2016 SF, dir. Denis Villeneuve, Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner;
IMDb /
allmovie. The alien
ships arrive, but nobody knows how to communicate with their
occupants.
I'm starting from a slightly odd place here. Basically every SF
reader I know who's read Ted Chiang's writing reckons he's great and
can do no wrong… except me. There's something in my reading experience
of his work (which doesn't include Story of Your Life, the specific
work on which this film is based) that just feels off to me, perhaps
the superficial use of buzzwords without any real understanding of the
underlying concepts, and I can't be enthused.
So I went into this without the baseline eagerness (and, to be fair,
caution) that I would have if this had been an adaptation of an author
whose work I loved. It's a pretty loose adaptation anyway; the core
plot is the same, but screenwriter Eric Heisserer (A Nightmare on Elm
Street (2010), Final Destination 5 (2011), The Thing (2011),
which is a CV I really can't see as a recommendation) has trimmed
quite a bit and invented a lot of new auxiliary material.
And the feeling I take away, overall, is the last act of Close
Encounters of the Third Kind, but for grown-ups. No mystical
five-tone sequences, but actual linguistic effort (even if, as usual
in film, it's presented as a series of breakthroughs rather than the
honest slog of this kind of work in real life).
Visually it's very effective, though once you notice the aggressive
colour grading to set a mood in each location it's impossible not to
see it thereafter. Great set design, decent camera work.
Adams is solid here, though we're seeing yet again the trope of a
personal tragedy in backstory to account for a female scientist – and
even if that's not what's actually happening, it certainly looks like
it until the final scenes. Male scientists don't need this kind of
motivation, but obviously no normal woman would want to do that. On
the other hand, Renner is basically playing the pretty sidekick who
provides emotional support and doesn't advance the plot - which is at
least an amusing role-reversal.
Unfortunately the underlying plot goes hard on an overblown version of
Sapir-Whorf, so
that if you learn the alien language you will have access to all your
memories from past and future. Oh, we just eliminated free will, and
any reason for anyone to strive for anything. Does anyone care? I
don't think they even notice, except in the whole Dead Kid Subplot.
This is 94% positive on Rotten Tomatoes and on lots of people's
best-of-the-year lists. Yay you. I'm glad you enjoyed it and I'm not
saying you're wrong to do so. But it never floated me enough to get me
clear of the sharp débris at the bottom of the river.
I talk about this film further on
Ribbon of Memes.
- Posted by John Dallman at
09:17am on
16 May 2023
I like Ted Chiang's writing, although Story of Your Life is not a favourite. However, what I like is the writing, the cleanness and simplicity of the way he uses language while still telling a strong story. That isn't likely to translate well to a different medium, even without major revisions by a screenwriter.
- Posted by Ashley R Pollard at
09:28am on
16 May 2023
I agree, even though I'm less negative about the elements that disturb you.
Writers seem to love Sapir-Whorf, but there again they also love Freud and Jung; all the conjectures arising from these men's work being as best weakly correlated to 'reality' (whatever reality is), and at worst just plain wrong.
But, and you knew there might be a but from me, determinism and free-will are not totally exclusive to each other, if you consider free-will as degrees of freedom (the ability to stop and think/calculate your options), then determinism become the boundary of actions limited by the laws of physics.
Obviously, a lot to unpack there. Feel free to ignore.
- Posted by RogerBW at
05:07pm on
16 May 2023
John - interesting, thanks. Certainly there's very little narration, which would be the best chance for original prose to survive – which is fair enough for the medium.
Ashley - my objection is not to "we've just proved that all events are predestined", it's to "we've just proved that all events are predestined and nobody seems to regard this as worthy of notice". (I gather that the original story does at least give a nod to the idea that this realisation might be a bit disconcerting for some people.)
- Posted by Ashley R Pollard at
08:45am on
17 May 2023
Thanks for the clarification, Roger.
Free will is a bit like the weather, predictable by probability, but subject chaos from turbulence.
Comments on this post are now closed. If you have particular grounds for adding a late comment, comment on a more recent post quoting the URL of this one.