Critics tend to be arty-farty types who prefer mysterious confusing plots that don't actually make any sense - like the
-
amormortua — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 05:18 AM)
No, the feminist attitude is not only expressed through a female character taking a centre stage.
Besides, previous Villenueve's picture was similarily constructed around a female "we should tell the truth" FBI agent surrounded by a group of (depicted as immoral) males. The pattern in his recent work is easy to discern. Also, one should expect that his sequel to "Blade Runner", despite Gosling's and Ford's presence, will also be female-driven.
'Arrival' distorts reality and insults audience's intelligence in many ways and its politics are plainly obvious. If someone, while analyzing a particular piece, choses to ignore that stuff - it's only a question of his/her ignorance.
But it's nothing new, it's always been like that: there are people who like something just because it looks "sophisticated", something they haven't seen before done in the genre And they don't care about its real meaning. That's how it is. -
Seestern — 9 years ago(December 01, 2016 04:38 PM)
Besides, previous Villenueve's picture was similarily constructed around a female "we should tell the truth" FBI agent surrounded by a group of (depicted as immoral) males. The pattern in his recent work is easy to discern.
I guess Alien is also a feminist movie then, right?
What a bs. I am everything else than politically correct, but I never has any issues with female main characters as long as they are not too ugly.
By the way, there is a simple reason why this film needs a female main character: Because of the daughter thing. That just would not work as well with male main character. Call me a sexist, but that's the way it is. -
Jesus Quintana — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 09:54 AM)
Movies like the Ghostbusters remake and The Force Awakens were also considered 'politically correct' and 'feminist' in certain corners for no other reason than they had the temerity to star females. It's pretty transparent that some men just have a problem with seeing women on screen in non-submissive roles.
-
danielgalun — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 11:20 AM)
Unfair, Ghostbusters really was feminist propaganda, if it was meant as a comedy it would have been funny. I don't feel like this was though, I didn't like it but that's not the reason. I loved Contact, which is pretty much this only good, and Jodi Foster is great in it, and her character also comes off as a lot smarter, stronger and more likeable than the character in this movie. In Contact all the opposition is male too, but they actually treat the issue of being a woman in a male dominated profession in a good way there, this movie doesn't even try to deal with it, or even imply it's an issue. I got no unreasonable feminist vibes from it at all. Let's not forget that feminism isn't inherently bad, it just the new age propaganda feminists that are a pest, there are still feminists that actually want to tell the truth and deal with real issues. Check out factual feminist on youtube for example, I doubt many people will be able to disagree with her.
-
znapper — 9 years ago(November 28, 2016 07:12 AM)
I am sure that if it was possible for Jeremy Renner to get pregnant and give birth, HE would be the linguistic.
The movie is probably more about human existentialism and you can probably draw it even further and ask if maternal, unconditional love is choice, faith, or neither.
I don't find it particularly feminist (and I am usually pretty good at spotting cheap-shots against men), a female protagonist is simply necessary to tell the story. The film does make a point of men being naturally more aggressive then women though..and we are. (interpretation of the Sanskrit word for 'war' being one of the points driven home).
Oh, and if you want a movie that is a REAL kiss-ass, praise the lord, artsy over-sold crap-o-rama, watch the Soviet made "Stalker".
Then you watch 'Arrival' again, I am sure your view would change pretty fast
-
amormortua — 9 years ago(November 28, 2016 10:29 AM)
No, no I watch too many movies and know too much about history and culture in general to be blind and just ignore an aggresive push towards feminism in contemporary cinema, especially considering big franchises. That's all I've to say about this.
-
iceblink1 — 9 years ago(December 11, 2016 10:34 AM)
I don't find it particularly feminist (and I am usually pretty good at spotting cheap-shots against men), a female protagonist is simply necessary to tell the story. The film does make a point of men being naturally more aggressive then women though..and we are. (interpretation of the Sanskrit word for 'war' being one of the points driven home).
Exactly, the movie isn't feminist, it's too stupid for that, it's unreasonably misandrist, but misandry does not imply feminism, it just implies stupidity, just like unreasonable misogyny does.
The question about the Sanskrit word for war made me cringe so badly - like that is how you would distinguish the abilities of a world-renowned and well-published expert from a recently qualified post-graduate (At the time of a worldwide alien invasion). It's insulting to the academic community and indicative of the stupidity of the writer.
Anyway, I've probably said enough here about this movie, even if it was unfairly censored, check my public ratings and recommended viewing for other movies I like or not. I don't usually get so riled, but this piece of shhhtii did annoy me after all the underserved praise showered on it.
5 people liked this comment -
dhs-07302 — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 12:49 PM)
She wasn't chosen by aliens, she was contacted by Colonel Weber because of her past success with helping the military. It wasn't until later on that the aliens realized she had a gift when she had contact with them. Her gift was that she could see the future. She did not realize this right away either, however, it was first evident in her visions of her future daughter. Throughout the movie we were led to believe that her dreams were of a daughter she lost in the the past and her memories teaching her daughter life's lessons helped her to figure out clues in her interactions with the aliens, but in reality she was tapping into the future to gain those clues. This ultimately manifests itself in a sequence of visions of herself in the future one including teaching college classes of the alien language, so it would seem likely that once she realized this she became aware that she knew their language and also the scene with the Chinese general The aliens told her that her gift was seeing the future, which caused an awakening of sorts for her, with the vision of her daughter playing with the playdough alien figure. Which we find out in a later scene, was made by her future husband Ian. She then figured out how to access her visions in order to find a way to appeal to the Chinese general's emotions in order to save humankind from war by telling him what his wife's dying words were to gain credibility with the general. The future vision of her talking with the general and the way the general spoke that he felt he needed to show her his private number and whisper in her ear what to say was explained in earlier parts with the aliens, as time not being linear. At the very end of the movie they reaffirmed all of this in the last dialogue with Ian. At this time she knew she would have a daughter who would die and she asked Ian, "if he could see his whole life from start to finish, would he change things?", to which he replied, "maybe I would say how I feel more often". Which I think also reaffirmed the idea of time not being linear in the sense that they could change things and that it doesn't have to end with them separating. I believe the aliens also knowing the future made this initial "arrival" to save the human race from themselves, so that 3,000 years in the future the human race would return the favor. We can assume by then that humans would be very advanced technologically and perhaps capable of extraordinary things and we do not know the circumstances under which the aliens may need help from humans.
-
BrainGremlin — 9 years ago(February 10, 2017 06:03 PM)
What that other guy said is totally accurate: you are bringing your own baggage here. The protagonist is female. She's
supposed
to be the reasonable one, being what the viewers connect with. You might have had a case if there were several women consistently outwitting several men (and ditto about statistics if the movie had several linguists all of whom were women, but we've got just the one; hardly a statistical anomaly of any sort), but as it stands there's barely even another woman in the film.
I don't wish to pass judgment, but I guess I will anyway: you could probably afford spending some time on introspection.
Sad story. You got a smoke? -
Berbil — 9 years ago(November 25, 2016 01:24 PM)
The aliens came because they had to find some human(s), not matter who, which had the potential to understand their language. If it hadn't been Louise, it would have been someone else, and the movie would have been about them instead.
Who it was is irrelevant, the only thing that mattered was that they met someone who would eventually do understand.
She is the only one with the ability because she is the first to learn the language. Of all the linguists in the world, only a small handful had access to the information.
Only when she starts to learn the language does she get the ability. All the other flash forwards disguised as flashbacks are just a trick the director is using to make the audience believe she is thinking about the past.
When they leave, she goes back to her life, marries, have a baby, and she writes a book and educates others to that eventually the whole humanity knows the language. -
iceblink1 — 9 years ago(November 26, 2016 07:25 AM)
She is the only one with the ability because she is the first to learn the language. Of all the linguists in the world, only a small handful had access to the information.
But she is shown in a "future vision" while still a young woman, with the published "Universal Language" book. So after only a few years millions of people must be able to see their future memories - which would make a big change to how the world works you would think.
Look, I was really hoping for this movie to be great, I had high hopes, and I like the two lead actors, but I can't abide all the sloppiness and the scientific ignorance abundant in the circle of movie critics (well in the circle of all arts critics really) . Obfuscation does not for a good story make, and dumb depictions of how scientists work is damaging to society.
5 people liked this comment -
Ford_Chase — 9 years ago(November 26, 2016 07:37 AM)
Yeah, I don't know why so many people are confused. The OP seems to think Louise has the ability and that's why she can talk to the aliens. He obviously missed the scene where they talked about how learning another culture's language can rewire the brain. Louise studied her ass off to learn the language, and thus rewired her own brain. We then see her teaching the language in a classroom at the end of the movie. So we can logically assume that as others learn the language their brains are rewired, and eventually all of humanity has unlocked the ability to experience time the way Louise and the aliens do. The OP also says the movie requires the viewer to believe in magic. Well, duh, it's a sci-fi movie so we have to open our minds to the fictional parts of the science that is presented. The movie was presented as a mystery, but it wasn't that difficult to figure out at the end.
-
iceblink1 — 9 years ago(November 26, 2016 08:51 AM)
If the science is wrong then the Aliens might as well have presented Louise with a magic crystal ball - why all the pretentiousness about language and "rewiring" the brain which can't possibly enable the ability to see the future by any known laws of physics. Oh I know why, all that pretentiousness is hugely appealing to scientifically ignorant arty types. You see, sci-fi doesn't just assume anything goes unless it's fantasy like Star Wars, and we're not in the Marvel world where no pretense of honest science is claimed.
Movie needed a science consultant who could have helped make it consistent, and a second writer to rewrite the aftermath of the Alien visit and its impact more believably.
5 people liked this comment -
duffasaurus — 9 years ago(November 26, 2016 09:18 PM)
When children are young they have no object permanence, they don't understand that just because they can't see something doesn't mean it's not there. As they get older the neurons in their brain form more complex neural connections and they see the world differently. This has to happen through experience, children need to understand language in order to learn. Neglected children who do not learn language and converse with other humans do not magically gain these abilities over time, it is a learned behavior. Suspend disbelief just a bit and it's not implausible to assume the aliens have done something similar to Louise's brain. She realizes just because she can't see the future doesn't mean it's not already there. Just because she hasn't experienced it yet doesn't mean she doesn't have knowledge of what the future holds. This is based on an actual hypothesis in quantum mechanics. People far smarter than your or I fully believe that our entire existence is happening at once, but humans are only capable of experiencing it linearly.
-
iceblink1 — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 07:35 AM)
Just because she hasn't experienced it yet doesn't mean she doesn't have knowledge of what the future holds. This is based on an actual hypothesis in quantum mechanics.This is based on an actual hypothesis in quantum mechanics
This statement and the rest of the stuff you posted is exactly what I'm criticizing - very flaky scientific thinking, that sounds cool to other scientifically illiterate people and is used as the basis for a nonsensical plot.
There is no hypothesis in quantum mechanics which enables one to see or predict the future, in fact the opposite is the case, in quantum mechanics the future is impossible to predict until it is observed/measured because it is fundamentally probabilistic.
Basing the plot around a pretentious interpretation of language and obfuscating in an attempt to allow basic laws of physics to be broken is too sloppy and unacceptable to make for a serious movie, maybe a children's movie, where the level of science understanding is about ok for the arty critics, and sloppiness is ok too.
5 people liked this comment -
Farshnoshket — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 07:50 AM)
Basing the plot around a pretentious interpretation of language and obfuscating in an attempt to allow basic laws of physics to be broken is too sloppy and unacceptable to make for a serious movie, maybe a children's movie, where the level of science understanding is about ok for the arty critics, and sloppiness is ok too.
You really have no idea how pretentious that sounds.
You sit on your high hill and look down at everyone and feel free to criticize people because they don't have the advanced scientific knowledge you have and believe films are not allowed to be made that question that knowledge.
You do that. The rest of us will just enjoy the ride. Sorry your super powers spoil films like this. Real shame.
The fact that you can't perceive that 99% of the public won't be viewing this film from your angle is your biggest issue.
If a science fiction film says some aliens use a circular type of language that we humans have never contemplated and whatever surrounds that language gives users to think differently giving them some abilities that we do not understand because it is an unknown most people will simply go with it because it's fiction and if we fail then we'd have to start questioning a lot more films fictional subject manner.
If it makes you happy call it science fantasy. Just because it looks like a duck and walks like a duck it doesn't have to be a duck.
Until some alien spacecraft appears out of nowhere in the world we know is real it's all just fiction.
No one here should have to argue quantum physics with you and if you feel otherwise, again your problem.