 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Re: This is like saying 2001 was all about the hotel scene at the end. (spoilers by Vested Id 11/27/2016, 6:07am PST | ||||
 |
 |
|||
Mischief Maker wrote: Sapir-Whorf is a Linguistics 101 theory that correctly surmises that language determines thought, rather than language being simply a projection or encoding of thought. In English we divide time between a "past", "present" and "future", which results in us regarding the "present" as an infinitesimally small unit of time, a point on a line. Other cultures (I think Hopi was Whorf's example) use terms which do not divide up time in that way and therefore do not have a vanishing present, and sometimes end up placing myths and legends as phenomenons running on frontage roads alongside the timeline proper. so the movie takes that idea and expands it to, "well what if you start talking like an alien, what would that do to your thought process?" "If you toss a wholesome circular-brushstroke alien grapheme at the ceiling, will it float through the roof and fly to the moon?" Learning an alien language does not give your brain magic powers, it would just potentially change how you organize your thinking. I still really love this movie, like everybody else. It's the only film to combine elements of Hiroshima Mon Amour and Bill And Ted. Yeah, the ability to see through time opens up all sorts of chicken and egg problems, but I think the movie wiggles out of the worst of it by making clear that this power is imperfect, like when the Chinese Admiral meets Amy Adams in the future and she has no memory of talking with him previously despite that being a pivotal moment for humanity. The real chicken-egg problem is what we're supposed to make of a movie that feels like a gift from the future to a country that just elected Trump. Like Mike at redlettermedia, I like that it's a movie about people solving a problem with logic... Communicating with alien intelligence movies are doomed to disappointing endings, I think. They've either barreled on with the disappointment like Contact, or made the ending weird and ambiguous like 2001 or Soderbergh's Solaris. I think Arrival acquits itself about as well as it can at this doomed task. The ending is beyond perfect. It's a proper mindfuck twist unlike anything since (i.e. exactly like) that one season finale of Lost. And it hinges on her making a decision about her future which brings her a lot of pain ultimately and divides her from her loves ones, but which she serenely accepts to make anyway. The beginning scene in the lecture hall plays out like a night course taught on Nov 8th. I know it shouldn't matter but, fucking home run, this is a Hamilton-level synchronicity. Also the title is a double-entendre. |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
"Arrival" is very good hard sci fi. by 11/22/2016, 6:46pm PST  Not hard sci-fi by 11/22/2016, 11:08pm PST You JUST NAMED the concept the movie expores! (spoilerz btw) NT by 11/23/2016, 6:26am PST I thought this movie was stupid. (spoilers) by 11/25/2016, 8:50pm PST I appreciate that they made a sci-fi movie without explosions and chases by 11/25/2016, 11:55pm PST This is like saying 2001 was all about the hotel scene at the end. by 11/26/2016, 5:39am PST Bah! Was less ambiguous. COMMUNCATION! NT by 11/26/2016, 5:40am PST Wait... no... argh! I'm going back to bed. NT by 11/26/2016, 5:42am PST Re: This is like saying 2001 was all about the hotel scene at the end. (spoilers by 11/27/2016, 6:07am PST Okay, I misinterpreted you. NT by 11/27/2016, 7:26am PST |
