Arrival (2016)

[Madding crowd]

Yes I understand . I was speaking about the gift the aliens were bringing to humans. At this point we are not communicating with other species so we could not really use this gift. I'm still not sure about the purpose of the aliens visit beyond "we will need your help in 3,000 years".And their universal language may not be the same as other species or other species may be incapable of understanding.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Madding crowd

[ChelseaNH]

I don't believe the heptapods ever indicated that their language was universal across other species; that was just the title of Louise's book.

[vibeology]

25 minutes ago, Madding crowd said:

Yes I understand . I was speaking about the gift the aliens were bringing to humans. At this point we are not communicating with other species so we could not really use this gift. I'm still not sure about the purpose of the aliens visit beyond "we will need your help in 3,000 years".And their universal language may not be the same as other species or other species may be incapable of understanding.

Because the Heptapods do not experience linear time they exist both in a time where we have already helped them and they have already visited us to prepare us to help them. By having the gift of their language we are supposed to be able to unlock doors to knowledge we didn't previously have by knowing thing that we will one day know. Imagine Bill Gates inventing Windows because he can see that in the future he has invented it and can interact with it. In addition, by coming when they did, they helped unite the world so that we don't kill each other before they need us. The gift isn't about communicating with other people; its about how we understand and interact with ourselves and the world around us.

[Madding crowd]

Still don't understand how this will ultimately change mankind. I don't agree this would prevent other Countries from causing wars and violence. I liked the movie but the overall message and the fact that Amy Adams had to live with knowing her daughter would die young dilutes the appeal for me. To me it takes away our humanity to know what happens . If I meet my future husband, I already know I married him so there is no point in first dates, first kisses. If I pick up a book I know I have already read it. Experiences and emotions are what life is all about.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Madding crowd

[vibeology]

And see the knowing part was beautiful for me. It became not about where you're going but savoring the steps along the way. Louise has her daughter, knowing how its going to end because it isn't the ending that matters. It's going for walks in the rain or helping her daughter with her homework or talking with her at her bedside. Louise isn't not experiencing things, she's just experiencing them in a non-linear fashion.

[Traveller519]

Only one Oscar for Arrival last night, but I'm glad it got something. It was near the top of my list for the Oscar films. Also very pleased that it was one of Denis' Quebec crew, kind of gives credence to his work rather than if it were a "for-hire" LA crew. Not to mention the sound was so great in Sicario last year too, it felt earned. I was hoping for an editing or directing award although I knew they were long-shots.

[Inquisitionist]

6 hours ago, vibeology said:

Because the Heptapods do not experience linear time they exist both in a time where we have already helped them and they have already visited us to prepare us to help them.

Then why don't they already know any of Earth's languages when they encounter Louise?

6 hours ago, vibeology said:

And see the knowing part was beautiful for me. It became not about where you're going but savoring the steps along the way. Louise has her daughter, knowing how its going to end because it isn't the ending that matters. It's going for walks in the rain or helping her daughter with her homework or talking with her at her bedside. Louise isn't not experiencing things, she's just experiencing them in a non-linear fashion.

A lesson we all should learn, but non-linear time isn't a necessary condition for it.

Of the 5 nominated films I've seen (LLL, Hidden Figures, Moonlight, Fences, and this), I rank Arrival 5th.  Will probably be 6th after I see Manchester...

[stealinghome]

16 minutes ago, Inquisitionist said:

Then why don't they already know any of Earth's languages when they encounter Louise?

But you're assuming they didn't know, as opposed to making Louise et al figure it out. I took the language lessons to be for the humans' benefit, not the heptapods', as they likely understood the humans the whole time but needed the humans to puzzle out their side of things.

I can't imagine how being able to know the future WOULDN'T change mankind (or at least the people who master the heptapods' language enough to have the temporal flashes...I thought the movie made clear you have to be fluent in the language, you can't just pull out a human-hept dictionary and construct some poorly-written sentence. Sapir-Whorf and all).

I only saw Arrival, La La Land, and Hidden Figures, but this was my favorite of the Oscar nominees. I wish it had won more, but am pleased it at least won SOMETHING!

Edited February 27, 2017 by stealinghome

[ChelseaNH]

The heptapods only knew human language because they went through the experience of learning -- knowing the outcome ahead of time does not eliminate the need to go through the process.

[Eyes High]

On 2/27/2017 at 2:20 PM, Traveller519 said:

Only one Oscar for Arrival last night, but I'm glad it got something. It was near the top of my list for the Oscar films. Also very pleased that it was one of Denis' Quebec crew, kind of gives credence to his work rather than if it were a "for-hire" LA crew. Not to mention the sound was so great in Sicario last year too, it felt earned. I was hoping for an editing or directing award although I knew they were long-shots.

It was a very Quebec movie: it was filmed entirely in Quebec, Quebec VFX companies worked on it, and McGill linguistics professors consulted on the script and provided other assistance.

[scottiB]

On 2/28/2017 at 0:06 PM, ChelseaNH said:

The heptapods only knew human language because they went through the experience of learning -- knowing the outcome ahead of time does not eliminate the need to go through the process.

Absolutely. Say my entire life is a series of books in a bookcase and I pull out a book and I see I can speak French, there's a previous book that shows I've learned it. And once I've learned the heptodian language I can use future memories in the present as Louise did in the speaking to the general. 

Wonder if in 3000 years the help is to be fodder for some Predator-esque game play. Or help settle a bet. 

"Thank God your here. Humans can see colors better than we can. What color is this stupid dress?"

[Bruinsfan]

You laugh, but someday that dress is going to save us from a race of robotic invaders by making their computers melt down from the contradiction like on Star Trek!

[Lola82]

I just watched this and was bothered by the idea that Louise chose to have her daughter even knowing that she'll have to go through this horrible disease, which is no doubt painful and miserable. Seemed a bit selfish to me.

[Bruinsfan]

I don't know, seems like getting to have a short life is better than none at all, particularly when being raised in a loving home. I mean, I wouldn't say that all terminal cancer patients would have been better off never being born, even if their final days are very unpleasant.

[ClareWalks]

I finally saw this movie. I knew it was about linguistics, which interests me because I majored in linguistic anthropology, but I didn't realize how incredibly advanced it gets into the theory of linguistic relativism. Basically the entire movie is about Benjamin Whorf's study of the Hopi language and how it drives the Hopi's perception of time. If you were fascinated by this movie I would recommend reading up on Benjamin Whorf. Since I was really into theory in college, and really into the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, I was excited to see it brought from theory to practice in this movie. But...I realized how problematic the theory actually is when it's no longer theoretical. There is no way anyone not *raised in* the language would suddenly be able to view time as circular. If Louise could do it, then WOW, and I would bet money that she would be the ONLY person on the planet who could. You'd have to have the most malleable language center of all time. Most people who learn another language as adults would have a hell of a time thinking in that language, let alone letting that language's structure alter their perception of something as fundamental to the human experience as "time." 

That said, none of this dampened my enthusiasm for the movie, but I think totally understanding the film and what it was trying to say is...kind of a bad thing? At least, I found it a bit distracting near the end. I just kept thinking about Benjamin Whorf and how this is the natural extension of linguistic relativism and how it doesn't really work like I thought it would. Oops. Eh, it's not like I was using my college degree much, anyway ;)

[theOAfc]

On 26/3/2017 at 5:10 AM, Lola82 said:

I just watched this and was bothered by the idea that Louise chose to have her daughter even knowing that she'll have to go through this horrible disease, which is no doubt painful and miserable. Seemed a bit selfish to me.

I dont think its selfish at all,because eventually Louise was the one that remembered the pain she (would feel)felt when her daughter died and yet still decided to have her,raise her almost alone and see her die by reliving that pain. I think Louise simply honored life. However, even if she hadnt decided to have her daughter right away,eventually she would still end up having her somehow. Because she couldnt change the future.

 I think one could say that this topic of discussion is similar to the dilemma of whether or not someone who is aware from early time,that their unborn child is gonna have significant mental retardation with other severe health problems,will decide to have an abortion or keep the baby instead. But i disagree with that. One  big  difference here is that in this movie,Louise knows that no matter what she does,this future is gonna happen,because it has happened and she cant change it so instead of fighting it,she simply embraces it. She embraces the pain ,the happiness,the love. This isnt a movie about alternate timelines and how each decision we make presents a possible future. Or how we can change the future by making the right decisions.

I think the movie  was more of a symbolism of how the nonlinear orthography works . The movie uses its meaning as a way to explain how  time can be perceived. The events she remembered were supposed to happen anyway. Even if she tried to prevent them from happening,they would end up happening ,because history was already written. She cant change the future,she can just perceive it differently because based on the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis,she learnt a nonlinear written language and she started thinking in a different way. 

 So lets say she gets her daughter to the best doctors from early time, knowing that sooner or later she is gonna develop cancer. That wont stop her daughter's death because it has already happened. Lets say she decided at some point to not tell Ian about their daughter dying,in order to prevent their divorce and him carrying the burden of knowledge about their daughter's death. Eventually something happened that convinced her to still tell him. She cant change the future because the future is already written. So she can just embrace it. 

At least,that's how i saw it.

[Sandman]

On 2017-03-25 at 10:10 PM, Lola82 said:

I just watched this and was bothered by the idea that Louise chose to have her daughter even knowing that she'll have to go through this horrible disease, which is no doubt painful and miserable. Seemed a bit selfish to me.

I keep wondering if the religious allegory of this movie would be clearer if its title were Annunciation rather than Arrival.

[M.F. Luder]

Did anyone else think that this movie seemed like it was written by a fan of Kurt Vonnegut novels? It has so many elements that seem like they were directly taken from his novels. For example, the concept of aliens having a non-linear concept of time and trying to explain this to humans seems like what happened to Billy Pilgrim in Slaughterhouse Five, only in Arrival this takes place on Earth instead of on the alien planet. Also, the concept of aliens communicating with Earth because in some point in the distant future they are going to need the help of some humans was a key point in the novel Sirens of Titan.

On 3/25/2017 at 7:10 PM, Lola82 said:

I just watched this and was bothered by the idea that Louise chose to have her daughter even knowing that she'll have to go through this horrible disease, which is no doubt painful and miserable. Seemed a bit selfish to me.

This is another reason why I'm convinced that this movie took inspiration from Kurt Vonnegut, because he would say that it's really not a choice. It's what has and will always happen. Time is not linear, and all points in time exist at the same moment, so there's no such thing as making another choice. All the things that happen in your life have already happened.

[ClareWalks]

18 hours ago, M.F. Luder said:

This is another reason why I'm convinced that this movie took inspiration from Kurt Vonnegut, because he would say that it's really not a choice. It's what has and will always happen. Time is not linear, and all points in time exist at the same moment, so there's no such thing as making another choice. All the things that happen in your life have already happened.

Yeah, that's why I thought it was weird that her baby-daddy said she should have made a different choice. Louise isn't seeing a possible future, she is seeing *the future.* You see what is going to happen. There's no derailing the train, there.

[Hybridcookie]

Watched this tonight and I loved it. Amy Adams was great in it - I'm not a huge fan but I liked her here. I liked watching her communicate with the aliens, and their language was very pretty.

I kinda want to watch it again.

[TimetoShine]

Definitely worth a rewatch. I watched it again last week and I didn’t cry, if only because it was the 3rd or 4th time. I also agree that the language was beautiful. I’m not ambitious but the idea of that universal language made me really want to learn. 

[SimoneS]

I just watched this. I was pretty bored for most of it.  My reaction to the alien's gift of their language which could help humans see the future was "uh?" I thought that they must be optimists if they think that 1) humans would still thriving in 3000 years (a big chunk of people would use their knowledge of the future to play the stockmarket or lottery or to know when to quit when they are a hot gambling streak) and 2) humans would be so grateful for the gift of knowing the future that they would help the aliens in 3000 years, more likely the government(s) will be trying to build a "wall" over the earth to keep them out. Clearly, they have never met us. I also found it implausible even with all the help that Louise had that she could decipher and translate such a different language over such a short period of time.

I didn't know about the "twist" so I was surprised, but then I felt manipulated as clearly the show portrayed Louise as dour at the beginning to give the impression that she was mourning her child. I understood with her decision to go ahead and marry the guy and have Hannah. However, she should have had him learn the language and see the future so he could make the decision knowing what was going to happen. As usual, Jeremy Remy is such a bland leading man. He has no charisma whatsoever. He should be a supporting character always.

I too couldn't understand Forest Whitaker's "New England" accent at first. Whose idea was that?

[roseslg]

On 11/26/2017 at 12:12 AM, SimoneS said:

I just watched this. I was pretty bored for most of it.  My reaction to the alien's gift of their language which could help humans see the future was "uh?" I thought that they must be optimists if they think that 1) humans would still thriving in 3000 years (a big chunk of people would use their knowledge of the future to play the stockmarket or lottery or to know when to quit when they are a hot gambling streak) and 2) humans would be so grateful for the gift of knowing the future that they would help the aliens in 3000 years, more likely the government(s) will be trying to build a "wall" over the earth to keep them out. Clearly, they have never met us. I also found it implausible even with all the help that Louise had that she could decipher and translate such a different language over such a short period of time.

I didn't know about the "twist" so I was surprised, but then I felt manipulated as clearly the show portrayed Louise as dour at the beginning to give the impression that she was mourning her child. I understood with her decision to go ahead and marry the guy and have Hannah. However, she should have had him learn the language and see the future so he could make the decision knowing what was going to happen. As usual, Jeremy Remy is such a bland leading man. He has no charisma whatsoever. He should be a supporting character always.

I too couldn't understand Forest Whitaker's "New England" accent at first. Whose idea was that?

His accent sounded a bit like a Baltimore accent.  Maybe I’ve seen too many episodes of the wire.

[paramitch]

Okay, I know this movie was ages ago, and I so enjoyed the posts then. But I've watched it easily 4-5 more times since I first saw it, and to me the movie has only grown in beauty and richness with each viewing, so I thought I'd jump in further with my own thoughts.

First off, having watched multiple times now, I would argue to a few responses:

1. Louise sees the future but she still has to relive it. It's intrinsic, to me, to her blessing and her curse. Her visions don't mean she skips it. She touches directly on this in her final quote, that she sees the pain ahead yet welcomes it, and would not live without it. She will welcome the sweetness and agony of each moment ahead.

2. I feel that the future is not totally set. Yes, I think as others have noted here, certain points in the timeline are more set than others. For instance, Louise's daughter is always going to die. Because nothing Louise does will affect that. Nothing. Because there is nothing technologically, as far as we know, that will allow her to change that. But if a word of language could have done so, a different meeting, then yes, I could see it.

Meanwhile, however, knowing certain outcomes, I think there are still a thousand ways Louise can alter the tapestry of her own future and those that touch upon that future. And my take is that those future visions will continue to subtly morph as needed.

Put simply, I don't think the language of the heptapods takes away the idea of choice. Louise and others can still choose what to say and how to say it. What to do and when and how they do it. Some points on their timelines are set, but others are flexible.

Which is why, if you watch this movie again, there's a fairly strong implication more than once that  Louise's fate with Ian may be flexible, and that, in fact, they may stay together this time (which makes sense to me because she may choose a different time, scenario, or phrasing to tell him or not to tell him about their daughter's fate). There are, for instance, scenes on the timeline after he was informed of his daughter's fate (in Louise's vision) where he settles in with Louise and the child to snuggle or read a book, and it is apparent he is returning home (and not currently living there).

On 11/12/2016 at 2:08 PM, wlk68 said:

As for the rest of the audience, I could tell when they finally 'got' it - that moment near the end of the movie where everything clicked into place for them. There were audible intakes of breath and soft murmurs all around me in the theater. 

 

That little moment when she asks "Who is this child?" gave me incredible goosebumps, the most I think since the late revelation in "The Sixth Sense." I still always gasp a little at that moment. It's gorgeous. I do not think (to note here) that Louise was a sad sack beforehand, BTW. I think she's simply awkward, like so many of us, an introvert and quiet and perhaps starting to despair that she'd never fit in anywhere or with anyone. I loved her connection to Ian, and vice versa.

On 11/14/2016 at 8:32 AM, questionfear said:

One thing to consider is that if you do embrace this fully deterministic viewpoint, it implies that Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner had no choice-they were always going to get together and have a child, and they were always going to get divorced, because that was how their lives were going to play out based on everything that had already happened. 

I loved your post, and it really made me think about the philosophy of the film. But I disagree that mastering the heptapod language removes all choice. I think that would be agony, and not a model humanity could sustain. But that a mastery of the heptapod language that retained the ability for self-will, empowerment, and choice (at least on a thousand small issues every day month and year) I can accept and believe in. And I can see how those things would be in fact exhilarating and directly influential to in fact improving their lives and outcomes.

As evidence, there's that incredible moment when Louise asks Ian whether, if he saw his life, start to finish, would he change anything. And he says quietly (and I think Renner was lovely in the role) that he might share with the people in his life more about his feelings. He has already learned. He is seeing the future even if he doesn't understand that yet. I think this signifies for the rest of the film how everyone affected by the heptapods may respond... they are better people. They have seen how things might go. They respond instead with their better selves in the moment. Even if it won't change larger history. It gives them and their loved ones peace. They live better, richer and more fulfilled lives.

That's my take.
 

On 11/14/2016 at 2:40 PM, phalange said:

I saw this over the weekend and it's among my top favorites of 2016. In fact, probably my number one. I went into it without having read the short story and without knowing any spoilers and I'm so glad for that. I did start to put things together a bit before the end thanks to a few scenes: Louise saying, "Ask your father. He's the scientist," Hannah's name being a palindrome, and then finally, the scene where Hannah says her father looks at her differently now. I want to see it again to catch even more foreshadowing. And because it's just a gorgeous movie. 

I love the design of the aliens. Many shows and movies have aliens looking very humanoid, so it's good to see something different. Also, poor Abbott. :( 

I adored the little hints, and I looooved the character of Abbott. And I loved that if we pay attention, Abbott and Costello are such different characters.

Those moments of the bomb ticking down are a great example for me of how I think the heptapods can see some of the future, but not all of it. This was a dark pocket and they did not know far ahead. Which is why the tapping on the glass so upset and affected me. They are such gentle creatures and he's trying to say, "Listen, listen, listen..."

My feeling upon rewatching the film is that Costello exits pretty reflexively in those final seconds, scenting danger. Abbott, on the other hand, remains, I think fully knowing his future. Because, subtly, he is closest to Louise. He walks with her. He talks with her. HE is the one who frantically throws the array of ink images up -- the hundreds and hundreds of heptapod words and warnings. So his sacrifice is so moving to me because I think it is heroic. He fully knew what was to come. He may not even have died in all future timelines. But he dies so Louise can find illumination and save the human race. 

Also, the words "Abbott is death process" break my heart. Every time.
 

On 11/15/2016 at 7:11 PM, stealinghome said:

I just got back from seeing this and wow, this movie is gorgeous. As others have said, the emotion is just so on point--it's subtle, but the way it builds and builds and builds is just immense. And its insights into what it means to be human? Just hauntingly beautiful. It's definitely a film that will resonate more and more the older you get. I want to see it again, because it's a film that will reward rewatching, I think...or do I know, because it already happened? Heh.

Amy Adams was excellent and this was definitely her movie start to finish, but let's just say a pair of glasses doesn't make Jeremy Renner a believable genius.

This movie is what a Chris Nolan movie would be if he a) could write women and b) really GOT human emotion. I mean, I'm with all the reviews that say this was cerebral and thinking man's sci-fi, but the core of emotion at this movie was just sublime.

Beautiful.

Thank you thank you thank you. I agree with every single thing you said here, except that I loved Renner in the role of Ian.

On 11/20/2016 at 5:53 AM, wlk68 said:

Seeing this again today because it is totally worth a second viewing. And a third. And a fourth.

I felt the same way. And the rewatches proved actually more emotional to me.

On 11/21/2016 at 11:06 AM, vibeology said:

The way Louise and the team entered the ship was so powerful, especially the first time. She was clearly crossing into another space and each step was designed to separate the team in the ship from humanity outside. Putting on the suits, the ride out in the truck, going up on the lift, the gravity tunnel were these well thought out visual steps showing the audience that she was crossing into someplace different, a different world almost like in a fantasy story when the hero crosses into a magical land. Plus the visuals and concept of the gravity tunnel were so well done. 

The heptapods themselves were marvelous. So disquieting at first but somehow friendly looking in some moments. (I'm thinking specifically of the moment where "Ian Walks" and the heptapod copied.) The design there should be commended for pulling that off. I loved that they sounded like whales at moments and like radio static at others. It was the right mix between something I trust and something that freaks me out. I just loved the balance in creating them and think they are some of the most effective movie aliens ever.

I loved the heptapod creature design. It was genuinely alien and yet comforting, and I loved the whale sounds resonance of their spoken noises. I also loved the moment when Louise and Ian enter the ship. Especially Louise's palpable terror, and Ian's genuine exhilaration (his laugh when he touches the walls of the ship is one of my favorite moments in the entire film -- Carl Sagan would have loved it). 

On 2/27/2017 at 8:29 AM, vibeology said:

Because the Heptapods do not experience linear time they exist both in a time where we have already helped them and they have already visited us to prepare us to help them. By having the gift of their language we are supposed to be able to unlock doors to knowledge we didn't previously have by knowing thing that we will one day know. Imagine Bill Gates inventing Windows because he can see that in the future he has invented it and can interact with it. In addition, by coming when they did, they helped unite the world so that we don't kill each other before they need us. The gift isn't about communicating with other people; its about how we understand and interact with ourselves and the world around us.

That's a lovely way of putting it and exactly how I feel about the gift of the heptapods. They are giving us the breath of life and death at the same time; the realization that consequences can be beyond our imagining.

On 2/27/2017 at 8:44 AM, Madding crowd said:

Still don't understand how this will ultimately change mankind. I don't agree this would prevent other Countries from causing wars and violence. I liked the movie but the overall message and the fact that Amy Adams had to live with knowing her daughter would die young dilutes the appeal for me. To me it takes away our humanity to know what happens . If I meet my future husband, I already know I married him so there is no point in first dates, first kisses. If I pick up a book I know I have already read it. Experiences and emotions are what life is all about.

 

The movie argues differently. The movie argues that your first kiss will be more moving, not less, if you have had your last. The movie argues that having to view the outcome of war -- direct and devastating and immediate into your own brain -- will dissuade you from future wars and cause you to seek peace. I think if anything the movie and heptapods emphasize the potential gifts of humanity versus taking them away. Our gift is our combination of intellect, emotion and drive. The heptapods remind us that this is both a blessing and curse. They remind us of the cost.

We'll still feel emotions. We'll still fall in love, experience love, life and loss. But we will also constantly gauge the cost of every action. In so, so so many cases (the vast majority) this can only be a good thing. What would you do if you saw your future yet still had the power to improve it? Would you call your family more? Floss? Be braver? This is what their language offers.

On 2/27/2017 at 8:56 AM, vibeology said:

And see the knowing part was beautiful for me. It became not about where you're going but savoring the steps along the way. Louise has her daughter, knowing how its going to end because it isn't the ending that matters. It's going for walks in the rain or helping her daughter with her homework or talking with her at her bedside. Louise isn't not experiencing things, she's just experiencing them in a non-linear fashion.

THIS.

On 2/27/2017 at 3:34 PM, stealinghome said:

I can't imagine how being able to know the future WOULDN'T change mankind (or at least the people who master the heptapods' language enough to have the temporal flashes...I thought the movie made clear you have to be fluent in the language, you can't just pull out a human-hept dictionary and construct some poorly-written sentence. Sapir-Whorf and all).

 

Again, this. The language is a hard-won gift. The language gives its bearers the gift of potential consequence and lets them lead their best lives.

Edited April 26, 2018 by paramitch
missing word aghghghh

[Ohwell]

Good God.

[rmontro]

How many people do you suppose ended up learning the language?  It seems odd that Jeremy Renner didn't fully learn it, since he was part of the project.  But apparently he didn't, because he didn't know what was going to happen to his daughter.  Maybe he even chose not to learn it.

[paramitch]

On 4/25/2018 at 11:42 AM, Ohwell said:

Good God.

Uh... thanks?

3 hours ago, rmontro said:

How many people do you suppose ended up learning the language?  It seems odd that Jeremy Renner didn't fully learn it, since he was part of the project.  But apparently he didn't, because he didn't know what was going to happen to his daughter.  Maybe he even chose not to learn it.

My 2 cents is that Ian doesn't have Louise's facility for languages, so he's able to grasp some moments (as implied in the film) without going into actual fluency. So he's blocked from the deeper revelations about their daughter or her fate. 

In a big-picture sense, it seems like the language becomes at least somewhat ingrained across mass-market U.S. culture, based on Louise's book and its becoming a bestseller. But I suspect that very few become fluent to Louise's degree -- so some mysteries (plot points) remain hidden.

The irony for me is that I'd love to take a crack at this language. I don't have an ear for traditional languages but do much better with cipher-based approaches, like AMSLAN. I'd love to learn the Heptapods' language... if I were brave enough to take the leap.

Edited July 19, 2018 by paramitch

[rmontro]

20 hours ago, paramitch said:

The irony for me is that I'd love to take a crack at this language.

I've thought about learning languages before, mainly because I have heard that it gives you a new perspective on things.  Probably the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that they talked about in the movie, that language rewires your brain.  But as appealing as that might sound, I've never gotten very far because it's not very practical in that I wouldn't have that many opportunities to use it.  Lately I've thought about learning Spanish, since there are people in town who speak it, and there are several Spanish language channels on cable.

But the cool thing about this language is that it offers a benefit beyond mere communication.  If you call seeing the future as a benefit - which I guess it is, because the aliens called it a gift.  Stop and think about it though, would you really want that gift?  If you did, it would make a nice incentive to learn it.

[Sandman]

An interesting tidbit I found while digging around trying to find out more about the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: while completing his PhD., Sapir went to work with cultural anthropologist Alfred Kroeber to document indigenous languages in California. Kroeber, of course, was also the father of one Ursula K. Le Guin, who had a thing or two to say her own self about the power of language to shape reality, and about the far-reaching effects of two cultures alien to each other meeting for the first time.  

Edited July 31, 2018 by Sandman

[Sandman]

On 4/25/2018 at 2:34 AM, paramitch said:

Also, the words "Abbott is death process" break my heart. Every time.

True, true.

[VCRTracking]

Finally saw it and I liked it. Very thought provoking. Also amazing that the success of the film hinged on the fact that Amy Adams can look either 35 or 45 depending on the lighting!

[Simon Boccanegra]

On 2/16/2021 at 5:39 PM, VCRTracking said:

Finally saw it and I liked it. Very thought provoking. Also amazing that the success of the film hinged on the fact that Amy Adams can look either 35 or 45 depending on the lighting!

I've also read Eric Heisserer's screenplay. It's very good, although there's one subplot/complication in the middle that I'm glad got the scissors, so the movie's final form is an improvement. Heisserer's first description of the main character is "Louise has a clean, timeless look about her; the kind of woman who ages gracefully." They could not have cast her more effectively.

Tzi Ma gives one of the great one-scene performances in this movie. When we finally meet this General Shang, he's gracious and there's a formal warmth to his interaction with Louise, yet we can sense a forceful personality. It isn't difficult to imagine this man also being a feared military leader. I can't imagine an actor getting more into (or out of) those few minutes.

[BetterButter]