the end of the day, a person's reaction to a movie is their reaction, and there's plenty of movies where I can rationally excuse some plot mechanism that doesn't accord with reality, but psychologically I just can't get past it, so I understand.

7 years ago

Outstanding review, well thought out and written