|
Terrible Horse posted:Because the movie doesn't present it as "something she hasn't done yet" but rather "something that is". It's already done, she's just watching it.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Terrible Horse posted:I agree that its up for interpretation, but for me the movie never even raises the possibility of choice. Louise says "I just figured out why my husband left me" years before it happens. Most movies with time travel/knowledge of the future present it as just more information available to the character, and they can accept that future or try for something different. This movie truly presented it as time not mattering at all ("there is no time") and when there's no time, there's no causality and therefore no choice. You kind of have to throw Aristotelian either/or logic out the window when dealing with these concepts because this sort of thing views the universe as being beyond cause and effect. Like, the whole idea of knowing the future completely negates the definition of the word 'future' in any sense that we perceive it. If you know the future it's no longer the future, it's the past. The best way I've heard it communicated is to think of it as an eternal 'now', but that 'now' being much larger than you perceive it. There's theories in quantum mechanics like Bohr's model and the concept of two-state vector formalism that touch on this (there's another that's much more relevant to the themes of this movie but I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head), but I'm not a physicist and my grasp of those concepts as defined in physics is limited and very amateur-hour. I've only recently dipped into physics because of its connection to mysticism, which is my main hobby. As much as Arrival is a sci-fi film, it's suuuuuper mystic, like these ideas are pretty much laid out in the Vedantas. Which is probably why they have that statue of Shiva at CERN (science + mysticism, baby). So, Science Goons will probably hate it. Lil Mama Im Sorry fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:You kind of have to throw Aristotelian either/or logic out the window when dealing with these concepts because this sort of thing views the universe as being beyond cause and effect. Like, the whole idea of knowing the future completely negates the definition of the word 'future' in any sense that we perceive it. If you know the future it's no longer the future, it's the past. The best way I've heard it communicated is to think of it as an eternal 'now', but that 'now' being much larger than you perceive it. There's theories in quantum mechanics like Bohr's model and the concept of two-state vector formalism that touch on this (there's another that's much more relevant to the themes of this movie but I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head), but I'm not a physicist and my grasp of those concepts as defined in physics is limited and very amateur-hour. I've only recently dipped into physics because of its connection to mysticism, which is my main hobby. I know what you mean, but I guess what I'm saying is, the themes youre talking about, and the themes of the movie, are just anathema to the idea of narrative. Like, narrative means a series of events that occur in sequence. The idea of "time" is necessary for that. I guess I'm wondering if its possible to tell a satisfying "story" about non-linear time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:But then she would still have to go and do those things in order for them to occur. The entire point of the film is that she chooses to have a child anyway despite knowing that she would die young. Renner's character even leaves her for making that choice. The whole film hinges on her free will. The entire point of the film is that she has already had the child. She can't choose not to -- in the sense that we, as linear-time-experiencing-plebs know "choice" -- it has already happened. Renner, as a similarly linear-time-experiencing-pleb can't conceive of how she could not have chosen differently for that exact same reason, when in reality she had no choice; it was already done. That's why the movie doesn't jive with our notion of free will, because in an instant, all of our life's choices have already been made -- and we are resigned to watch them unfold like characters in a movie. As viewers we are constrained to being able to conceive of life and its choices as one long linear string of chronological events, not as something that occurs all in an instant. MiddleEastBeast fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
MiddleEastBeast posted:The entire point of the film is that she has already had the child. She can't choose not to -- in the sense that we, as linear-time-experiencing-plebs know "choice" -- it has already happened. Renner, as a similarly linear-time-experiencing-pleb can't conceive of how she could not have chosen differently for the exact same reason; in reality, she had no choice, it was already done. That's why the movie doesn't jive with our notion of free will, because in an instant, all of our life's choices have already been made -- and we are resigned to watch them unfold like characters in a movie -- and as viewers we are constrained to being able to conceive of life and its choices as one long linear string of chronological events, not as something occurs all in an instant. This is the best explanation I've read. Loved this movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Terrible Horse posted:I know what you mean, but I guess what I'm saying is, the themes youre talking about, and the themes of the movie, are just anathema to the idea of narrative. Like, narrative means a series of events that occur in sequence. The idea of "time" is necessary for that. I guess I'm wondering if its possible to tell a satisfying "story" about non-linear time. You could, if you could communicate it like their language, all at once. So, no. But, by manipulating events in space-time you can transcend the usual perception of the concept, which I feel like the movie does well. I left the theater in a sort of timeless dreamy headspace. I missed some of the posts on the last page somehow and now I see my response to you was kinda pointless cause that was already touched on. Sorry about that. It's not that she doesn't have a choice in having the kid. It's that she already made the choice, she just doesn't realize it yet. This is a complete overhaul in the ontology of "self", who you think you are, and even how you make choices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
I also really liked the super understated exchange of dialogue: Louise: Where's Abbot? Costello: Oh, he's undergoing the death process
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:It's not that she doesn't have a choice in having the kid. It's that she already made the choice, she just doesn't realize it yet. This is a complete overhaul in the ontology of "self", who you think you are, and even how you make choices. Yeah, this is exactly it -- and maybe better stated than what I wrote above, but is what I was trying to convey. Because it doesn't even remotely conform with what we think of as the nature of choice, the relation between cause and effect, and removes the ability to reflect upon the consequences of past choices, it's easy to just shortcut to calling it a lack of free will in the context of how we as humans think of free will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:I also really liked the super understated exchange of dialogue: Who's on hearse?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:You could, if you could communicate it like their language, all at once. So, no. But, by manipulating events in space-time you can transcend the usual perception of the concept, which I feel like the movie does well. I left the theater in a sort of timeless dreamy headspace. It's like the Tralfamadorians, who experience all of life at the same time. Much like the demons in Childhood's End, the Heptapods give humanity a mixed blessing - a language that allows us to see the future, but only as fixed pre-memories. Louise was always going to make the decision. She was always going to have the internal process to make the decision. That's why the decision happened. Even if, at the moment, she thought "there will be joy first, so what the hey", that moment of will exists on a flat plane of time, like actions in a movie. The characters may seem to make wild, flighty decisions, or deliberate intensely over a difficult choice, but the choice will always be the same, no matter how painful the suspense or freeing the elation was the first time you saw it. If we only move forward into the future, is there really another choice? You have one life, which becomes one thread. Whether your choices are predetermined or not, it doesn't matter, because you'll only see one set of them. But humans pride themselves on being self-minded and willful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Wait, can someone explain the Abbot thing to me? I don't get it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
succ posted:Wait, can someone explain the Abbot thing to me? I don't get it? What is there to not get?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
I liked the part of the movie where there was a person in frame, but so out-of-focus it looked like it might be a heptapod in the mist while Louise was staring at him. Really pulled some double duty in the shot. On one level it expresses that Louise is experiencing altered cognition because of the alien language, but on another level it's identifying humans with the aliens. After all, when we speak to each other we are communicating with entities whose internal states are unknowable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
Also I liked the part where it turned out the humans had been making eye contact with the aliens' hips the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I liked the part of the movie where there was a person in frame, but so out-of-focus it looked like it might be a heptapod in the mist while Louise was staring at him. Really pulled some double duty in the shot. On one level it expresses that Louise is experiencing altered cognition because of the alien language, but on another level it's identifying humans with the aliens. After all, when we speak to each other we are communicating with entities whose internal states are unknowable. It was a horse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What is there to not get? Who is Abbot and what was the part about death.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Also I liked the part where it turned out the humans had been making eye contact with the aliens' hips the whole time. Actually I think there's a point to this. Because the main form of speech for the heptapods is visual/"written", then it makes sense for them to only come into visual frame for the humans in view of their tentacles which spray out the actual lettering. It's like, if you only had a small window to talk to someone you would probably just show your face because why bother showing your ankles
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
succ posted:Who is Abbot and what was the part about death. The humans named the aliens Abbott and Costello, after the old comedy duo from the 1940's. After the bomb blew up in the spaceship, they go back and there's only one alien. They ask the alien who's there (Costello) where the missing alien is, and it says that the other (Abbott) is "undergoing the death process" BTW, nice touch in the script that Louise and Ian got to know the two aliens so well that they could tell them apart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
Spoilery interview with Heiserrer about the story. https://www.buzzfeed.com/jarettwieselman/how-arrival-pulled-off-that-phenomenal-twist-ending What Louise says in Mandarin: In war there are no winners, only widows.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:The humans named the aliens Abbott and Costello, after the old comedy duo from the 1940's. Costello was the fat one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
I was hoping they would name them Thing 1 and Thing 2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
succ posted:Who is Abbot and what was the part about death. Did you watch the movie lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Keep in mind that like The Three Stooges and The Marx Brothers, Abbot & Costello are not necessarily that well known outside of North America. I can't speak for the entire world obviously, but in my case knowledge of those people strictly comes from references in modern North American pop culture. That may add to the confusion here.
Mierenneuker fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
A podcast interview with the screenwriter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Speculative question: Did Lois Lane in the future actually tell Hawkeye explicitly that their daughter was going to die from a rare disease, or did he learn Hepatpod and start thinking nonlinearly and discover it himself? On the topic of spoilers, it's really funny that anyone is worrying about conveying thinking about how events are going to unfold about a movie about conveying thinking about how events are going to unfold lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
CharlieWhiskey posted:Speculative question: Did Lois Lane in the future actually tell Hawkeye explicitly that their daughter was going to die from a rare disease, or did he learn Hepatpod and start thinking nonlinearly and discover it himself? I think Hawkeye found out when the daughter started dying and got upset because he thought that Lois Lane cut him out of the decision making process in regards to having a child that would have a limited life expectancy. Which would be a weird as gently caress r/relationships post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Can we stop using spoilers now? The movie is out everywhere
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
CharlieWhiskey posted:Speculative question: Did Lois Lane in the future actually tell Hawkeye explicitly that their daughter was going to die from a rare disease, or did he learn Hepatpod and start thinking nonlinearly and discover it himself? "I told him something he wasn't ready to hear"
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
bows1 posted:Can we stop using spoilers now? The movie is out everywhere Uh, let's NOT stop using spoilers. Some people read threads if they're on the fence to see if it's worth seeing. It would suck for someone to come in here looking for a review and get spoiled. That said for anyone on the fence, the movie is pretty drat good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
In the story Louise's daughter dies in her mid-20s in an accident. I guess they changed this for the movie because they'd have to do to much aging in the flash-forwards. It does kind of change the impact a bit though, to have a child die instead of an adult.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
It also makes more thematic sense for her daughter because her own body is doing something deadly that she can't stop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Mierenneuker posted:Keep in mind that like The Three Stooges and The Marx Brothers, Abbot & Costello are not necessarily that well known outside of North America. I can't speak for the entire world obviously, but in my case knowledge of those people strictly comes from references in modern North American pop culture. That may add to the confusion here. In Mexico it was localized as Batman and Robin
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:In Mexico it was localized as Batman and Robin If Robin was the one that got blown up, that's loving brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
By the way, you guys keep butchering that one line. He says "Abbott is death process." There is no "undergoing" in there. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I think Hawkeye found out when the daughter started dying and got upset because he thought that Lois Lane cut him out of the decision making process in regards to having a child that would have a limited life expectancy. Which would be a weird as gently caress r/relationships post. That was also my interpretation behind why he left. Well, it could also be that he's upset even if it wasn't specifically about having a discussion with him about it, but rather that she decided to have Hannah at all. As in, even without discussing it with Ian, she could have decided on her own not to have the child knowing that Hannah would suffer at the end of her life and die young. For me, it's pretty thought-provoking with regards to anti-natalism and the VHEM. I understand that in the world of the film they've set it up to be a deterministic universe, and I suppose therefore, Louise didn't really have a choice, but my interpretation is that maybe Ian could never really learn and understand Heptapod completely (or hell, maybe chose not to) and so he does not understand/feel/see non-linear time the same way that Louise does. And if you're in that situation, there's a deep communications gap and lack of understanding between each other, and I can see how Ian would still be upset, maybe feeling deep inside of himself that Louise still could have chosen not to have Hannah. This is a lot of extrapolation but I feel like Louise represents the universe in the film, which is so sure of itself and contained, and Ian represents the audience because in the reality we all live in nobody knows for sure about the nature of time and life and death. Also I started writing to point out that they separated when the daughter was young, and I don't think she started dying till her later teenage years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Great movie. Dennis villeneuve has been killing it the last few years. I usually hate reboots but I really want to see what he does with Blade Runner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:Great movie. Dennis villeneuve has been killing it the last few years. I have a feeling it's gonna be a shockingly huge hit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Battle Rockers posted:That was also my interpretation behind why he left. Well, it could also be that he's upset even if it wasn't specifically about having a discussion with him about it, but rather that she decided to have Hannah at all. As in, even without discussing it with Ian, she could have decided on her own not to have the child knowing that Hannah would suffer at the end of her life and die young. For me, it's pretty thought-provoking with regards to anti-natalism and the VHEM. The daughter might be raised knowing the heptapod language and her conversations about why Hawkeye might not be happening when Hawkeye left linearly. There's also a more superficial commentary that the writer alluded to on women choosing to abort based on genetic testing in the womb. Is it ethical to do that etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:The daughter might be raised knowing the heptapod language and her conversations about why Hawkeye might not be happening when Hawkeye left linearly. drat, never even thought about it that way. Good poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Just saw it this morning. I plan on seeing it multiple times. A movie has not made me feel the way I felt when this was over that I can ever remember. Loved every second of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:06
|
|
