Feminism Didn’t Arrive at the Oscars

 

I’ve been doing more than a little thinking about Oscar movies this year. It turns out I’ve seen quite a number of them and had something to say. Well, today the thing I want to talk about is Arrival, both shockingly and remarkably a feminist movie. It made nearly $100 million in America, so it’s made a splash, and then it was nominated in eight categories, only to leave with one measly technical award. Maybe it’s a complete bust and will soon be forgotten as most things are. I’m told it lacked the deep concern with human individuality of the big winners. But there is something to respect in its feminist outlook and so I’ll talk to you about that if you have the time.

These days, it seems like women are protagonists in science fiction stories. That’s a sign of the future, at least in the sense that men have been the protagonists up to now and there has to be some change for there to be a future. Arrival is the rare science-fiction story in which the woman protagonist is actually important because she is a woman. There are both obvious and subtle effects of this new-found womanhood: in the story on which the movie is based, the protagonist is male. Movies may be more progressive than books, I suppose.

The story is this: one day, aliens arrive unannounced in weird-looking ships suspended over various parts of the world, twelve in number, like the Apostles of Christ or the months of the year, depending on how you think about it. They are incommunicado. Men must make the effort to overcome their shock and reach out of their silent awareness that they are not, after all, alone. That’s what really scares us, I suppose, loneliness. The two protagonists are both quite lonely and, being man and woman, eventually learn to put two together. Don’t credit the aliens with teaching people how to make children too soon, however, because this story has a twist.

My friend who works for Boeing in Seattle who told me about this movie says, it’s good, he liked it, it’s interesting, but it’s a chick flick. Why the dissatisfaction? Well, not a lot happens. Most of the stuff is not done by people, but rather it happens to them. This lack of action is one sign of the feminine outlook. This makes you ask about the actions and the answers are startling: the people who do act in the story are almost always men, always crazy, and usually working for the government. We’re going to need a list just to catalog all the faults of men, as women sometimes do:

  1. A man refuses to accede to Louise’s—the protagonist’s—desire to know more about the aliens. That wastes a lot of time and he comes back to her, because let’s face it, she’s not only unique, but also irreplaceable. That’s what men are like–they think they have options, so they’re going to fuss before they accept the inevitable. The woman, for her part, has the peace of a saint and is not incensed or mean about the man’s inconstancy.
  2. The choice of linguist turns out to be about how wrong men are: A man is so foolish as to think war is about arguments. The woman wisely knows war starts because of a desire for more cows. It is implied that only men are stupid enough to kill each other for such.
  3. Men are so foolish as to break every military oath there is in an insane attempt to blow up the alien ship while murdering their fellow soldiers, fellow Americans. This is part of the hysterical politics of the movie, which you might or might not take as a feminine view.
  4. Men are also so foolish and paranoid as to think that it’s best not to communicate with strangers or foreigners—the movie is all about the evil, unjust, violent rule of scared government spies over thoughtful, self-sacrificing scientists who want to form a community, but happen to be helplessly weak.
  5. The men running the government are also so bad at communicating that they can only start–or fail to stop–national panics and awful protests, riots, and sprees of looting, which one assumes are also the work of men. Most of this is explicit, but the implicit stuff comes along naturally by that point in the story.
  6. Let’s go back a step: why were the soldiers turning murderous? Because of pundits—men—who talked paranoid nationalism. I bet you didn’t see that coming. The politics in the movie feels a lot like you’re about to see a Christian pastor doing terrible things. The wonder of it is, that scene never comes. I guess, thank God for small mercies.
  7. Then there’s international stuff going on: the Russians and Chinese are, if possible, even more bellicose than the Americans. Their men also do evil things, though not quite as stupid as the Americans, and ultimately a Chinese general sees the light: the only man who matters who listens to what a woman tells him.
  8. Finally, a man divorces his wife and abandons their child, although they saved the world together, because he’s too much man to have learned, as she did, to stop worrying about the future.

I may have left out some minor wrongs committed by men; it’s even possible men ever do anything right except by obeying Louise, our heroine, but I cannot quite recall. So it’s not a surprise my friends raise an eyebrow at the chick-flick aspect of it all. But what does it mean? Why is the story slanted this way? Well, the most important thing is, women are collectively pacifists, at least compared to men. That may well be true and it was certainly the opinion of ancient and modern comedians like Aristophanes or Shakespeare. Women as a group do not think war has any dignity, it would seem. This is why the story has no problem depicting America’s political classes, in relation to national security and defense, in such a terrible light, and this was before Mr. Trump was elected! You could say this is a liberal v. conservative issue, but it might not be. It might just be the slant necessary for this kind of story. If you think communication can solve the important problems, then this is inevitable. If you think experts–linguists–are worth anything to diplomacy or politics, then maybe this makes more sense… This also points out that people who dislike this preening pacifism of the intellectuals might believe, deep down, that the really important problems are solved through violence.

The next strange thing that’s tied up with the feminine-pacifist perspective has to do with communication. What you do expect to get out of talking to aliens? It’s not hard to say, looking to sci-fi: cool gadgets, new powers, and all sorts of remarkable stories and adventures. That’s a boyish attitude, of course, but I’d say that’s what makes the economy work, not an affectionate willingness to communicate. Sci-fi used to try to predict things like satellites, super-computers, to say nothing of space travel… From a man’s point of view, aliens might just be the negative form of a positive desire, to get some things done in a world that now seems made to prevent any new things from happening. You have to be from outer space to even think you could change something in America for the better!

Well, the woman is not invested in technological advance. She learns more from the aliens than anyone else and what she learns is to stop thinking of time as past-present-future. Why do we do that in the first place? We do it because we are mortal and have limited powers. We perceive the world through our senses and, in limited ways, we remember our past and expect the future, in fear or hope. Does the woman-protagonist hope communication makes for immortality? No, that hope is the hope of the manly striving that leads to wars, but also to the inventions meant to fend off death and suffering. The suggestion seems to be that men really want to be Jesus Christ, conquering death, all the while certain that there’s a beginning and an ending to things—they just do it in this life rather than the next. In that sense, scientific-economic progress is Christianity for atheists.

What’s the alternative? Our woman protagonist does the most shocking thing you’ll see at the movies. I’m not going to spoil it for you. But remember that in Interstellar, everyone worth watching was busy quoting Dylan Thomas about raging against the dying of the light. That was all about striving to save mankind and therefore investing mankind’s dignity in intelligent, loving adventuring to save people. In this case, there’s something similar, mankind is saved, but only from itself, and the protagonist is not at all invested in the future. There’s no space adventure, the aliens come to you, and you don’t have to risk your life in a rocket ship to the stars. There’s not much place for manliness, therefore. You could say the protagonist is not some kind of apocalyptic Christian, but what Hollywood might think of as Buddhist, at heart.

The woman lacks a taste for conflict. In fact, without conflict her life seems rather empty, not to say meaningless. She does not ever seem to get a sense of what might change that. She is alone and does not seem happy. But then again the adventure of a lifetime does not make her happy, exactly. There is too much suffering involved. What seems to distinguish her from the other characters is the mood of fear. The men almost always become bellicose. This is what Americans might call a high-testosterone environment. Lots of guns. She rather seems to be ok with fear–she lacks the manly claim to self-control, self-possession. Her dignity is not tied up in confronting things. It seems like the audience is very much unlike her–very much like the men–people rather love the dangerous stuff, at least to watch. The story of the egg-shaped ships with the mind-defying powers seems designed to make men worthless. When you have to move forward in weakness, the protagonist might be a woman.

Louise is asked by her daughter why she is called Hannah. The mother says to the daughter, it’s a palindrome. This is tied up with the riddle of the girl’s life. But the name, whence we get Anne, is Jewish—Samuel’s mother is named Hanna—it means favor, taken to mean that God favors the woman with a child. The linguist mother presumably knows the etymology, but she does not mention it. One wonders whether fertility really matters if you think that knowledge is so important.

I’ll try your patience with another Biblical story by way of conclusion. In the garden of Eden, Eve, before thinking about children or anything like that, wanted knowledge. Now, she can have it and eat it, too, so to speak.

There are 69 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    . . . Continued

    The movie was not about aliens.  If you’re watching the aliens, you’ve missed the point of the movie.  This movie is the best kind of sci fi in that the futuristic/space alien story line is used to divorce the reader’s mind from contemporary themes and explore a question of humanity.  In this case, the question is, what is the value of life?  We all die, and some earlier and more painfully than others.  Do the short lives have less value than the long lives?  Does a soldier who dies in war at a young age have less value than the soldier who dies in his sleep as an old man?  Does the answer change when the soldiers lived 2,000 years ago instead of 50 years ago?  Everyone from 2,000 years ago is dead and we don’t perceive their individual lives as having less importance for being shorter or longer.

    I think the movie could have been less boring.  I don’t need incessant crashing and shooting and the absurd non-stop over-the-top impossible feats of action in the latest Star Trek films, for instance, but this movie needed something to keep me awake.

    • #31
  2. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    Skyler (View Comment):
    I think in other words, you missed the whole point of the movie.

    I’m afraid I’m with @skyler on this and, apparently, in the minority on this thread. I liked the movie. It was not a feminist rant at all. Yes, a girl was the main character. So what? The film raised some interesting questions. My only gripe concerns the denouement, in which the Chicom premier is swayed by a phone call. Not so much because he’s a nasty red (although that counts too) but because no one is that trusting, nor should they be, probably. The main thought that ran through my head at that point was from Kant: Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.

    As for the complaints about not enough explosions, I prefer explosions irl. On screen they are just boring now. After you’ve seen the first 100, you’ve seen ’em all. That said, the movie did drag a bit; it could have used some editing.

    • #32
  3. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Think of your own life and ask yourself, if you had died at the age of 12, would you have thought your life worth living?  Would your answer change if your death were prolonged and suffering?

    What if your life were to end at the age of three?  What if your life were to end before you were even born?

    In the movie the child brought love and joy to her family, and pain when she died.  Is it selfish to wish she were never born so that both she and the parents would not feel pain?  But what about the great joy that she brought?

    More importantly, should the pain of the parents even weigh into the question of whether the child’s life was worth living?

    I’m a man and very happy to be so.  But I vote with the mother on this film.  Life is precious and even if we can see the future, the value of a life is determined by the one living, not by his neighbors and family.  Any other conclusion is anti-life and anti-individual, robbing the person of the dignity of determining their own worth.

    • #33
  4. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    drlorentz (View Comment):
    My only gripe concerns the denouement, in which the Chicom premier is swayed by a phone call

    That was to make the movie sell in China.  Movie makers are preoccupied with including scenes of the greatness of China in a way that are probably translated to make them sound more important in the Chinese version of the movie.

    • #34
  5. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    So Mr. Skyler, I’m amused at your dismissive remarks. I not only addressed the time perception issue, but did it in a sophisticated way which I do not see at all as inferior to yours. I’m not going to return the favor & tell you that you missed the point of the movie–because that is besides the point: You seem to me to have missed what I’m actually writing.

    • #35
  6. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):
    I think in other words, you missed the whole point of the movie.

    I’m afraid I’m with @skyler on this and, apparently, in the minority on this thread. I liked the movie. It was not a feminist rant at all. Yes, a girl was the main character. So what? The film raised some interesting questions. My only gripe concerns the denouement, in which the Chicom premier is swayed by a phone call. Not so much because he’s a nasty red (although that counts too) but because no one is that trusting, nor should they be, probably. The main thought that ran through my head at that point was from Kant: Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.

    As for the complaints about not enough explosions, I prefer explosions irl. On screen they are just boring now. After you’ve seen the first 100, you’ve seen ’em all. That said, the movie did drag a bit; it could have used some editing.

    The politics of the movie is a feminist rant. All the small & large, political & military actions of the men are mindless & murderous.

    The part that’s to do with psychology & metaphysics is somehow tied up with feminism, but in a stranger way. I’ve tried to explain what it is that you’re shown about the woman that’ supposed to make sense of that. I, for one, didn’t call that a rant.

    • #36
  7. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Perhaps I look at movies in too shallow a way. I always go into Sci-fi movies hoping for one of two things. Either and interesting logical exploration of some scientific concept or conundrum or rip snorting space marine action. Clearly I was not expecting the later from this movie. But I was hoping for the former. Which in someways I got. We had non humanoid aliens, and deep logical puzzle of communicating with a clearly sentient species, when we seemingly have nothing physiologically or culturally in common. So much of the faults of men that you speak of I take as a cowardly attempt by the movie makers to instill more traditional “action” into a movie that is all about basic problem solving. Certainly the whole Army mutiny thing just had the stench of Hollywood boiler plate action schlock.

    The great flaw of the movie is that instead of having a scientific and solid materialist solution…

    I think I’ve shown even quickly, at a glance, rather than analytically, that the crazy & interesting things actually add up as a kind of feminism. Add that the director is a woman’s director & he added the woman-mother to the plot (not in the original story) & it becomes fairly obvious there is an intention there.

    I think the metaphysical leap is the essence of what interested the writer-director, who worked together, so far as I can tell, without studio intrusions. It’s about curing fear of death.

    • #37
  8. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    The politics of the movie is a feminist rant. All the small & large, political & military actions of the men are mindless & murderous.

    The politics of the movie is not a feminist rant. The antagonists are men because most military and political players are men.

    See? I can make assertions too. Apparently, we saw different movies.

    • #38
  9. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    The politics of the movie is a feminist rant. All the small & large, political & military actions of the men are mindless & murderous.

    The politics of the movie is not a feminist rant. See? I can make assertions too. Apparently, we saw different movies.

    The difference between us is not making assertions, it’s that I substantiated mine both by picking out the parts of the plot that are examples of my claim & that I distinguished the politics from the other things the plot is concerned with.

    Whereas you just seem to naysay for no reason! We certainly interpret the plot differently–but I have taken the time & did due diligence to explain what the plot is & how it works–that should buy me some good faith in return!

    • #39
  10. Hypatia Inactive
    Hypatia
    @Hypatia

    Titus Techera (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):
    Is it still feminist to recognize the profound differences between men and women and then exaggerate them to make sure nobody misses the point? I thought feminism had moved beyond that or is it that men are good for only one or two things?

    That’s the thing of it: Mostly, men appear as no good! About to blow up the world-levels no good! It’s not easy to separate the political hysteria from the more thoughtful stuff I’ve tried to bring out.

    Also, the end of the story: There’s no men & women coming together in the end, either. The point the plot seems to make is, manliness is the past-

    To me, it seemed like the point was, HUmanliness is the past.  It’s just as good, maybe better, to be a gummy-looking octopus shaped life form.

    And I think, having made the decision to bear the child she knew wouldn’t outlive her, she shoulda spared her husband the awful knowledge.

    • #40
  11. T-Fiks Member
    T-Fiks
    @TFiks

    Great analysis. I walked out of the theater scratching my head, but the movie still appealed to me. Whatever agendas the screenwriter and director had were fairly well concealed, and I was most taken by the exploration of time and language that the film provided.

    None of the four of us who watched it together were anything less than intrigued as the complicated plot unfolded. Maybe none of us who watched that night are as bright as we think we are, but it took a lot of conversation over coffee afterwards to make much sense of the rather unsatisfying resolution.

    In reading what I could afterwards, I came across a very interesting commentary on the film: http://taylorholmes.com/2016/11/12/movie-arrival-explained-interview-eric-heisserer/

    • #41
  12. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    I love the First Contact genre. It’s an interesting way to infer what messages the overculture wanted to send to the moviegoers, or what messages bubbled up from the bottom the overculture couldn’t ignore. You gots your bad Space Commies genre, you have the silver-jumpsuit guy who shows up to tell Earth ixnay with the nuclear weapons or we’ll wipe you out (which is like the USA sending Marines to kill everyone on a  Pacific island because the forest tribe discovered gunpowder), you have the Hopeful Shiny Kumbaya of the Spielberg Era, the anti-government conspiratorial nightmares of the 90s with the X-Files.

    You have the hopeful earnest nerdery of “Contact,” which is smug and self-satisfied with all the right enemies (Christian terrorists, right-wing Congressmen) but still has heart, cool FX, John Hurt in Zero G and great sound design.

    You have Independence Day and a host of other films that posit the aliens as creatures from an inscrutable culture who just want us to die. Apt for the early 21st century.

    And then you have Denis Villeneuve, who directed “Arrival.” Previously he did “Sicario,” which has the same moral center: a wary, smart female dropped in a male environment, bringing a different skill set to compliment and occasionally hinder the way things were usually done.

    While I agree that the military in “Arrival” has its overreacting male elements, this is standard for the genre. Gen, Rip Rockjaw always decides that a species capable of interstellar travel can be defeated by tanks and sidewinders. I gave just about everything that didn’t involve the main character and the alien-communication problem a pass, because I found that subject fascinating – and at the end, I realized that it was all irrelevant, because the heart of the movie concerns a moral choice of almost unbearable weight.

    The movie posits an enormous cosmic perceptual shift that would realign the way humanity perceives existence – and lets the knowledge play out in a way so specific you can’t help but ache when you realize what the main character has done with her knowledge. To me, the annoying “feminist” movies are the ones that have kick-ass heroines who can subdue 250-lb men and hack into computers while making a quip before they punch a guy and then make another quip because Strong Women are Awesome!  If conservatives believe there are differences between men and women, well, this movie recognized the different priorities in an unexpected fashion.

     

    • #42
  13. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera
    1. I agree that there’s a lot of vulgar feminism out there–kicking ass & not even bothering to take names. I think the serious stuff, however,  is about whether you can get rid of muscle & the risk-taking brain & the protective heart. Interstellar / Arrival. Going out there vs. sticking with what’s here.
    2. I do agree, too, that there is serious stuff in the movie!
    3. I’ll add to your typology the most realistic one: Men in Black: Aliens are really like us, in many ways screwed up, but not intolerable or irredeemable!
    • #43
  14. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    You seem to me to have missed what I’m actually writing.

    Nah. Your analysis was superficial and facile. It comes off as someone looking for an agenda and using anything to support a theory no matter how innocuous.

    There are a lot of movies that have such agendas.  This didn’t strike me as one of them. I think you’re completely out to lunch with your theory.  It’s as though you watched “Gone With the Wind” and concluded that it was about people who owned horses.

     

    • #44
  15. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Let’s see.  Rhett Butler had a horse.  And I recall in the opening scene a bunch of young men race around on horses. Ashley has a horse at one time.  Then of course there’s the big scene where Rhett steals the nag to help Scarlett escape from Atlanta. Don’t forget the damn Yankees who show up to Tara on horses.  The bawdy house owner had a very nice carriage and it was pulled by a horse!  And we can’t forget that Bonnie dies, in a horse riding accident. Clearly, “Gone With the Wind” is an anti-equestrian movie. Horses signal the looming war and are in every scene where something bad is about to happen.

    • #45
  16. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Mr. Skyler, these kinds of answers are simply unacceptable. If you are able to show what part of my analysis is facile, please do so. Anyone who reads my movie posts & my comments here can see I am in good faith & anything but facile. If you cannot show any kind of respect, you had better avoid my writing-

    • #46
  17. Matt White Member
    Matt White
    @

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    avoid my writing

    Seels like good advice.

    Relax. Don’t troll your own post.

    • #47
  18. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    ……

    • #48
  19. Ralphie Inactive
    Ralphie
    @Ralphie

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    Also, the end of the story: There’s no men & women coming together in the end, either. The point the plot seems to make is, manliness is the past-

    “In the garden of Eden, Eve, before thinking about children or anything like that, wanted knowledge. Now, she can have it and eat it, too, so to speak.”

    Man and woman have been in conflict since Adam and Eve. I look forward to your Bible story about Eve. I’ve heard a preacher or two say Adam was accountable for Eve’s fall, and she has been trying to usurp his authority ever since.

    • #49
  20. Patrick McClure Coolidge
    Patrick McClure
    @Patrickb63

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    I’m the first conservative–the first person!–to bring out all the things I wrote in my article. I guess the aliens must have noticed, too.

    How do we know you’re not a slimy extra-terrestrial in a person suit?

    • #50
  21. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Patrick McClure (View Comment):

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    I’m the first conservative–the first person!–to bring out all the things I wrote in my article. I guess the aliens must have noticed, too.

    How do we know you’re not a slimy extra-terrestrial in a person suit?

    You have to take it up with the pod people–my references are sterling!

    • #51
  22. Valiuth Inactive
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    To me, the annoying “feminist” movies are the ones that have kick-ass heroines who can subdue 250-lb men and hack into computers while making a quip before they punch a guy and then make another quip because Strong Women are Awesome! If conservatives believe there are differences between men and women, well, this movie recognized the different priorities in an unexpected fashion.

    Shame on you James. These are the best “feminist” movies because often our heroine is a scantily clad supper model. And hot chicks with big guns is pure male fantasy. It is created by guys, for guys. This is why I thought everyone was over reacting screaming Feminism about “Furry Road”. Ever since the Greeks invented the Amazons we have had the idea of sexy warrior women as a story telling trope.

    • #52
  23. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    To me, the annoying “feminist” movies are the ones that have kick-ass heroines who can subdue 250-lb men and hack into computers while making a quip before they punch a guy and then make another quip because Strong Women are Awesome! If conservatives believe there are differences between men and women, well, this movie recognized the different priorities in an unexpected fashion.

    Shame on you James. These are the best “feminist” movies because often our heroine is a scantily clad supper model. And hot chicks with big guns is pure male fantasy. It is created by guys, for guys. This is why I thought everyone was over reacting screaming Feminism about “Furry Road”. Ever since the Greeks invented the Amazons we have had the idea of sexy warrior women as a story telling trope.

    If I didn’t have the experience of girls & women bringing up some real or fantastic exception to the basic facts of life about men & women, I’d believe you.

    Anyway, now there are more than a few franchises of various success that feature young women who at some point turn efficient killer; & more movies about that than ever. & often the audiences skew female; & almost never do they massively skew toward young males.

    • #53
  24. Patrick McClure Coolidge
    Patrick McClure
    @Patrickb63

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    a scantily clad supper model.

    Like at Hooters?

    • #54
  25. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Patrick McClure (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    a scantily clad supper model.

    Like at Hooters?

    No, those are real women.

    • #55
  26. Mountie Coolidge
    Mountie
    @Mountie

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    which is like the USA sending Marines to kill everyone on a Pacific island because the forest tribe discovered gunpowder

     

    and we need to wipe them out because a forest culture with gun powder will eventually gain parity with a civilization that has ICBM, nuke submarines, F18’s, sidewinders, aircraft carrriers,………..

     

    • #56
  27. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Mountie (View Comment):

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    which is like the USA sending Marines to kill everyone on a Pacific island because the forest tribe discovered gunpowder

    and we need to wipe them out because a forest culture with gun powder will eventually gain parity with a civilization that has ICBM, nuke submarines, F18’s, sidewinders, aircraft carrriers,………..

    Either that or they burn the forest, in which case the other party will drone them all-

    • #57
  28. Online Park Member
    Online Park
    @OnlinePark

    I’m surprised that so few women have responded to this post. I really liked the movie. I do no like sci-fi much but thought this was gentle and beautiful with a novel approach. My husband liked it, too.

    I like movies that leave me thinking and this one did. I understand that it was portraying time as non-linear, yet I had to puzzle out the possible sequence of events. I thought the divorce occurred because the father couldn’t deal with his daughter having a rare degenerative disease.

    • #58
  29. Online Park Member
    Online Park
    @OnlinePark

    P.S. It looks like Titus and others are up posting all night long. Has Trump started a new trend?

    • #59
  30. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Online Park (View Comment):
    P.S. It looks like Titus and others are up posting all night long. Has Trump started a new trend?

    I also hoped more women would answer! I’m on the other side of the world, or close, so it’s mere evening here.

    I’m glad that people who liked did like it, especially because it gets people thinking–but I think what people should be thinking about, which I keep trying to point out by insisting on the woman’s being a woman–it goes in the direction of mysticism.

    I think there’s a Christian thought left unthought in the story. People who liked it probably would find something out about themselves if they went in that direction.

    Now, as to the divorce: I’m not sure you have the timeline right. I’m not sure I do. My sense is, he blames his wife, right? I don’t get a sense of when this started, but clearly, even in the post-alien future, the truth about people remains the same: We think of time as present, with memories of the past, & hopes or fears about the future. The man can neither help feeling protective, nor help feeling betrayed.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.