Discuss Arrival
Discuss → Movies → Arrival → General
Random thoughts
posted by FergooseSTAFFMOD on August 9, 2019 at 7:19 PM
I'll put my colours to the mast and say this was a handy little film, giving it 7/10, with the main thoughts occuring to me being:
i) For a film all about communication there isn't half some unintelligible mumbled lines in this one. On missing my third line despite rewinding (possibly Whittaker being drowned out by a helicopter) I started to wonder if this was the director trying to make a point about communication rather than poor execution.
ii) the score/ambient sounds were really uninspired and cookie cutter. Some of it was so cliched I was almost rolling my eyes.
iii) why dont others (e.g. Ian) learn the language and then future events won't come as a surprise to them. Plus, why didn't Ian ask Louise for spoilers about any big future developments?
iv) The only way Amy could meet the daughter she loved was to conceive her. Many parents are warned that their child has a high risk, or even certainty, of severe health issues, but will progress with the birth. This is not something out of the ordinary although I can understand Ian's position that it was a mistake.
v) Stephen Baxter was writing about squids flyinf around in rocket ships about 20 years ago. He probably wasnt also the first author to do so. I'm not sure why there is so much faith in molluscs, they wouldn't be my first choice as likely interstellar travellers.
vi) I knew nothing about this film and hadn't heard anything about it before watching. I can understand disagreements with Oscar nominations and hype, but of all the absolute guff churned out by Bollywood and Hollywood, it is weird for this film to get such excessive criticism (not so much here).
vii) Sci-fi doesn't have to be all about science fiction. It can be a totally mundane tale about people set in a sci-fi setting. There is nothing to be angered or disappointed by when a story is told in this way.
Reply by northcoast
on August 11, 2019 at 5:39 PM
Hi, Fergoose.
I agree this was a decent film, although I was more generous than you; I gave it a 10 out of 10
I am not sure that Ian couldn't see back and forth in Time like Louise could; my impression was that Louise was just more in tune with these things, and also, it was her story, so I'm thinking we just wouldn't hear as much about Ian's inner thoughts. Also, I don't think Louise's mind works in the way you suggest, when you ask why didn't Ian ask Louise for major spoilers about upcoming events? My takeaway was that even though one could experience Time as if it was "four-dimensional", this doesn't necessarily mean that one could see EVERYTHING, nor necessarily understand everything they saw or experienced even if they could. It is not God-like omnipotence, merely a heightened awareness of Time, especially of events that would impact someone directly (such as the future birth of a child).
On Ian thinking it was a mistake (for Louise wanting to conceive Hannah, even knowing the eventual outcome)--
This is perhaps one of the most contentious aspects of the film. Back on the old IMDB, I remember there were a lot of parents-- even some who had lost children --who said that if they'd had the opportunity to do it all over again, they'd still have their kid, because of all the enrichment of having known them, as well as of all the good things their children got to experience, despite the hardships and tragedies. We can bet that in Hannah's twelve years or so of short life, both her and her mother shared wonderful experiences, and Ian, too. I suspect that even though Ian was angry with Louise-- to the point of divorcing her before Hannah even got sick --that deep down, he was more angry at "the universe" for what happened to his daughter, and was just lashing out from his own pain. I don't think he would've traded in the time he was a father. I think Louise made the right choice in going ahead with the conception.
I should also say, that even though Louise could see Time, this doesn't mean that she was immune to the thought-- and I think many parents think this way --that although there was tragedy in her daughter's future, perhaps that future could be changed, the diagnosis could be wrong, that things could turn out differently, etc., etc. The film never really answers the question of whether or not Time is predestined; that is left up to the viewer.
As for the squids/mollusks, I was just glad that in this film at least-- as opposed to the vast majority of SF films out there --the aliens didn't look like, or very similar to, humans.
I really liked how this film focused on Time as a circular concept, rather than linear, I liked how it focused on a female character (and did so without putting down men), and I liked how a quality SF film was made without relying on violence. I think much of the criticism of this film came because Villeneuve tried to make a cerebral Sci-Fi, something that many Sci-Fi fans claim they want, but when a film like this gets made, it unfortunately gets labelled as "pretentious" merely because the director made the attempt.
I, for one, think Denis Villeneuve did an excellent job-- and he did so without talking down to the audience --and the acting of the three major leads-- Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, and Forest Whitaker --was, in my view, superb.
Reply by Fergoose
on August 13, 2019 at 1:19 PM
I agree on Amy Adams' performance in particular, the others were solid but I dont think they had roles that overly pushed them.
As for Louise's powers, yeah, it was intentionally kept a bit vague and mysterious and I'm fine with that. She seemed to have some foresight before she could understand the language, so maybe she was 'special'. What threw me a but was how detailed and precise her foresight was about meeting the Chinese general - learning a phone number and full quotatians in Mandarin. Admittedly, it wasnt something she was consciously choosing to foresee and it was a moment of heightened emotional state, but it did make me think (in conjunction with her book) that the power was perhaps not so vague.