@20thCentury said:

I'm glad to hear that you appreciated it. Even still, I think you will find it profoundly far more inspiring once you deconstruct the full meaning. I have not met one-person to this day that has fully understood the film, even amongst people that loved the movie, although, I'm sure they must exist. Myself and the writer/director can't be the only ones. It says a lot, that even when 99% viewers cannot deconstruct the full meaning, the intuition of many grasps that there IS something deeper going on in this story/picture.

I would imagine that 99% of viewers don't get the full meaning of the majority of complex films of this nature. There tends to be so many subtexts and metaphors that it would be almost impossible to fully comprehend the exact nature of all of the director's intentions. Many films like this I find new depths on every subsequent watch. So it would depend what you mean here by "full meaning".

Will you tell us what you think this deeper meaning is?

@JustinJackFlash said:

@20thCentury said:

I'm glad to hear that you appreciated it. Even still, I think you will find it profoundly far more inspiring once you deconstruct the full meaning. I have not met one-person to this day that has fully understood the film, even amongst people that loved the movie, although, I'm sure they must exist. Myself and the writer/director can't be the only ones. It says a lot, that even when 99% viewers cannot deconstruct the full meaning, the intuition of many grasps that there IS something deeper going on in this story/picture.

I would imagine that 99% of viewers don't get the full meaning of the majority of complex films of this nature. There tends to be so many subtexts and metaphors that it would be almost impossible to fully comprehend the exact nature of all of the director's intentions. Many films like this I find new depths on every subsequent watch. So it would depend what you mean here by "full meaning".

Will you tell us what you think this deeper meaning is?

I'll try to throw some bread crumbs... so that you can gain some intellectual stimulation by deciphering more of it on your own as well :) I agree that it's a high bar to expect complete understanding of every nuance, but the undeciphered meaning I'm referring to in this movie is foundational/central to the entire structure/meaning, maybe 50% I'd guess.

If you get a chance to watch it again, I would encourage you to ask yourself why the shape of the aliens are what they are, and what that might represent? When I saw it the first time, I became quite fixated on the shape of the aliens, as they didn't seem to conform to any notion I would have of a species dramatically more advanced than our own. When I drilled down at that question, the larger theme seemed to reveal itself. I would be curious to know your thoughts on that, if you're willing to give it another look?

@Damienracer said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

@20thCentury said:

I'm glad to hear that you appreciated it. Even still, I think you will find it profoundly far more inspiring once you deconstruct the full meaning. I have not met one-person to this day that has fully understood the film, even amongst people that loved the movie, although, I'm sure they must exist. Myself and the writer/director can't be the only ones. It says a lot, that even when 99% viewers cannot deconstruct the full meaning, the intuition of many grasps that there IS something deeper going on in this story/picture.

I would imagine that 99% of viewers don't get the full meaning of the majority of complex films of this nature. There tends to be so many subtexts and metaphors that it would be almost impossible to fully comprehend the exact nature of all of the director's intentions. Many films like this I find new depths on every subsequent watch. So it would depend what you mean here by "full meaning".

Will you tell us what you think this deeper meaning is?

This film was really not that complex.

Perhaps not at first glance, but it has several layers and is extremely sophisticated, the best visual symbolism that I think I've ever seen.

@20thCentury said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

@20thCentury said:

I'm glad to hear that you appreciated it. Even still, I think you will find it profoundly far more inspiring once you deconstruct the full meaning. I have not met one-person to this day that has fully understood the film, even amongst people that loved the movie, although, I'm sure they must exist. Myself and the writer/director can't be the only ones. It says a lot, that even when 99% viewers cannot deconstruct the full meaning, the intuition of many grasps that there IS something deeper going on in this story/picture.

I would imagine that 99% of viewers don't get the full meaning of the majority of complex films of this nature. There tends to be so many subtexts and metaphors that it would be almost impossible to fully comprehend the exact nature of all of the director's intentions. Many films like this I find new depths on every subsequent watch. So it would depend what you mean here by "full meaning".

Will you tell us what you think this deeper meaning is?

I'll try to throw some bread crumbs... so that you can gain some intellectual stimulation by deciphering more of it on your own as well :) I agree that it's a high bar to expect complete understanding of every nuance, but the undeciphered meaning I'm referring to in this movie is foundational/central to the entire structure/meaning, maybe 50% I'd guess.

If you get a chance to watch it again, I would encourage you to ask yourself why the shape of the aliens are what they are, and what that might represent? When I saw it the first time, I became quite fixated on the shape of the aliens, as they didn't seem to conform to any notion I would have of a species dramatically more advanced than our own. When I drilled down at that question, the larger theme seemed to reveal itself. I would be curious to know your thoughts on that, if you're willing to give it another look?

What did the shape mean to you?

@20thCentury said:

I'll try to throw some bread crumbs... so that you can gain some intellectual stimulation by deciphering more of it on your own as well :) I agree that it's a high bar to expect complete understanding of every nuance, but the undeciphered meaning I'm referring to in this movie is foundational/central to the entire structure/meaning, maybe 50% I'd guess.

If you get a chance to watch it again, I would encourage you to ask yourself why the shape of the aliens are what they are, and what that might represent? When I saw it the first time, I became quite fixated on the shape of the aliens, as they didn't seem to conform to any notion I would have of a species dramatically more advanced than our own. When I drilled down at that question, the larger theme seemed to reveal itself. I would be curious to know your thoughts on that, if you're willing to give it another look?

Ok. I assumed the reason for the aliens design was to shake our preconceived notion of what beings from another world could look like. Like they wouldn't necessarily look humanoid or animalistic or familiar in any way. I really liked the look of the aliens.

Unfortunately in this day and age, the downside of having so many films and tv shows being released on so many platforms means that it's hard to find the time to watch films more than once. Alas, I think the time of me watching films over and over are behind me. And of Denis Villeneuve's films the one I'd most want to watch again would be Blade Runner 2049. Another with deep complexities. But you have raised my interest in giving Arrival another visit.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@20thCentury said:

I'll try to throw some bread crumbs... so that you can gain some intellectual stimulation by deciphering more of it on your own as well :) I agree that it's a high bar to expect complete understanding of every nuance, but the undeciphered meaning I'm referring to in this movie is foundational/central to the entire structure/meaning, maybe 50% I'd guess.

If you get a chance to watch it again, I would encourage you to ask yourself why the shape of the aliens are what they are, and what that might represent? When I saw it the first time, I became quite fixated on the shape of the aliens, as they didn't seem to conform to any notion I would have of a species dramatically more advanced than our own. When I drilled down at that question, the larger theme seemed to reveal itself. I would be curious to know your thoughts on that, if you're willing to give it another look?

Ok. I assumed the reason for the aliens design was to shake our preconceived notion of what beings from another world could look like. Like they wouldn't necessarily look humanoid or animalistic or familiar in any way. I really liked the look of the aliens.

Unfortunately in this day and age, the downside of having so many films and tv shows being released on so many platforms means that it's hard to find the time to watch films more than once. Alas, I think the time of me watching films over and over are behind me. And of Denis Villeneuve's films the one I'd most want to watch again would be Blade Runner 2049. Another with deep complexities. But you have raised my interest in giving Arrival another visit.

Your instincts are on the right track, in suggesting that these aliens are intended to deviate from our preconceived notions of what a more sophisticated species would look like. The more you wrestle with that, under an alternate context, you should see how they actually don't deviate at all. You need to keep stretching your mind more and to think bigger. This isn't about untangling some trivial clue. This is about looking at the entire story through a new lense. Put yourself in Louise Banks' shoes, when she was trying to decipher the mysterious alien language. The visuals in this movie are an IQ Test. 99.9% of the people watching this movie will Fail that IQ Test, just as no other person in the movie was able to fully decipher the language, except for Banks.

I agree that we don't have time to decipher every random movie/tv show that rolls by. Thankfully, Arrival is in an elevated class all by itself, worthy of additional scrutiny. Look at the imagery and stretch yourself more this time, questioning what the implications of different potential understandings of these shapes may mean.

https://bplusmovieblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/arrival-80.png http://www.scifimoviezone.com/imageextrat/arrival009.jpg

While I'm hoping @20thCentury will divulge a little more about the significance of the shape of these beings, I'll drop a nifty hint I gathered from reading more about this movie - "Hannah" is a palindrome, reading the same forwards and backwards, making the order - or, sequence, or the very concept of forwards and backwards - meaningless.

(In my best Keanu Reaves voice) - Whoa.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

While I'm hoping @20thCentury will divulge a little more about the significance of the shape of these beings, I'll drop a nifty hint I gathered from reading more about this movie - "Hannah" is a palindrome, reading the same forwards and backwards, making the order - or, sequence, or the very concept of forwards and backwards - meaningless.

(In my best Keanu Reaves voice) - Whoa.

Interesting. But that just sounds like it's keeping with the theme of the film exploring the notion that all of time happens at once and human beings minds are constructed to experience it unfold gradually as a way to make sense of it. The surface meaning of the film. I can't see how a palindrome could hint to this deeper meaning that 20thCentury is talking about.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

While I'm hoping @20thCentury will divulge a little more about the significance of the shape of these beings, I'll drop a nifty hint I gathered from reading more about this movie - "Hannah" is a palindrome, reading the same forwards and backwards, making the order - or, sequence, or the very concept of forwards and backwards - meaningless.

(In my best Keanu Reaves voice) - Whoa.

Interesting. But that just sounds like it's keeping with the theme of the film exploring the notion that all of time happens at once and human beings minds are constructed to experience it unfold gradually as a way to make sense of it. The surface meaning of the film. I can't see how a palindrome could hint to this deeper meaning that 20thCentury is talking about.

Imho, the linear/non-linear nature of the story is certainly one important dimension to the story. It actually can shed some light on the shape of the aliens (although there are many other hints outside of the time aspect that may inform one sooner). I don't think it's necessary to understand the perspective of time, to sufficiently unwrap the meaning behind the shape of the aliens (pass the IQ Test). However, I can see how it would supplement the fuller meaning, and how it may help one arrive at this understanding a little quicker.

@Badlands1 said:

@microscope said:

Arrival is a sci-fi/chick flick, most men won't like it. The movie answered no questions about the aliens motive in 3000 yrs, and there won't be a sequel, so it's just a long predictable drama.

Although I was massively skeptical of this categorizing of Arrval as a chick flick, it did make me curious to see if there was any truth to it. So I looked up the ratings on IMDB. And according to their data there isn't. Women over 30 did like it a little better than men over 30, but men under 30 liked it better than women under 30. So it all added up to exactly the same rating for both genders which was 7.9.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2543164/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt

@20thCentury said:

I watched it again last night.

You need to keep stretching your mind more and to think bigger.

I'm trying.

This isn't about untangling some trivial clue. This is about looking at the entire story through a new lense. Put yourself in Louise Banks' shoes, when she was trying to decipher the mysterious alien language. The visuals in this movie are an IQ Test. 99.9% of the people watching this movie will Fail that IQ Test, just as no other person in the movie was able to fully decipher the language, except for Banks.

OK, you're smart. I get it.

Look at the imagery and stretch yourself more this time, questioning what the implications of different potential understandings of these shapes may mean.

https://bplusmovieblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/arrival-80.png http://www.scifimoviezone.com/imageextrat/arrival009.jpg

I don't know why, but when I see those ships, I just keep thinking about mitochondria. Or, a seed. The heptopods look like trees walking on their roots. Or, like octopusses - and, yes, the ink-squirting also lends itself to octopuss physiology.

Back to the tree imagery, I even considered if Abbott and Costello were like the "tree of life vs. the tree of knowledge of good and evil" from the Bible book of Genesis.

Unfortunately, I can't connect any of these ideas concretely enough to this story line. I'm sure I'm still missing it.

I also couldn't fully understand the spacial relationship of going into the ship to interact on opposite sides of a pane of glass that these heptopods could tap on. They were huge, came forward out of mist from...where? The ships weren't that wide. Was the screen a monitor? Were they projecting from elsewhere? But then, how did they tap on the glass?

Bottom line - yes, I enjoyed this movie more on a second, more informed viewing (thanks to this thread and other articles I read). It is clearly a cerebral movie, not a typical sci-fi action flick, it's more in the traditionl of 2001. That's terrific. But, I'm still not quite getting your idea about the shape. Would love for you to shed some light on this.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@20thCentury said:

I watched it again last night.

You need to keep stretching your mind more and to think bigger.

I'm trying.

This isn't about untangling some trivial clue. This is about looking at the entire story through a new lense. Put yourself in Louise Banks' shoes, when she was trying to decipher the mysterious alien language. The visuals in this movie are an IQ Test. 99.9% of the people watching this movie will Fail that IQ Test, just as no other person in the movie was able to fully decipher the language, except for Banks.

OK, you're smart. I get it.

Look at the imagery and stretch yourself more this time, questioning what the implications of different potential understandings of these shapes may mean.

https://bplusmovieblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/arrival-80.png http://www.scifimoviezone.com/imageextrat/arrival009.jpg

I don't know why, but when I see those ships, I just keep thinking about mitochondria. Or, a seed. The heptopods look like trees walking on their roots. Or, like octopusses - and, yes, the ink-squirting also lends itself to octopuss physiology.

Back to the tree imagery, I even considered if Abbott and Costello were like the "tree of life vs. the tree of knowledge of good and evil" from the Bible book of Genesis.

Unfortunately, I can't connect any of these ideas concretely enough to this story line. I'm sure I'm still missing it.

I also couldn't fully understand the spacial relationship of going into the ship to interact on opposite sides of a pane of glass that these heptopods could tap on. They were huge, came forward out of mist from...where? The ships weren't that wide. Was the screen a monitor? Were they projecting from elsewhere? But then, how did they tap on the glass?

Bottom line - yes, I enjoyed this movie more on a second, more informed viewing (thanks to this thread and other articles I read). It is clearly a cerebral movie, not a typical sci-fi action flick, it's more in the traditionl of 2001. That's terrific. But, I'm still not quite getting your idea about the shape. Would love for you to shed some light on this.

Way to give it another watch. Additionally, way to be more proactive in asking choices about the deliberate decisions that were made in this movie. That's were most people seem to fail at deconstructing most books/films/etc... they lack the fundamental intellectual curiosity to ask the questions in the first place.

I think your first round of guesses on the shapes of the aliens are good/reasonable... and glad to hear you trying to link those guesses to downstream implications. I would suggest making more guesses on the shapes. Imho, you don't need to be familiar with any narrative backstory (Bible, etc) to make the connections. It's more direct.

DRDMovieMusings--

I think you are probably already on to this and therefore this probably goes without saying, but I wouldn't get too hung up on the "right answer" to this film. With all respect to 20thCentury, I think he is being a little too clever for his own good:)

Films like "Arrival" (and "2001", which you also mentioned, along with I would say both Blade Runner films and a select few other movies in the Sci-Fi genre) are not interested in a specific, linear, "one-size-fits all" resolution. Rather, they approach individual members of the audience as if they have a brain, and are interested in the film for more than just a passive, entertainment experience. In these cases, each member is going to leave the film with his or her own interpretation, and as long as it's not too beyond the pale, the viewer is not really going to be wrong. All "high art" is like this, whether it be film, or literature, or music, or sculpture, or paintings, etc.

This is why-- as just one example --the whole idea of what, exactly, the aliens are going to need our help for in 3,000 years is totally irrelevant to the story; we don't need to know the "why", and that's not even the point of the story. (As if this would even be important to Louise and the other humans in the movie, since it's going to happen some thirty generations [or more] into the future. In fact, once humans fully grasp "Four-dimensional thought", we can guess they'll figure out the answer before then, but still it's not important that we, the audience, know the exact answer. Like the humans in the movie, we are free to dream and to "arrive" [see what I did there:)] at our own answer, but again that's not really important to our understanding of the movie. It is more about human relationships, and how we'd react to a "first-contact" scenario).

More straightforward, "simple" SF like Star Wars and yes, even all the various iterations of Star Trek (despite what Trekkies might claim to the contrary-- and I do like me some good Star Trek (though there's plenty of mediocre in that universe), are more about "boom bang" and good Saturday afternoon popcorn entertainment.

So, DRDMovieMusings, keep enjoying films like "Arrival", come to your own conclusions, and don't feel like you have to belong to some small, special club to "arrive" at the correct meaning:)

@northcoast said:

DRDMovieMusings--

I think you are probably already on to this and therefore this probably goes without saying, but I wouldn't get too hung up on the "right answer" to this film. With all respect to 20thCentury, I think he is being a little too clever for his own good:)

Films like "Arrival" (and "2001", which you also mentioned, along with I would say both Blade Runner films and a select few other movies in the Sci-Fi genre) are not interested in a specific, linear, "one-size-fits all" resolution. Rather, they approach individual members of the audience as if they have a brain, and are interested in the film for more than just a passive, entertainment experience. In these cases, each member is going to leave the film with his or her own interpretation, and as long as it's not too beyond the pale, the viewer is not really going to be wrong. All "high art" is like this, whether it be film, or literature, or music, or sculpture, or paintings, etc.

This is why-- as just one example --the whole idea of what, exactly, the aliens are going to need our help for in 3,000 years is totally irrelevant to the story; we don't need to know the "why", and that's not even the point of the story. (As if this would even be important to Louise and the other humans in the movie, since it's going to happen some thirty generations [or more] into the future. In fact, once humans fully grasp "Four-dimensional thought", we can guess they'll figure out the answer before then, but still it's not important that we, the audience, know the exact answer. Like the humans in the movie, we are free to dream and to "arrive" [see what I did there:)] at our own answer, but again that's not really important to our understanding of the movie. It is more about human relationships, and how we'd react to a "first-contact" scenario).

More straightforward, "simple" SF like Star Wars and yes, even all the various iterations of Star Trek (despite what Trekkies might claim to the contrary-- and I do like me some good Star Trek (though there's plenty of mediocre in that universe), are more about "boom bang" and good Saturday afternoon popcorn entertainment.

So, DRDMovieMusings, keep enjoying films like "Arrival", come to your own conclusions, and don't feel like you have to belong to some small, special club to "arrive" at the correct meaning:)

I agree that Arrival can be deeply appreciated w/out grasping every nuanced symbol. It was this appreciation that prompted me to ask the deeper questions that brought more clarity. For those that do appreciate the film, they would stand to benefit by leaning into the rare intellectual challenge present here. The film is a visual puzzle, which no-one I've met has ever solved on their own. So yeah... I am being clever :) I'm also inviting other people to enjoy the process of solving what may be the best visual symbolism ever used in a film.

They paid a pretty penny for good reviews. That is how much!

There may be a deeper meaning embedded in the film, but it doesn’t matter since films are meant to entertain.

Was the movie entertaining? If yes, it was a good movie. If not, pass on it.