Arrival (November 11, 2016) (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

Up 2 spots to number 3 with the lowest drop in the top 10.

Moana $28,373,000 -49.9% 3,875 - $7,322 $119,888,330 -

Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them WB $18,545,000 -58.9% 3,988 -156 $4,650 $183,507,403 $180

Arrival Par. $7,300,000 -36.3% 2,915 +473 $2,504 $73,078,514

 

[SamT]

Saw this today. I give it 7/10 for the honorable try but I feel 7 is too high. The guy tried way too hard to be Christopher Nolan and he failed.

It was not slow and I was not bored but please tell me why this is called an intelligent movie? The guy asks why you can translate Farsi but not this Alien language? Seriously? And things get real worse through the end. If you through out a bag of letters on the ground, that is not a sign of intelligence.

mild spoiler:
I kind of liked the emotional punch but again they thought they are too clever. I'm not good at guessing things and halfway through, they throw out 2 major clues that I guessed the ending.

Major Spoilers:

Spoiler

So when they showed the alien doll, I knew well in advance that the 2 lead would get together and the beginning of the movie was the end.

All the coy stuff then looked ridiculous. It just felt someone trying badly to imitate Nolan and failing.

And there are so many other problems with the story. I'm officially not that excited for Blade Runner 2049.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

For what it's worth...

Spoiler

i don't think the "twist" is supposed to be a total surprise that you only get at the end. I think it's supposed to start seeming like there's something more going on, and that you're supposed to start putting it together as Amy Adams does, which is before the end of the movie.

 

[SamT]

And please explain the story, what did the Aliens want? What did they achieve.

Spoiler

I'm also allergic to convoluted storytelling of things in the future causing things in the past that cause the same thing and stuff. This is like magic, it's not Sci-Fi.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

And please explain the story, what did the Aliens want? What did they achieve.

OK, I'll give it a shot...

Spoiler: SPOILERS

She tells you what the aliens want and why they are there toward the end of the picture during the evacuation. They were there to give humans a gift...the gift was their language. The humans appear to make an error and translate "gift" as "weapon" or as stated in the film what they translate as "weapon" could actually mean tool. Their language once you comprehend it fully and can actually "think" in that language allows our minds to comprehend time not as a linear thing but as a big always connected circle. So, once we understand their language we can see and feel future, past, and present as a whole and not as dots on a timeline. This is what happens to Louise as she begins to comprehend the alien language...she begins to have premonitions/visions of the future and sees she will have a daughter. They were visiting because in 3000 years they would need the help of or will have another interaction with mankind. The alien tells her this when she goes alone to her last meeting with them. So, this first "arrival" was about giving mankind their language. Once mankind has the language and comprehends it fully so we can "think" in their language it will alter the way we think and so this will alter how we communicate and make decisions. It is likely quite important that when the aliens return or interact with us again that we have been transformed in the way that we think by living with a complete understanding of their language...they allow 3000 years for this transformation to the "universal language" to take place as it is not something that would happen rapidly. This is really a key to the film because the aliens "arrive" at 12 different spots all over the planet and in doing so must interact with humans that speak different languages and have a very difficult time communicating with each other...never mind an alien species. We see the communication issues throughout the film, the mistrust, because people "think" in different languages so we fail to trust others that do not "think" in our language. Our languages keep us apart so a "universal" language (the name of Louise's book she writes after the alien encounter) would in theory and the world of this film bring us together...particularly if it had such a large effect on how we comprehend and interact with time itself.

So, in a nutshell, that's why they came and what they were doing.

 

[TJPC]

The key here is that throughout the movie, you think she is experiencing memories of the past, but when she says "who is the little girl?" you find she is seeing the future. She also explains how her marriage will break up when she decides to have a child even with the heartbreak she knows will happen.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

For what it's worth...

Spoiler

i don't think the "twist" is supposed to be a total surprise that you only get at the end. I think it's supposed to start seeming like there's something more going on, and that you're supposed to start putting it together as Amy Adams does, which is before the end of the movie.

Honestly, I am puzzled that people see this film as a film with a "twist" because I don't think it has one. I guess because...

Spoiler: Spoiler

...the film is not really being straight with the timeline of what is being shown and so the picture begins with events that take place after the alien arrival people seem to think this is a "twist" but it's not really, it is just telling us the story in a way that sort of plays into how the alien language is meant to effect how people comprehend time. Time is not a straight line for Louise once she comprehends the alien language and so there are not really...to her now...strict beginnings and endings to moments in life...this "time" is always there so it is all connected and this is why even though her daughter lives a short life, Louise still wants that time to exist for her...because then it will always exist.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think some people really don't get the meaning of this film. Josh and Reggie's interpretation of the film is correct in my opinion.

 

[Carlo_M]

Having read the short story first, the movie does take liberties, adds new things/concepts, but the core does remain intact. I too agree that if one viewed Arrival and judged it for "the twist" (M. Night Shyamalan style) then you're bound to be disappointed because that was not the point of either the movie or the book. In fact, the book gives it away right in the beginning.

It's more about what Reggie says in his spoiler, to which I'll add:

Spoiler

The plotline with the Chinese General (which was new to the movie, not at all in the book) is a summary of why the aliens did what they did in gifting humanity their language. They know they will need our help in 3000 years but not as we are today, but rather what we'll become in 3K years after learning how to use their gift/weapon. The same way that the Chinese General used their gift, knowing that to avert war in present-day, he would need to give Louise his cell phone number in the future, along with his wife's dying words, in order to change his mind re: attacking the aliens and sharing the technology. General Shang does on a micro-level what the aliens are doing on a macro level. While this was not at all in the book, I appreciated the addition of it, and the symmetry of the storytelling, in the movie.

 

[Carlo_M]

Also, in the book, which I think is not fully conveyed in the movie (because it's a difficult concept to show on film) is this:

Spoiler

It's not just the perception of time that is non-linear for the aliens (and those who think in their language). It's that the cause/effect relationship is now turned on it's head. Rather than something happening (cause) to make something else happen (effect), i.e. mother/father copulate which in turn results in a child, non-linear perception could view it in reverse, that the mother and father have to copulate at this time, because their child will be born in a future date. That's me oversimplifying things, but that's the beginning of starting to understand what non-linear thinking represents in the movie/story.

For the record, I loved this movie. 9/10. Well filmed. Well acted. Loved the atmospheric score and sound effects/design. It took a very difficult story to film (in fact I went in with lowered expectations because I didn't think the story would translate well to film) and did it justice.

 

[David Weicker]

I know some people were upset about her 'decision' that theoretically ended her marriage.

But i viewed it differently. Tying in with Carlo's interpretation

Spoiler

The decision wasn't to get married and have a doomed child.
The decision was to tell her husband that she knew ahead of time what would happen.
In the Arrival universe, there doesn't appear to be Free Will. Every thing is Fate, because its already happened.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

David,

Spoiler

I think there's still free will, but I think things start happening in a non-linear way... you make a choice 5 years from now ahead of the choice now, so it's not that you never made it, but that you made it out of order. And perhaps I read too much into the movie or interpreted it differently, but I think the decision absolutely was whether or not to proceed with the future with Jeremy Renner, which leads to the doomed child. I think there's even some dialogue or narration to that effect, that she knew she would be heartbroken in the end, but that the experience of having had the daughter and having loved her was more important than preventing heartbreak by skipping it. I came away from the movie with the understanding that she absolutely chose to pursue a relationship and life choices that would lead to utter heartbreak. Once she started experiencing time in a non-linear fashion, it was if she already knew her daughter before she was born. How could she choose not to have the child that she already knew and fell in love with? In a way, I think the title of the film "Arrival" is meant to apply to the arrival of her daughter as much as its meant to apply to the aliens arriving.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

David,

Spoiler

I think there's still free will, but I think things start happening in a non-linear way... you make a choice 5 years from now ahead of the choice now, so it's not that you never made it, but that you made it out of order. And perhaps I read too much into the movie or interpreted it differently, but I think the decision absolutely was whether or not to proceed with the future with Jeremy Renner, which leads to the doomed child. I think there's even some dialogue or narration to that effect, that she knew she would be heartbroken in the end, but that the experience of having had the daughter and having loved her was more important than preventing heartbreak by skipping it. I came away from the movie with the understanding that she absolutely chose to pursue a relationship and life choices that would lead to utter heartbreak. Once she started experiencing time in a non-linear fashion, it was if she already knew her daughter before she was born. How could she choose not to have the child that she already knew and fell in love with? In a way, I think the title of the film "Arrival" is meant to apply to the arrival of her daughter as much as its meant to apply to the aliens arriving.

Yes, I think we should consider too...

Spoiler: SPOILER

...that her future daughter was part of how she came to understand what was happening with the aliens. It was in part her visions of her future that helped her understand what the aliens were communicating. So, if she chose not to have her daughter/go through with her future that would have had an impact on her present and her understanding of the aliens. Everything was connected...the past, present, and future. This opened up to her so that during her phone call to the Chinese general she was actually able to access the future to understand what she needed to say to the general. I think we could call it fate and that this is a common question in religion. Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do children and innocents suffer? What kind of "god" would allow that? And if a religious person answers this with "Well, it must be god's plan." perhaps the film answers this with the idea that events impact other events in our lives in ways we may not grasp at the time or may not understand in our lifetimes.

 

[Carlo_M]

Let me just say I think both the director and the original author would be thrilled at the conversation we're having, in that their film has engendered this much thought and introspection. Well done!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

This may be a little spoilery but I'm not sure it belongs in tags either. Guess I'll put it in there out of an abundance of caution:

Spoiler

I think the interesting thing about this particular movie is that it almost teaches you how you need to watch it as you go. It begins, and we get one impression of who Amy Adams is and where she's come from. It's not that they ever explicitly tell us that Adams had a daughter who died, and now she's mourning and taking this assignment because her life is otherwise empty, but most in the audience will assume that's the progression of events. That's what an entire lifetime of watching movies teaches you, when you see this kind of image cut in that way and in that order, the meaning is clear. I don't know that I'd consider it misdirection, but I also don't think the filmmakers would be unhappy that most people will make that assumption.

To me, one of the more illuminating conversations in the film comes when Adams is describing her method of trying to communicate with the aliens, and explaining how its different from what the other translators are trying. She mentions that one team (perhaps the Chinese?) was trying to communicate through chess, but how just picking that as the method of interaction conveys ideas that may be unintended but have powerful consequences. She explains that chess is ultimately a competition, a battle, a war, a game where the object is to win by defeating your opponent, and how just using that as a starting point might give a new species the impression that there's a struggle and how they're enemies. I had never thought about that before, but it makes perfect sense. That laid the groundwork in my mind that language itself can affect perception, a thought that makes total sense but something I had never really considered before. And since Adams never mentions a daughter in the "present day" scenes, and since the aliens communicate with circular diagrams, I started wondering if things were happening in a different order than I suspected. By the time Adams fully understands what is happening, I'm right there with us.

I don't know that I've ever seen a movie that worked quite this way before. It's got twists and turns, and yet, they're not supposed to be tricks; the filmmakers aren't trying to mislead us. Instead, they scatter clues, hints and explanations along the way, much like the aliens do. The filmmakers gift us the tools and clues we need to understand the movie as we're watching it, and by the time it's over, I did understand what I had seen.

More than ever, I'm convinced that the title "Arrival" is meant to have a dual meaning. Going into the movie, you think that it will refer to the aliens visiting earth, and perhaps it does. But I think the title really refers to the birth of Adams' daughter, her "arrival".

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Needless to say: this post contains BIG SPOILERS. Hold off on reading it until you've seen the film.

And perhaps I read too much into the movie or interpreted it differently, but I think the decision absolutely was whether or not to proceed with the future with Jeremy Renner, which leads to the doomed child. I think there's even some dialogue or narration to that effect, that she knew she would be heartbroken in the end, but that the experience of having had the daughter and having loved her was more important than preventing heartbreak by skipping it.

That's how I interpreted it as well. That's why the daughter had to die of an incurable disease. If Hannah had died of something that foreknowledge could avert -- say, getting hit by a drunk driver, or cancer that would have been curable if it'd been caught in time -- then Hannah never would have died because Louise would have stopped it. Under the circumstances, Jeremy Renner's character thought that it was cruel -- to him but especially to Hannah -- to bring her into the world with a premature death sentence.

It's analogous to a test revealing a genetic disease during pregnancy, and the parents having to decide whether or not to abort the fetus. Except in this case, Ian wasn't in on the decision, because how could he be? When Louise decided to go through with the pregnancy, she had roughly two decades of memories of the person that was to be. Her perspective was radically different than Ian, since he still perceived time linearly. If he'd known everything Louise knew, perhaps he would have made the same choice. One of those rare fictional breakups where both sides have incredibly strong arguments in their favor.

 

[Carlo_M]

Adam: actually, in the book the daughter dies from something completely preventable. But Louise still allows it to happen. Or rather doesn't prevent it. Because everything happens as it should in the timeline. Once you accept the aliens' gift, you understand that everything happens in the timeline because it needs to happen. Remember when time is nonlinear, there is no cause and effect. There only is "what is". And her death has to happen. Just like the alien said in the movie when asked about where the other was. It was in the death process. But with their knowledge of the timeline they could have prevented it. But did not. Because it is "what happens".

 

[Carlo_M]

Just occurred to me that Arrival's view of time is actually a variant of, or at least somewhat related to, the m-brane theory from Rust Cohle in True Detective Season 1:

Someone once told me, 'Time is a flat circle.' Everything we've ever done or will do, we're gonna do over and over and over again. And that little boy and that little girl, they're gonna be in that room again and again and again forever.

In eternity, where there is no time, nothing can grow. Nothing can become. Nothing changes. So death created time to grow the things that it would kill and you are reborn but into the same life that you’ve always born into. I mean, how many times have we had this conversation, detectives? Well, who knows? When you can’t remember your lives, you can’t change your lives, and that is the terrible and secret fate of all life. You’re trapped, by that nightmare you keep waking up into.

This theory that everything in existence has already happened/is happening/will always happen.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It's analogous to a test revealing a genetic disease during pregnancy, and the parents having to decide whether or not to abort the fetus. Except in this case, Ian wasn't in on the decision, because how could he be? When Louise decided to go through with the pregnancy, she had roughly two decades of memories of the person that was to be. Her perspective was radically different than Ian, since he still perceived time linearly. If he'd known everything Louise knew, perhaps he would have made the same choice. One of those rare fictional breakups where both sides have incredibly strong arguments in their favor.

I feel the same way about that - it makes for great conversation, because there's no real right or wrong answer. Perhaps nowadays, we talk more about a person's "agency" than we did in the past, and it seems that we're trending to where making decisions where the more informed person is withholding information and making the decision for the group is somewhat frowned upon. I was out to dinner the other night with my wife and a couple friends (or rather, a couple who are friends) who had just come from seeing the movie, and we were talking about that. I don't think it would change anything for me, but I wonder if the movie would play differently if it had been the man making the decision about what was best for the woman and their lives together, instead of the other way around. I don't think it would have changed my perspective but I can also imagine that it might have for other people.

For what it's worth, I don't know what I'd do if I was in Louise or Ian's shoes. My decision would probably be radically different depending on which of the two of them I was. My intellectual mind sides with Ian - just walk away before anyone is hurt. My emotional heart sides with Louise - if you know you had a daughter and what she was like and loved her completely, I don't know how you could just give up on that.

Adam: actually, in the book the daughter dies from something completely preventable. But Louise still allows it to happen. Or rather doesn't prevent it. Because everything happens as it should in the timeline. Once you accept the aliens' gift, you understand that everything happens in the timeline because it needs to happen. Remember when time is nonlinear, there is no cause and effect. There only is "what is". And her death has to happen. Just like the alien said in the movie when asked about where the other was. It was in the death process. But with their knowledge of the timeline they could have prevented it. But did not. Because it is "what happens".

Interesting... that's not how I interpreted time to work in the movie. For me, her choice in the movie was so powerful because she could have simply avoided the whole thing. And like Adam said, I think for the story needs it to be something that couldn't be avoided. I have a very hard time accepting that a parent would accept the death of their child and not try to prevent it, if it's at all possible to do something to prevent it. I don't know that I would have accepted the Louise character in the same way if she had a daughter that died because she could have prevented it and didn't.

I know you're saying that when you see time as the aliens do, there's no more free will, and things just happen, but I don't accept that. I think the beauty of the movie, and of the choices within it, is that you might see what you had done and where it led to, but you don't actually have to do it. I've watched enough "time is a circle" sci-fi to accept it as a valid storytelling trope, but I don't think "time is a circle" means that no one ever gets to make a decision ever. You can be aware of the past, and you can be aware of the future, but if you can't actually travel between them, you have to live in a moment, and within that moment, you make decisions. But, to go with the movie, we may not have the language to properly discuss the concept

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Interesting... that's not how I interpreted time to work in the movie. For me, her choice in the movie was so powerful because she could have simply avoided the whole thing. And like Adam said, I think for the story needs it to be something that couldn't be avoided. I have a very hard time accepting that a parent would accept the death of their child and not try to prevent it, if it's at all possible to do something to prevent it. I don't know that I would have accepted the Louise character in the same way if she had a daughter that died because she could have prevented it and didn't.

Yeah, after seeing Carlo's post I Googled the short story and:

Spoiler: short story spoiler

the daughter dies in a mountain climbing accident in her mid-twenties

That is a change that I'm glad was made for the film. I emotionally invest in Louise making the choice she made because Hannah and Hannah's young death were inseparably intertwined; you couldn't have one without the other. But a Louise who could save her daughter's life with one conversation and chose instead to let her go off and die seems monstrous to me. I would be completely alienated from that character. Especially since the heptapods clearly used their non-linear sense of time to save themselves. A deterministic universe that flows backwards as well as forwards is essentially fixed, and that's not compelling as an audience member.