1 hr & 56 min, color, 2016
Visitors from outer space! Often they are called “aliens”. And in the minds of many the word “alien” has
come to be a synonym for “enemy”, or at best someone who falls under suspicion,
deemed a potential threat. In the lore
of science fiction we have become accustomed to variously shaped creatures from
other galaxies who do not comport themselves as we earthlings do and make
strange sounds that our scientists have to translate into our language(s). Or in some cases the visitors have already
familiarized themselves with our speech patterns and phraseologies and are
prepared to communicate in the native tongue(s). Or in the spookiest of the lore they may not
speak at all but cast themselves in the cloak of mystery or make certain
atmospheric things happen that have the sole effect of frightening the human
race. Who are they and what do they want
other than studying us?
An “alien” by dictionary
definition is actually defined not as an enemy but as an outsider, someone not
a citizen of the given country or territory or region but simply residing among
the native population – for a designated span of time as a visitor or for an
indefinite future. The question might
hang over their heads, be they from outer space or immigrants from other
nations: Are they our friends or have they come to subvert?
Such is the question posed in
the current movie “Arrival”, which has stirred up big box office and has
arrested the attention of science fiction lovers worldwide. Among its virtues is the astute portrayal by
Amy Adams of a brilliant Linguistics professor and author, Louise Banks, who is
called upon by the U.S. government and its military to penetrate a giant oval
shaped object suspended over a field in Montana and try to ascertain the
language of the aliens who dwell within it and to find out why they have come
and what they want. (Several others have
landed in various countries around the globe.
Those nations’ scientific geniuses are at work also in penetrating the
mystery.) Adams does a superb job of
bringing this petite lady of letters to life and giving her dimension and
power. Louise approaches her task with
some fear, as would anyone in like circumstances, but she evolves into a gutsy fighter who stands
her ground when she has to face up to hawkish powers that be, insisting that
the visitors are not invaders and that time must be given for the people of
earth to fathom their message. Watching
this dramatic transition take place is quite gripping and fascinating. (I am
floored by Adams’ failure to garner an Oscar nomination. She certainly does top drawer work. I have not at this point seen all the
contenders’ performances, but there is at least one she surpasses in my
judgment.)
The screenplay by Eric
Heisserer from a story by Ted Chiang certainly challenges the intellect and the
imagination. It leaves engraved upon our
memories some awesome images, in particular the sight of Louise standing before
the huge glass partition that separates her from the creatures who are
entreating her for a meeting of minds.
The connections they make do not come easily. We are not told how long she is at the site
or how long the visitors from space stay, but the precise editing conveys the
sense that the encounter lasts for at least many weeks. The labor and the fatigue are constantly in
evidence.
Another plus is the eventual
relationship Louise enjoys with her little girl, who interestingly enough is a
product of the mother’s adventure with the aliens. No, she is not impregnated by one of them;
the father is scientist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) whom she meets at the site
of the oval capsule and who supports and assists her in her struggle. You will have to see the movie to understand
how this parental linkage comes about.
When the film takes time to portray warm personal emotion it is at its
very best thanks to the directorial skill of Denis Villeneuve.
If only that skill had been put
to more discerning use! Some are calling
“Arrival” a masterpiece, but I must dispute this claim. For one thing, I found
nothing new about the soundtrack. We’ve
heard those growling chords more than once.
They sound like some primordial beast laboring with a stomach spasm. And I found the cinematography to be equally
heavy-handed – too many dark, dreary images, even in the case of exteriors. The
film is a stirring drama of search and discovery, no doubt about that. The concept it puts forth in the portrayal of
intergalactic encounter is both startling and challenging. But for me the story material eventually
devolves into the working of an arguable premise and into misty confusion.
There is nothing new about
earthlings having a transformation of consciousness experience from an
encounter with extraterrestrials. In
“2001: A Space Odyssey” the apes in the opening sequence, just from standing in
front of the monolith and touching it, are changed from grubbing little lower
life forms into rational homo sapiens.
And in “The Day the Earth Stood Still” we have a friendly outer space
visitor come to earth to try to persuade humankind to abandon nuclear
weapons. Some are persuaded; many are
not.
Those who have not seen
“Arrival” might want to stop their reading at this point. I am giving a spoiler alert here, before I
take on what I consider this arguable premise – beginning with the following
paragraph.
For those of you still with me,
here I go!
The premise has to do with the
ability to tell the future. Louise
learns to look at time differently. She
finds that she can foretell her own future and has come to be joyous in the
living out of what she sees coming. But
such a thing is humanly impossible.
Why? Because the future does not
exist! You cannot foresee what does not
yet exist. It has to be created, and
that takes time, years and years for most people – years and years of
decision-making, of trial and error and the imposition of history that others
have been instrumental in making. To
believe that such a thing is possible, one would have to presume that those
futures are determined by someone else – God or some higher power of
predetermination. That would preclude
any possibility of hope as a thing to hold onto, when nothing else is
apparent.
Yes, Louise is content and
joyous in the living out of what she foresees, and why should she not be? She lives in a comfortable, secure, and
loving environment, with a loving husband and daughter. But why would you take hope away from those
who are not so fortunate? There are
thousands of displaced persons in our world, and many of them will never find a
secure place; they will die in the middle of their plight. Anyone who watches the news should be well
aware of that. Victims of poverty, war
and agonizing disease! The mere odds themselves tell you that. I for one do not crave such an unearthly
foresight, and I do not suppose that any other sensible person now living
would. The idea of time past closing
some gap with time to come lends itself to a nice mathematical mind game, but
as a working principle it is overwhelmed by hard reality.
And would somebody explain to
me how Louise is able by a quick phone call to turn a warmongering general into
a peacemaker? Somehow she has set forces
in motion that result in nations coming together in unity. But we are given no insight into how this is
supposed to have been facilitated. That,
if such a thing is plausible, would be another story within itself.
I would be willing to take part
in a discussion of the movie with those who have found it other than I have
indicated. I am in a show me
attitude! What did I miss in my two
complete screenings of it? Or let me
have argumentative feedback at least.
That would be exciting. I wonder
what Stephen Hawking thinks of it!
To read other entries in my
blog, please consult its website:
enspiritus.blogspot.com. To know
about me, consult the autobiographical entry on the website for Dec. 5, 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment