I’m no veteran of film festivals—and indeed, I only started going to Austin’s Fantastic Fest last year. But if it ends up being the only film festival at which I’m a regular, I’m fine with that. It’s a “genre” festival, a term which encompasses high-profile fantasy like Miss Peregrine’s Home For Peculiar Children (complete with Tim Burton on the festival red carpet), sensational (if not SFnal) art films like Park Chan-wook’s The Handmaiden, a surprise screening of M. Night Shyamalan’s SPLIT, and some magnificently disreputable midnight movie trash from all over the world. This year also featured horror short films presented as VR experiences, a “Satanic Panic Escape Room,” and the FF traditional evening of debates settled by fisticuffs at a local boxing gym.
And, yes, well, it happened over a month ago, didn’t it. You may be wondering why I’m only just now getting around to writing about more of the films I saw. Well, when Fantastic Fest 2016 kicked off, I was 37.5 weeks pregnant. The weekend after it ended—the weekend that I originally had planned to use to catch up on my reviews—the baby arrived a week ahead of schedule. So I’ve been a little busy since then.
It would probably take another month altogether to write complete reviews for every film that I saw, so for now I’m going to stick to a few specific highlights. I’ll start with Denis Villeneuve’s Arrival, which opened the festival and which launches nationwide this weekend.
Tor.com readers are undoubtedly well aware that Arrival is adapted by Eric Heisserer from Ted Chiang’s novella Story of Your Life and if you’ve read that story, you’ll know what you’re getting into. If not, I recommend avoiding as much information in advance as you can manage—possibly even the remainder of this review, though I’ll try to be as circumspect as possible. If you read no further for now, suffice it to say that Arrival is an outstanding film—intelligently made and acted, deeply moving, and possibly requiring a full box of Kleenex, especially if you’re a parent. Arguably, it’s the film that Interstellar was trying to be before it faltered under its own weighty efforts.
Arrival’s opening is as emotionally bruising as that of Up (even more so, perhaps, to an expectant mother; I can’t pretend to be particularly objective about this). We see the birth of a daughter to linguist Dr. Louise Banks, glimpse fragments of their life together, and then watch the teenage daughter’s death from a terminal illness. Memories of her daughter continue to haunt Louise while she is recruited to communicate with aliens that have set up camp in enormous ovoid spaceships all over the earth. Louise and scientist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner)—both exuding a sort of nerdy Everyperson charm—slowly establish a rapport with two of the heptapods, who Ian nicknames “Abbott and Costello.” Louise and Ian begin to learn the aliens’ unique written system of language, trying to establish enough of a common vocabulary to identify the the purpose for visiting Earth. Meanwhile, governments and individuals grow increasingly antsy and certain—absent any real evidence—that the aliens pose a threat, thus creating a ticking clock against which Louise and Ian must race to prove that the heptapods’ intentions are peaceful.
In a Q&A after the Fantastic Fest screening, screenwriter Heisserer pointed out that this conflict didn’t exist in Chiang’s original story. It makes for better cinema, perhaps, but it may be the most uninterestingly conventional element in the film. To the filmmakers’ credit, they evade many clichés—for instance, Col. Weber (Forrest Whitaker), the military officer leading the American contact mission, is Louise’s ally, where in a lesser film he would have been the primary antagonist. But the increasingly urgent “are they hostile, and if so do we strike first” plot concludes via a device that got laughter from one FF audience and applause from another. On the other hand, it may be unfair to complain about deus ex machina in a story that hinges on a synthesis between the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and the non-linearity of time.
It’s in the subtleties around language and time that Arrival is at its finest. Louise’s story is not entirely as straightforward as the first fifteen minutes of the film might suggest, and the truth is revealed with considerable skill and delicacy. Heisserer wryly noted that his adaptation was called “execution-dependent” by studio executives, which is another way of saying that without top-notch filmmaking, the movie would probably crash and burn spectacularly.
Luckily, Denis Villeneuve—who sent his regrets to Fantastic Fest, saying that he was busy “making a movie about the future”—is a director with a solid grasp of science fiction, the craft of film, and the intricacies of character. He builds the world of the film with small details and just the right amount of information dumps as needed, and the story’s surprises come as revelations, not cheap twists.
It seems strange to say about a film of this scale, but in a way, Arrival sneaks up on you with its power and its excellence. Perhaps the sheer nerdiness of its premise disarms you for a while there, despite the wrenching opening sequence. The question of whether Louise and Ian will beat the itchy military trigger fingers of the world, predictable though it may be, is a familiar cinematic story that might lull you into thinking you know what kind of movie you’re watching. And then in the third act, Arrival hits you with something extraordinary about love, free will, and what it means to have a child. And in a climate where public discourse is increasingly shaped by fear and xenophobia, it’s truly wonderful to see a film that prizes communication and mutual understanding. For all these reasons, Arrival is easily one of the year’s best films. Don’t miss it.
Karin Kross lives and writes in Austin, TX. She may be found elsewhere on Tumblr and Twitter.
Can’t wait.
Congrats on the baby!
Congratulations! Remember sleep when they sleep and you can never have to much cuddle time. This movie sounds fascinating.
So is this the place to talk about the movie in a spoilery way? (There is something of a big spoiler in one of the comments on another thread from before the film came out).
Saw it last night and, for now, I’ll just echo Karin’s positive review — a must-see for any fan of thought-provoking SF.
Also not sure how spoilery I can be here, but fair warning to those reading.
I saw the movie Sunday, and was not really impressed, and told all my friends that I do not recommend seeing it.
First, I will state that I had not read the book, and having seen the movie I think it probably makes a better book.
Second, I will also point out to potential movie goers that the movie trailers are hugely misleading. This is not a movie about aliens, nor is it a movie about how our world/government will react to them, not in any meaningful sense at least. Those plot elements are cliche, and merely there as a driving force for the “real” plot, which is the spoilery bit.
This is not an action movie at all (which the trailers, to me at least, try to imply with the big spectacle and ALIENS tag). It’s a philosophical movie, one that will make you think, although I would not even put it into hard SF since most of the “science” is shaky at best (you have to accept the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis firstly, which I don’t anyway, and take it to some insane extreme). I think likening it to Interstellar is unfair, since Interstellar was (at least trying to be) hard SF. This plot to me mostly reads as a thought experiment.
As far as the beginning of the movie, I did mentally liken it to UP, but not in a good way. I actually laughed at the beginning for trying to pull an “UP” moment — but it was completely emotionally flat. In UP, despite how short the intro sequence is, we are given just enough time to connect with Ellie and feel invested in their relationship. Here we are just shown a baby, and then the girl growing, and are supposed to feel connected? I guess for people who see a baby and immediately go AWWW then perhaps it works. However I found it rather cliche and unconvincing. Also, the entire “twist” is given away in these moments because of the voice over, so, overall it just didn’t work for me.
Finally, the movie wasn’t visually appealing or impressive. The acting was okay, but their choice to have Amy breathing loudly into her microphone the entire movie really kills the tension in the scenes where one might actually have cause to hyperventilate.
Overall, it was an okay movie, but I can say I’m glad I went for an early bird special and only paid $5 to see it. If I had paid more I would have been very disappointed.
A spoiler warning from me as well:
went to see it yesterday. It was a well done movie, especially the music. And Amy Adams was great – maybe a contender for the Oscar, even though the movie didn’t give her any specific “now THAT’S the scene she has to get the award for!”-scenes.
I had read the short novel, so I’d have been annoyed if it were more actiony. I can see how some people might be disappointed. When I was young, I was really disappointed in The Contact, though it’s actually in hindsight a great movie.
It was an interesting introduction to some philosophical ideas about time and language. And a great emotional representation to some of the ideas.
I loved the scene where she examined the sentence “What is your purpose in Earth?” and showed how difficult it is to get to that question in a situation where no-one can be sure what their answer is to a simple “hello” – or even if they have a concept of greeting anyone.
I also loved the fact she said the kangaroo-myth wasn’t true. I was so relieved they said it.
When we discussed it with my friend, the main thing gnawing us was the fact the movie never really challenged the determinism of the future she sees. Can the future be changed? She even says she saw the future and her life with the daughter – and she decided to go for it, because all the small unhappinesses of that life pale when compared to the moments of happiness. The dad said she chose wrong – so that kind of lets you know there WAS a choice. You could ask if the unhappiness of a known future is better than the uncertainty of a future she hasn’t seen. It’s a beautiful moment in the movie and you can see why she chose a life with her daughter, but some of the philosophical ideas weren’t analysed or challenged, merely illustrated through these characters.
It’s absolutely not a plothole. Nor a problem, really. But it somehow still kinda bothered us. Because in a sense it becomes a story about 2 kinds of fears before the unknown – the fear before the heptapods and the fear before an uncertain future.
Well into full spoiler territory here:
So, @6/Houndie (as well as anybody else who has both seen the film and read the story):
Am I alone in thinking that the “twist” in the movie was an over-reach vs. what was in the written story? Specifically (and last warning for the spoilers) I felt that having the impact of learning the Heptapod language include actual precognition weakened the film as SF. That is, I can see where Sapir-Whorf, taken to its extreme, could lead to the ability to experience events holistically, effectively outside of time — my reading of the emotional aspect of the story was that this ability to do that was a gift that allowed Louise to experience the whole of her daughter’s life as being present to her (rather than something that ended). I didn’t see any inherent violation of causality or re-working of the nature of time itself — as long as the story was being told after all the things described happened, the jumbling and melding of order of events makes perfect sense in this context; it doesn’t matter whether the daughter came before or after the aliens, the resulting whole is the same.
But the trick of the movie is effectively cognitive time-travel (in the film’s linear presentation of time, in addition to the emotional experiences related to her daughter, Louise remembers the book she will write in the future, allowing her to have the insight that will eventually allow the book to be written — it’s like Scotty “inventing” transparent aluminum in The Voyage Home). I have a hard time swallowing any amount of “re-wiring the brain” as able to make this possible (though I guess I see that it is more cinematic and closer to a traditional twist ending than might have otherwise been possible).
So I was all smug in my assessment of the relative merits of the story vs. movie in this respect, until I looked at the Wikipedia entry for the story, written before the film premiered, which seems to support the exact twist in the film (“learning Heptapod B enables Dr. Banks to know her daughter’s entire life even before she agrees to conceive her.”)
My copy of the book is out on loan, but am I crazy here? That Wikipedia quote seems to force a linear sense of time back on a story that has moved beyond it at that point.
I loved and was knocked over by the film. (Haven’t read the story yet). I am always more interested in the thematic and metaphorical subtexts of SF. I can see how you might like it less if you care about the “hard” science, worry too much about plot paradoxes, or find thought experiments less worthy of a story — my feelings are the opposite. What got me is that, as a parent, I have always felt that losing a child would be the most unbearable, unimaginable pain — and yet, it’s always possible, and I know people who have, and when tragedy happens you still have to live on. If we can’t face loss or pain we can’t heal or live with it. In this story, she chooses to have her daughter because she already knows and loves her daughter, and has a perspective on time in which that lifespan is eternal, always existing in a certain stretch of time. This makes the death more bearable. And I think it makes the choice to obliterate her daughter’s life unthinkable and impossible for her. What’s left out is how the father and daughter feel when they learn she has foreknowledge of this illness. There are no right answers, but the emotions and themes are powerful.
And, the way the military tension subplot was handled was, I agree, a helpful comment on our times.
<spoiler for short story!>
Haven’t seen the film. At first I decided not to, seeing a trailer with explosions and that extra conflict added in.. It seemed utterly unfamiliar to me. I think I probably will now, having heard that it has its own merits. My main reason for avoiding the film is that the story itself wrecked me.. I was in a doctor’s office waiting room finishing it up and my heart-raced until it burst at the end. It is one the very few stories that has ever made me physically cry, and for that it is dear to me. Just reading this brief review and the basic subplots caught me in the throat and made my eyes water.. becoming a dad is such a strange experience. (For an awesome short film with that same feeling, I completely recommend to everyone I know the film Cargo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gryenlQKTbE).
I do hope that this movie does extremely well, however, because I would LOVE to see “Hell is the Absence of God” on the big screen. It is my favorite of Chiang’s collection, and that visual adaptation would be mind blowing.
Love the cinematography and the cast, but … I wonder why she could save the world and not her child or marriage? Is one ‘time trick’ possible and the other not? Does it mean that some events are predetermined and others aren’t? Or does it mean that even in nonlinear 4D spacetime there are limitations? Hmm, the last time I checked, the Multiverse offers us endless solutions and endless timelines with zero paradoxes! Dr. Michio Kaku calls it ‘Physics of the Impossible’ (2008). Besides, there is more than that: Omniverse! See ‘The Illusion of Time’ at https://youtu.be/fCAnNWqQFOQ and ‘Imagining 10 Dimensions’ at https://youtu.be/gg85IH3vghA – or read my full review at https://www.facebook.com/notes/bob-bello/arrival-movie-review/718955114923314 – Thanks!
I thought this movie was terrific. The discussion about how language alters the way we perceive the world was incredibly well done.
Go have a listen to the Radiolab episode “Colors” for a mind-blowing experience that will alter how you view the world, specifically the part where humans couldn’t perceive the color blue until we had the concept for it.
Arrival does this exact thing by using the language of the aliens as a key to expanding our perceptions. Although presented as a straightforward extrapolation, the metaphor for how language actually affects our brains and how we perceive the world around us is spot on.
@7, I agree. The whole point is that the heptapods do not experience time linearly, so to say they (or eventually, Louise) “know the future” has no meaning. There is no future, there is no past, just like their semasiographic sentences have no beginnings or ends. I thought the film oversimplified this (or did not capture the same nuance that Chiang did in his story).
The other questionable change the film made: they change the daughter’s cause of death to a terminal illness, something Louise is certainly powerless to prevent. In the story, her daughter grows into quite the daredevil and dies in a mountain climbing accident. The movie’s change somewhat mitigates the profound emotional stakes for Louise.
@11: The discussion about how language alters the way we perceive the world was incredibly well done.
If you have the chance, go read Babel 17 by Delany.