Skip to main content

How to Talk to Aliens


          Ever since H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds, we’ve been fascinated with alien invasion stories. The idea of a power we know nothing about coming to Earth is a very foreboding one and over the years we’ve used it as an outlet for our societal fears and tensions. But few have taken a less hostile approach to their depiction of alien visitors. Can this unconventional take on an old story work for Arrival, the newest film from Canadian director Denis Villeneuve?
          A host of UFOs arrive on Earth setting down at various locations planet-wide and the world governments decide tor try and communicate. Enter Louise (Amy Adams), an expert linguist brought to the American landing location in Montana to attempt to decipher the alien language. She’s accompanied by theoretical physicist Ian (Jeremy Renner), and together they work to understand these creatures and learn why they’ve come to Earth.
          The idea of portraying alien contact in a realistic context is nothing new in movies. Close Encounters of the Third Kind and District 9 among other films have explored this. What Arrival does differently is it focuses on communication rather than conflict with the alien counterparts. Great science fiction, in fact great storytelling in general, is that which allows us to discover something about ourselves. Arrival does this for one by showing us just how complex and confusing our methods of communication are. From an objective standpoint this movie really emphasizes how many ways there are to interpret meanings that we don’t think twice about. But while it’s fascinating, the slow pace makes parts of the film a bit of a bore. And the visuals aren’t compelling enough to make up for this. The interior of the alien ships are minimalist in design which doesn’t give the setting any character. The aliens themselves, large and squid-like with long looming tentacles are nothing new in design, being not all that dissimilar to the invading antagonists of Wells’ 1897 novel.
          The human characters are a little more fleshed out. As usual, Amy Adams is really good. This is a character who’s both quite fearful and incredibly curious about the aliens. Their language which they communicate through symbols made of a kind of gas is something of a puzzle to her. And I like the detail that the alien language very much like human written language has similar patterns from one character to the next. There are other dimensions to Louise that are explored as the film moves along which Adams performs consistently. Renner is also pretty good, the more enjoyable of the two as though he’s a scientist, he has a common guy’s attitude towards this work. Forest Whitaker plays the military leader Colonel Weber who’s overseeing the first contact: he’s alright apart from a strange accent choice. And Michael Stuhlbarg may be forever stuck playing supporting roles in movies like this, but is he ever good at them! In this film he plays Agent Halpern and gets a lot more to do than his last throwaway role in Doctor Strange.
          Like with Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar, some will be tempted to compare this film favourably to the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Arrival is nowhere near that level of abstract and visual brilliance, though the alien vessels themselves in their mysterious aura and solemn black shapes are clearly hearkening back to the monoliths from that film. Nonetheless this is a very cerebral work of sci-fi in its ideas and concepts, as well its themes on humanity and the nature of the universe. The centrepiece of communication, both between the humans and aliens as well as humans amongst themselves is a good focus and gives way for relatable commentary. I can’t go into detail as to what exactly the other ideas are, but they’re quite intriguing. They’re notions that I think are beyond this film itself in their scope, and worthy of exploration in a narrative style less conventional like 2001. And you leave the movie really contemplating its meaning which is a very good thing. Even if some of the reveals adding to this deeper effectiveness of the film come at the expense of the realistic atmosphere it was trying to keep beforehand.
          Arrival is a movie that really opens itself up for analysis. Though it’s a smart movie, it isn’t as engaging as it wants to be. There’s something missing in the execution. With some better pacing, and more creative visuals, it would probably be one of the best movies of 2016. But it over-reaches a little on its premise making for a film that’s certainly not bad, but not really great either. It’s just… interesting. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more