Spoilers.
-
doorclosed321 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 02:04 AM)
Yes, her advanced understanding of language had already begun to reprogram her brain, heptopods just brought it out in her and explained what it was. The reason she was so good at their language was becuase she'd already started to consider time non linear and that's half the battle to learning their language. That was her Rosetta stone
-
Joel_morley5 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 03:24 AM)
That's quite an assumption. She was an expert at languages yes, but why would that reprogram her brain to be able to see things in a non linear time frame? The languages that she is an expert in are all based on linear time.
-
doorclosed321 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 03:30 AM)
Well what did then if it wasn't her understanding of language already? I'm not saying she would've mastered a time free existence without the help of heptopods. She probably never would've got beyond dreaming her "future". But one things for certain she starts both te movie and book having these visions in her dreams, even before the she's met the heptopods.
Maybe it is done this way deliberately to show there's no real sequence and the visions she having before meeting the heptopods are shown to us out of sequence and they really happened after meeting them? That's the onky two real possibilities, so no I don't think it "quite an assumption", I think it's a reason able one of onky two reasonable possibilities.
Like I said though it's one I think works, as explains why she's so good at their language, it was her Rosetta stone -
Joel_morley5 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 06:59 AM)
Well if there's no good explanation to why she was having visions of the future before she learned the Heptapod language, it's just further evidence that the writer just throws ideas together to make a cool narrative, without any attempt to ensure it makes sense.
It's the same point I'm arguing elsewhere. I actually really enjoyed the film, but I want to call them out for trying to look clever.
It's a bit like how the TV show Lost had everyone guessing and discussing the clever writer's theories of what was going on and in the end it was a load of beep When there's no general understanding of how things work, it makes the creator appear clever, but at the same time you could show someone a baby's scribble and tell them it was created with every bend and squiggle fully intended, and have experts pouring over the complexity for years. -
doorclosed321 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 07:20 AM)
Some people like everything spoon fed to them. Some people like things ambiguous and open to interpretation. some people like different things depending on their mood.
Me personally, I hated lost. Didn't watch past the second episode. I loved this film though and I don't think everything has to be explained fully. I watched the film before I read the book and understood it a certain way. I read the book which goes into more detail, and it pretty much confirmed my understanding of the movie.
By the way, this book is the first book of fiction I've ever read and enjoyed. If you haven't read it, I'd recomend it -
Joel_morley5 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 07:38 AM)
Yeah, I ordered the book straight after watching the film!
I am absolutely the opposite of someone who likes films spoon fed to them, just check my rating history. Donnie Darko, Apocalypse Now, Eternal Sunshine, Inception. These are all films that people bring out the "spoon fed" line against the films' detractors, but are all highly rated for me.
Just because something is left unexplained, it doesn't mean that there is a meaningful answer. Some writers sit down and think, OK i need to make X go to Y or maybe X feel strongly about Y, and they think how can I do that? Some writers have the ability to give plausible reasons, others just don't try and explain it and in this case the audience are applauding the ingenuity of it all. -
doorclosed321 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 07:46 AM)
After researching chiang stuff the last few days, I get the impression everything he writes is deliberate and precise. I certainly think the reason it's wrote like that is to convey either one of my two possible explanations. In the book lots more is explained. Maybe I just got lucky and guessed the film as chiang intended the book more or less, even though the film doesn't explain everything aswel. I mean out of the millions who saw it, some people had to
-
jchapter — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 03:29 PM)
And you've never read a book of fiction before?! I appreciate that you're commenting on here but you need to read more fiction before you comment on a sci-fi movie to that depth. Wow. I think you may be telling porkies.
-
aznxscorpion517 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 11:27 AM)
There is an explanation for her seeing visions before learning the language. IIRC The first words spoken in the movie is narration from Louise. The entire movie that we see is past tense. She's just remember/telling it to the audience so it doesn't break the narrative. That is how it is in the short story too. All the alien stuff is past tense and narration/stuff about daughter is present tense.
-
doorclosed321 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 11:37 AM)
Yes you are right. I just check the book and the tenses do change. So basically that means what? This whole is basically her telling her daughter the story before she dies or something?
Thanks either way -
aznxscorpion517 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 03:04 PM)
In the short story she is basically telling her daughter about the life she will live (and Louise's own experiences with her). Anything about the aliens is her remembering how she gained the ability to do that in the first place. This is all recollection on Louise's part. By the end we realize the entire story was just her thoughts mere moments before she decides to "make love" to her husband and conceive Hannah. If I remember correctly that is how the short story goes. The movie feels like they were trying to do that as well but it wasn't as clear. Probably because we see and hear dialogue in the flash forwards instead of narration like the short story, which would have clued us in with past tense and present tense words.
-
Stev-2 — 9 years ago(November 22, 2016 02:33 AM)
Anything about the aliens is her remembering how she gained the ability to do that in the first place. This is all recollection on Louise's part. By the end we realize the entire story was just her thoughts mere moments before she decides to "make love" to her husband and conceive Hannah.
Hmm. I haven't read the short story, but based on your description, I feel the movie tried to invert that. That is, the 'present' of the movie was the regular action and events on screen most of the time - primarily the events in Montana. These were the exact days the aliens were here (including arriving and leaving); from her turning up to work (arrival day) to the last shot of the film when she's hugging Ian still at the Montana base (leaving day).
Anything you see outside of that timeframe is a flash-forward vision caused as she is learning Heptapod, or the occasional memory. The opening and closing montages with v/o are a nod to what the book did, but I don't think the movie is trying to portray the events you see on screen as all about her remembering stuff. Could be wrong though. I'm watching again on Thursday, so will try to view with your theory in mind. -
Stev-2 — 9 years ago(November 22, 2016 01:23 AM)
why she was having visions of the future before she learned the Heptapod language, it's just further evidence that the writer just throws ideas together to make a cool narrative, without any attempt to ensure it makes sense.
I don't think that's fair in this case. You're right that happened in some of Lost, but I didn't see any evidence this movie threw out ideas just to be intriguing at the time without any idea at all how to pay them off later (which is what Lost did a lot).
In terms of the discussion around her visions of the future before she met the aliens, I'm pretty sure she didn't have any visions before learning at least a little Heptapod. I'm not sure about the opening montage with voice-over. Where that's taking place (so to speak) is not completely clear. Is it just part of the thoughts she's having at the end of the movie shown to us first? (The end of the movie being the day the aliens leave and her and Ian appear to get together.) Is it her thoughts at the end of her linear life, as some have suggested? But that sequence is clearly not party of the regular narrative.
That scene aside, once the regular movie starts with her going in to work, I'm pretty sure there are no flash forwards until she learns a bit of Heptapod. Albeit they push it a bit; she's learned very little when having her first 'non-linear visions'.